* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:05] COREY REAL QUICK. THERE'S LIKE SOME WEIRD FEEDBACK COMING FROM, UM, WHEN YOU TALK FROM ME. YEAH. OKAY. UH, LET ME KNOW IF IT KEEPS GOING. UM, WE ARE LIVE NOW. JEFF? YES. THIS IS JEFFREY FETZER. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21. 2020. MAY [Roll Call] I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ FISH GIBBS. HERE. ALASKA. HERE. AREOLA CARPENTER. HERE. ROAD HERE. BOWMAN FETZER. HERE. LA UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE HAVE A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT FROM TRANSLATION SERVICES. WHEN IS THAT? UM, THANK YOU. CAN WE [Chairman’s Statement] PLEASE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT? THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M JEFFREY FETZER, CHAIRMAN, AND THE VICE CHAIR IS SCOTT CARPENTER. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY, IN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY AND FOR DEMOLITIONS. AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVESTREAM. THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN SPANISH FOR THOSE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRE TRANSLATION SERVICES. THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY IN AN EFFORT TO HEAR ALL CASES ON THE AGENDA AS WELL AS TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING. APPLICANTS WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EACH HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING EACH APPLICATION. APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF ANY TYPE OF PERMIT. PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS. NO WORK OF ANY TYPE IS TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS. AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. THANK YOU. UM, WE ARE READY TO BEGIN. UM, SO ON THE [CONSENT AGENDA] SCREEN YOU CAN SEE THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, WE HAVE ACTUALLY 16. UM, THERE'S AN UPDATE. ITEM 17 HAS BEEN MOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. UH, WE ALSO HAVE A RECUSAL FOR ITEM THREE AND WE DO NOT HAVE A FORUM ONCE THE CUS WILL HAPPEN. SO WE WILL PULL THAT FROM CONSENT UNTIL WE HAVE PERMISSION TO HEAR IT. UM, SO NOW I'LL BEGIN WITH COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO BE READ FOR THOSE ITEMS. AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN ALSO THAT THERE HAVE BEEN LETTERS PROVIDED AND THOSE ARE FOLDERS, UM, AS WELL AS A COUPLE OF LIVE CALLS. UM, SO THE FIRST ONE, ITEM 1 13 35 EAST CROCKETT, UH, MONICA SINO SUBMITS. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM NUMBER 3 3 28 EAST JOSEPHINE, UM, FREDERICA KUSHNER, UM, 5 0 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE SUBMITS. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION APPROVES OF THE REQUEST AND MODIFY THE DESIGN FOR RECONSTRUCTION AT 3 28 EAST JOSEPHINE BAYLOR HOUSE, A C R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24 38. ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA FOR STAYING OCTOBER 1ST, 2020. UM, ITEM FIVE IS 8 1 7 NORTH PALMETTO MONICA [00:05:01] SENO SUBMITS. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND ARE VERY PLEASED TO SEE THIS HISTORIC STRUCTURE BEING REHABILITATED. WE HOPE THAT IN TIME THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING WINDOWS, BRINGING THE HOUSE TO ITS ORIGINAL DUTY. ITEM SIX, MONICA ZAINO SUBMITS. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ITEM EIGHT, MONICA ZAINO SUBMITS. WE DO NOT SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CAN BE VERY SUCCESSFUL, BUT ONE OF THE ACTUAL CAN BE A SUCCESSFUL ONE, BUT THE ACTUAL SCOPE OF WORK IS DIFFICULT TO ASSESS DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATIVE DRAWINGS PROVIDED DRAWINGS AND RENDERINGS, LACK COORDINATION AND FURTHER ASSESSMENT WILL REVIEW OF COMPLETED WORK WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE BASED ON THE PROVIDED MATERIALS. UM, WE REQUEST THAT THIS CASE BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS SO THAT THE PROPOSED WORK DETAILS WILL BE DOCUMENTED. ITEM 9 8 31 BURLESON MONICA CINO SUBMITS. WE SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FRONT, FRONT YARD, WOOD PICKET OR IRON FENCE THAT RELATES TO THE HISTORIC STYLE OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE H C R C OF THE SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2019 HEARING. UM, ITEM 13, UM, STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENTS WITH NETWORK NODE POLES IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS DOWNTOWN. UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO WAS CONCERNED WHEN THE FIRST PILOT CELLULAR NODE STREETLIGHT WAS PLACED IN ALAMO PLAZA. WE EXPRESSED APPREHENSION ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD IMPACT HIS SWORD DISTRICTS AND TODAY WE EXPRESS DISAPPOINTMENT THAT MANY OF THE NEW POLES ARE IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THESE CELLULAR ANTENNA WILL BE ADDED. STREETLIGHTS WITH ADDED STREETLIGHTS ARE UNGAINLY IN DESIGN AND CLUTTER, THE HISTORIC STREET SCAPE. WE FEAR THAT THESE POLES WILL BE MOST OBTRUSIVE AT THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL LOCATIONS NOTED FOR REBUTTING HISTORIC DISTRESS OR LANDMARKS. FIVE 20 SOUTH ALAMO HEMISPHERE 3 0 4 EAST PECAN TRAVIS PARK CHURCH 1 21 SOUTH FLORES, THE CALLISON BUILDINGS 1 0 1 AUDITORIUM CIRCLE, THE TOBIN CENTER, 9 0 9 LAROSA MARKET SQUARE 2 0 9 JEFFERSON, THE ST. ANTHONY HOTEL 1 0 4 EAST CROCKETT, THE CASINO CLUB 100 NORTH PRE OF THE BRISCO WESTERN ART MUSEUM, 1 0 9 JEFFERSON PEACOCK ALLEY SLASH THE FURNACE BUILDING. UM, AND THEN I'M SORRY, I, I MISSED THE LIVE CALL FOR ITEM 12. SO LET'S UNMUTE JESSICA AND LET'S HAVE LISA LYNN ON THE LINE. LISA, ARE YOU THERE? YES. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, THIS IS REGARDING 1 29 WICK STREET. I AM LISA LYNN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND DO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FENCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. NUMBER ONE, THE GUIDELINES STATE THAT NEW FENCES SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED WHERE THERE HISTORICALLY WAS NO FENCE, PARTICULARLY FRONT YARD FENCES. NUMBER TWO, THERE ARE NO FRONT YARD FENCES AND THE 100 BLOCK OF WICK, NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE EVER WAS FENCES. ALTHOUGH THE GUIDELINES ALLOW FENCES IF THEY ARE PRESENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT ALSO SAYS THE APPROPRIATENESS IS DEPENDENT ON THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WITHIN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS FENCE WILL BE THE ONLY FRONT YARD WITH A FENCE AND WILL INAPPROPRIATELY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE STREETSCAPE. AND THE BLOCK. NUMBER THREE, THE TWO CAR GARAGE AND DOUBLE WIDE DRIVEWAY ARE NON-COMPLIANT ADDITIONS, NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND HAVE CREATED A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. A FRONT YARD FENCE WILL COMPOUND WHAT IS ALREADY A DISTRACTION TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE AND STREETSCAPE. THANK YOUE. THANK YOU. SO THAT IS ALL OF THE COMMENTS WE HAVE ON CONSENT. UM, I'M GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM MY COLLEAGUES THAT MY AUDIO'S A LITTLE LOW, SO I'LL TRY TO SPEAK LOUDER AND SLOWER. UM, LET ME KNOW IF I NEEDED TO REPEAT ANYTHING THAT WAS READ PREVIOUSLY. UM, WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY COMMISSIONER FISH, SO WE HAVE SEVEN NOW. SO WE CAN ACTUALLY HEAR ITEM THREE WITH THE CONSENT ITEMS. WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR CONSENT AT THIS POINT? SO THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I'M RECUSING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I'D LIKE TO CALL ITEM EIGHT 12 AND 13 PLEASE. UM, CORY, THERE, THERE, THERE'S A, UM, UH, A PULL DOWN ON TOP OF THE NUMBERS OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FOLLOW WHAT IS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 BECAUSE THERE'S A THING ON TOP OF IT, ON TOP OF THE NUMBERS, THE ADDRESSES IN THERE. BUT, BUT RIGHT OVER THE NUMBERS. THERE'S A, LIKE A, LIKE A, UH, ZOOM ON MY SCREEN. IT'S FINE. I THINK YOU HAVE TO, UH, WE PROBABLY ZOOMED IN, SO JUST ZOOM OUT. OKAY. YEAH, WELL, NO. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT, THAT DOES HELP. UM, SO WE HAVE MARKED, UM, THE ITEMS ON THE SCREEN. UH, LET'S [00:10:01] GO AHEAD AND UN COLOR ITEM THREE SINCE THAT'LL BE INCLUDED WITH CONSENT. OKAY. SO A MOTION FOR CONSENT APPROVAL WOULD BE ITEMS ONE THROUGH SEVEN, NINE THROUGH 11, 14 THROUGH 16. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE FOR, UH, CONSENT OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH SEVEN NINE THROUGH 11, 15 AND 16 WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. WE ASK SECOND THE MOTION. UM, MR. CARPENTER, I HEARD YOU SAY 15 AND 16. DID YOU INCLUDE 14? MEANT TO INCLUDE 14? MY APOLOGIES. SO WE'VE GOT THEM ON THE SCOPE REFERENCE AND COMMISSIONER OR CHAIRMAN FETZER HAS RECUSED. UM, SO SCOTT, CAN YOU DO CALL FOR A VOTE? ABSOLUTELY. UM, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE AND RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. DO THE SAME. MOTION CARRIES. GREAT, THANK YOU. UM, JEFF, YOU CAN TURN ON YOUR VIDEO AGAIN. WE'RE READY TO CONTINUE. ITEM [8. 20-6197 Address/Description: 922 E CROCKETT ST/924 E CROCKETT ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-440 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Bryan Thompson Request: Modifications and reconstruction of existing porches, exterior modifications, reconstruction of rear additions, rehabilitation City Council Dist.: 2] EIGHT, UM, WAS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. EDWARD, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, THAT ADDRESS INTO THE RECORD PLEASE? UH, YES. UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24 40, UH, 9 22 AND 9 24 EAST CROCKETT. I CURRENTLY HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, MS. MAGIA THOMPSON ON THE PHONE. UM, WOULD THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE FOR THEIR REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE PERFORM MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING COURTS AT 9 22 EAST CROCKETT, A SHOTGUN STYLE STRUCTURE. TWO, PERFORM MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PORCH ADDRESSED AS 9 24 EAST CROCKETT, A CRAFTSMAN STYLE STRUCTURE AND THREE, RECONSTRUCT EXISTING ADDITIONS TO BE FULLY CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE. ADDRESSES 9 24 EAST CROCKETT AND CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO FILL IN AN EXISTING GAP BETWEEN ADDITIONS OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET BY 15 FEET. RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH THREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT A DETAILED PORCH DRAWING, INCLUDING BOTH THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATION, AS WELL AS THE DIMENSION SECTION WE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS SUCH AS TRIM SEAL PROFILES, TRIM AND SEAL PROFILES MUST BE REPLICATED. THE PORCH ROOF AS WELL AS PORCH DECKING SHALL NOT CHANGE IN DESIGN OR APPEARANCE. DECKING MATERIALS SHALL FEATURE ONE BY THREE TONGUE AND GROOVE DECKING THAT IS INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO THE PORCH WALL. PORCH COLUMNS SHALL BE SIX INCHES SQUARE AND FEATURE BOTH CAPITAL AND BASE TRIM. THE GABLE WALLS AND GABLE ENDS OF BOTH PORCHES ARE TO REMAIN STIPULATION TWO, THAT THE PROPOSED REAR ADDITIONS BE CONSTRUCTED TO FEATURE FOOTPRINTS HEIGHTS AND PROFILES, MOVE PROFILES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE THAT CURRENTLY EXIST. SALVAGE MATERIAL SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECONSTRUCTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. ACCURATE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THE EXISTING GROUP FORM SHALL REMAIN AS THEY, THEY ARE EXISTING, INCLUDING PROFILES AND PITCHES AND ALL SIGNINGS TO BE REPAIRED IN KIND. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL SETBACK VARIANCES THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS. SO AGAIN, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE AND STAFF AS WELL. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS CASE, THIS, THIS COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS CASE. UM, THE, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE ADDITION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ADDING TO THE PROPERTY? CAN YOU TALK MORE ABOUT THAT PLEASE? UH, YES, ABSOLUTELY. UM, SO CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW THERE ARE THREE, UH, STRUCTURES THAT SIT ON IT. THERE'S LIKE ONE BIG, IT'S ABOUT A 900 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND THEN THERE'S A REAR EFFICIENCY DIRECTLY BEHIND IT. UM, IT, IT, IT REALLY LIKE BACKS UP TO IT. SO HOW I, UH, THE, THE PLANS FOR THAT WOULD BE JUST TO COMBINE THOSE TWO UNITS, UM, TO BE LIKE ONE HOUSE BASICALLY. AND THEN, UM, IN THE CENTER WHERE IT KIND OF BACKS UP TO IT OR WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY BASICALLY, AT THE POINT WHERE THEY MEET, WHERE WE COMBINE IT, WE WERE GONNA ADD, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD BE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOT ON [00:15:01] EACH SIDE. UM, JUST TO GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE WALKING SPACE. UM, AND UH, AND THAT'S THE ONLY ADDITION THAT WE PLAN ON DOING. UM, AND ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UM, EVERYTHING ELSE WE ARE JUST GONNA BE RESTORING THE HOUSES, UM, YOU KNOW, TO BE IN A MORE LIVABLE CONDITION. DOES, DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY? ALMOST SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COMBINING THE TWO STRUCTURES SO YOU CAN HAVE MORE SPACE. SO, UM, WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING, I SAW A DRAWING, UM, AND IT, IT'S SINCE BEEN MOVED OFF THE SCREEN, BUT WHEN, UM, EXPLAIN TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO MORE WALKING SPACE. SO BASICALLY ARE YOU KNOCKING OUT THE WALLS ON ONE AND I MEAN, SO YOU ARE ADJOINING THEM THAT WAY OR WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU DOING? YES SIR. WE WILL BE JOINING IN THAT WAY. SO, UM, THE WALLS WILL BE KNOCKED DOWN ON, I I, I WOULD ASSUME BOTH OF THEM. UM, THAT WAY WE CAN COMBINE 'EM TO KIND OF CREATE, UH, I GUESS CONNECT IT, MAYBE MAKE THAT LIKE A HALLWAY AREA. UM, IS IS THE IMMEDIATE VISION HALLWAY AREA AND THEN ADDITIONAL BATHROOM SPACE. AND THEN AS, AS, UH, ONE OF THE HOMES IS RIGHT NOW, THAT LITTLE BACK ADDITION OR THE, SORRY, THE, THE BACK PART OF THE, THE, NOT LIKE THE, THE SMALLER HOME. UM, THE ROOF IS, IS PRETTY, IT'S FLAT ON IT, IT'S NOT LEVELED. UM, SO WHEN WE COMBINE IT, OF COURSE WE WOULD BE, UM, JUST TAKING THE ROOF CONFORMED TO JUST ONE, UM, LIKE ONE BIG PIECE GOING ACROSS AND THE THE SAME DIMENSIONS. I HOPE I'M MAKING SENSE IN THAT. UM, ALRIGHT. UM, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR THE MOMENT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. FETZER ARE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, DOES THE APPLICANT, DO YOU AGREE TO ALL THE STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF PUT IN THE RECOMMENDATION? YES, I DO AGREE. IT IS MY INTENTION, UM, FOR THE RECORD WHEN WE, UH, WE REMODELED THIS HOME AND RESTORE IT TO, TO, TO, TO KEEP IT, UM, WITH THE SAME, UH, CHARACTER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADDITION THAT WE WANNA DO IN THE BACK, OF COURSE THAT THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE CHANGES ARE GONNA GO. BUT WE DO WANT EVERYTHING TO STAY THE SAME, DECIDING THE CHARACTER OF THE HOME, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU GIVE IT A FRESH PAINT JOB THAT STRETCH MY CHILDREN. I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA GO TOO FAR AWAY FROM THAT, UH, THIS CARPENTER, UM, BASED UPON WHAT I'VE HEARD. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I I'M A, I'M A STRONG AFFINITY FOR THESE, THESE LITTLE SHOTGUN HOUSES AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THEM, UH, PRESERVED AND ADAPTED IN THIS WAY. SO IF THE, IF THE, UH, APPLICANT IS WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH, UH, STAFF STIPULATIONS, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. I'LL SECOND ARE, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. UM, CHAIRMAN, UH, CHAIRMAN THIS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, SIR. UM, I, IT IT IT'S CONCERNING TO ME THAT, THAT THE IMAGES THAT ARE SHOWN, UM, SEEM TO ASK MORE FOR A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. IS THIS WHAT THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OR IS THIS A FINAL APPROVAL? THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. WELL, THE STIPULATIONS DO STATE THAT THE, IF YOU READ THE STIPULATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO SUBMIT MORE PRECISE DRAWINGS TO STAFF STARTING. RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT, BUT LOOKING AT THE PORCH FOR THE PORCHES FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S NO, THERE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S PRESENTED TO US THAT THAT SAYS WHAT THOSE ARE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING IMAGES, THE PICTURES, THEY'RE DIFFERENT. RIGHT. SO LIKE, ARE THOSE COLUMNS, THE STONE COLUMNS, ARE THOSE ORIGINAL OR THOSE ADD-INS? IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THERE'S, UM, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE REQUIREMENTS LATER ON DOWN THE LINE. THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT IS AWARE THAT THEY'RE PREPARED FOR THE EVENTUAL 'CAUSE. THE, THE, THE THING THAT I DISLIKE THE MOST IS WHEN WE'RE NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARING THEM FOR WHAT, UH, IS COMING DOWN THE LINE. SO MY COMMENTS ARE NOT REALLY ABOUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING. IT'S, IT'S MORE ABOUT ARE THEY, DO I DO, I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE PREPARED TO, TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED OF THEM BECAUSE THE DRAWINGS THAT ARE SUBMITTED, I'VE NEVER SEEN STUFF LIKE THAT JUST KIND OF ACCEPTED BY THIS COMMISSION. SO I WONDER, CORY, IF IT'S NOT MORE APPROPRIATE TO GUIDE THIS APPLICANT TOWARD CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL SO THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH AND PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH THE KIND OF THINGS THAT CAN GET THEM MOVING [00:20:01] IN THE DIRECTION THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO GET THEM WHERE THEY WANT TO GET INSTEAD OF A BACK AND FORTH. THAT IT SEEMS IT'S BEING SET UP BY WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO US TODAY TYPICALLY SEEMS CONCEPTUAL. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S, OR THE, THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED IS MEETS THE THRESHOLD FOR FINAL APPROVAL IS UP TO THE COMMISSION. UM, WE AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDED THE STIPULATIONS BEFORE WE CAN ISSUE A CERTIFICATE FOR FINAL APPROVAL, WE NEED LIKE, MORE DETAILED DRAWINGS AND SO THAT'S WHY THE STIPULATIONS WERE COMPLETED. SO, SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME BACK TO THE CO COMMISSION? NOT IF IT WAS APPROVED FOR APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH STIPULATIONS, SIMPLY STAFF WOULD REMOTELY MAKE SURE THE STIPULATIONS WERE MET. WE WOULD BE APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FETZER. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UH, IF WHAT IS SUBMITTED, IF THIS GETS APPROVED AND UH, DRAWINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF, UH, I'M SURE THAT IF STAFF STILL FEELS THAT THEY'RE NOT, UH, COMPLETE, THAT THEY CAN BRING A COMMISSION. IS THAT CORRECT, CORY? I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. I I I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING ANYBODY'S SAYING, BUT I WANNA HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PRECEDENT IS SO THAT I'LL KNOW WHAT TO DO NEXT TIME AND, AND IF NEXT TIME, UH, ANOTHER ONE IS, IS AT THIS THRESHOLD, I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIKE THE PICKING AND CHOOSING, THAT'S ALL I, THERE'S A COMMON THREAD. YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE COMMON THREAD BECAUSE I THINK IT DOES JUSTICE TO THE APPLICANT AS OPPOSED TO SENDING THE APPLICANT AROUND IN CIRCLES. AND, AND WHAT I'M SEEING FROM THE, FROM THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS THAT ARE GIVEN TO US, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. WE'RE APPROVING WHAT IS BEING PUT BEFORE US CONCEPTUALLY. AND IF THE APPLICANT COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, Y'ALL APPROVED IT CONCEPTUALLY THAT HAPPENED SO OFTEN, AND YOU SAY, YEAH, BUT THAT'S THAT, BUT YOU DIDN'T DO THIS, YOU KNOW, SAYS THERE'S A WAY TO BE HONEST WITH THE APPLICANT STRAIGHT UP. AND SO THEY, THEY CLEARLY UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT IT IS THAT IS BEING APPROVED HERE. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF, IF THOSE ELEVATIONS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE BEING, UH, UH, IF YOU GO, UH, UM, COREY TO THE ELEVATIONS, THE ONES THAT ARE ANIMATED IN COLOR, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, I, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY APPROVING THAT AND THAT IT'S NOT GONNA COME BACK LATER AND THAT WE'RE NOT BEING CLEAR AND HONEST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO THIS COMMISSIONER, I, UM, I MADE THE MOTION, BUT I HAD A SIMILAR HESITANCY BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE, THE, UH, DOCUMENTATION. SO, UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT 'CAUSE WE DO, WE DO SOMETIMES SEE VERY, VERY, UH, THIN DOCUMENTATION. UM, BUT I SUPPORTED THIS AND MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE. IT'S A SIMPLE ENOUGH PROJECT THAT I HAVE, UH, CONFIDENCE THAT STAFF WILL BE ABLE TO GUIDE THEM THROUGH THE REST OF THE PROCESS AND ACTUALLY PERHAPS SAVE THEM HAVING TO COME BACK TO, UH, THE COMMISSION IN, IN, UH, FOR, FOR FURTHER UH, DECISIONS. AND, UH, THIS IS THE APPLICANT SPEAKING. AM I STILL, AM I STILL MUTED OR NO? UH, YES MA'AM. IF YOU DON'T MIND WAITING IN CASE, UH, THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. BUT RIGHT NOW WE DO HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. THE LAST IS ABSTAIN, I BELIEVE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. UM, ECHO, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY, COREY? IT IS A LITTLE DISTORTED THOUGH. IT'S BIT CHOPPY. OKAY. OKAY, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASE. CASE [12. 20-6229 Address/Description: 129 WICKES HDRC Case No.: 2020-420 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: LUTZ GINO & ELIZABETH MARIE Request: Front yard fence installation City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM 12. RACHEL, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UM, READ THAT ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. RECORD AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH FOUR 20. ADDRESS, 1 29 WIX STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND THE APPLICANT, ELIZABETH LU, IS ON THE LINE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. SO THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I, I PULLED THIS JUST BECAUSE OF THE, UH, THE COMMENTS OF OPPOSITION, [00:25:01] UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I JUST WANTED TO, UH, KIND OF REVIEW THE DOCUMENTATION AND, AND SEE IF, UH, IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE HAVE THE SAME CONCERN AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE, THE PICTURE THAT SHOWS THE METAL FENCE THAT WAS JUST ON THE SCREEN IS THAT THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. IS THAT AN EXISTING FENCE CLOSE TO YOUR PROPERTY OR IS THIS SOMEWHERE MORE REMOTE IN THE DISTRICT? IT'S ONE BLOCK OVER, BUT ONE STREET OVER. OKAY. AND THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER FRONT YARD FENCES ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK. THAT MIGHT BE AN OVERSIGHT BECAUSE I'M LOOKING OUT MY WINDOW AND THREE DOORS DOWN, IF YOU'RE FACING MY HOUSE, TWO OR THREE DOORS DOWN TO THE LEFT, THERE IS A VERY TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE. VERY OLD RUSTED THAT IS VERY CLOSE, LIKE RIGHT UP ON THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE ALL AROUND THE FRONT. SO MAYBE THEY JUST MISSED IT. I . SO THE NEAREST, THE NEAREST FENCES, I, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MEAN THE NEAREST FENCES ON THIS BLOCK ARE ON WIX ARE KIND OF AT THE MAJOR INTERSECTIONS IN THE CORNER BLOCKS. AND, UH, NO, NO MIND IS SHOWING THIS, THIS IS TOWARD EAGLE LAND. COULD COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? I THINK OVER IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TOWARD EAGLE LAND, WHICH IS THE HIGH SCHOOL. I THINK IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT, LIKE THEY MIGHT'VE JUST MISSED IT. IT'S JUST LIKE, UH, 1, 2, 3 DOORS DOWN ON WIX, HEADED TOWARD THE HIGH SCHOOL. VERY TALL, VERY OLD RUSTED WHITE BOUGHT IRON. VERY MORE NEAT, IF YOU WILL. SO THERE, THERE ARE ARE TWO WROUGHT IRON, UH, WHITE FENCES, UH, KIND OF MID-BLOCK DOWN TOWARD EAGLE LAND. THAT IS CORRECT. IN THE IMMEDIATE, IN THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY, UH, I'M NOT SEEING, UH, FRONT YARD FENCES. AND WE OCCASIONALLY GET CASES LIKE THIS. I THINK OF A RECENT ONE WAS, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT IT WAS IN TOBIN HILL AND THERE WAS A, A DESIRE FOR PETS, BUT THERE'S NOT AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF FENCES IN THAT AREA IN THE, THE NOR NOR IS THERE ON ADAMS. BUT TWO RECENTLY GOT APPROVED. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK ON THE, ON THE BLOCKS OF ADAM'S, UM, TWO BRAND NEW METAL FENCES WERE APPROVED RECENTLY AND THERE IS NO OTHER FENCE IN THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO THOSE. SO I KIND OF FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE ALL ACROSS THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES AND SO FORTH. THIS IS COMMISSIONER RUB. I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FISH AND AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT, AND I ALSO AGREE WITH STAFF COMMENTS. I FIND THAT KING WILLIAM ACTUALLY HAS A GREAT AMOUNT OF SENSING, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW NEIGHBORHOODS ACTUALLY THAT KIND CAR FENCING . I, I'D AGREE WITH THOSE OBSERVATIONS AS WELL. WELL, I, I THINK THAT'S TRUE ON ADAMS. I, I I TEND TO, TO HESITATE TO INTRODUCE FRONT YARD FENCES ON THE, ON THIS BLOCK. SO I HAVE, I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY. THERE IS A SIDE FENCE BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES THAT FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OUT TO THE SIDEWALK IS A FOUR FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS A RECENT, I THINK THAT WAS, I THINK THAT WAS FAIRLY RECENTLY. IT DOESN'T CO CUT ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, BUT IT DOES SEPARATE THE TWO PROPERTIES DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE CO. CORRECT. AND MAINLY, YOU KNOW, WIX IS A VERY NARROW STREET AND IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE CARRIAGE HOUSE STREET AND THE CAR IS DARK DOWN HERE. WE LOST A CAT. OUR, OUR PRECIOUS BILL WAS KILLED. AND I HAVE TWO CHILDREN. I HAVE A THREE YEAR OLD AND A ONE AND A HALF YEAR OLD, AND THE NEIGHBORS IN FRONT OF ME HAVE A LITTLE BOY. SO I THINK THAT FENCES WILL START POPPING UP. IT THE PROBLEM OR NOT THE PROBLEM. BUT THE, THE REASON THEY HAVEN'T IS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES ON THIS VERY BLOCK WHERE I LIVE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE OLDER, THEY DON'T HAVE KIDS, THE PETS ARE IN THE BACK. UM, [00:30:01] BUT I THINK ONCE THEY START SELLING THEIR HOMES, LIKE THEY'VE EXPRESSED TO ME THAT THEY'RE, THEY'VE PLAN TO, THAT THE NEW OWNERS WILL START REQUESTING FOR FENCE. SO I MIGHT BE THE FIRST ONE NEXT TO MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, BUT I'M DEFINITELY NOT THE FIRST ONE ON MY BLOCK, NOR AM I THE FIRST ONE ON MY STREET. SO THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I JUST KIND OF WANTED A HEARING OF THAT, UH, SO FOLKS COULD HAVE THAT DIALOGUE. BUT I, UM, I SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AND MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU BY SECOND CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, COMMISSIONER I, I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE AREA THERE, THERE'S INDICATIONS THAT DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS, MAYBE SOME OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE APARTMENTS, THEY'VE GOT QUITE WELL DEVELOPED PRIVACY ZONES. SO AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER THERE, THERE, THERE, THERE'S BEEN DEMON A DEMONSTRATED NEED, RIGHT? FOR THIS TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE THERE, AND I KNOW IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER, BUT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A ROAD OVER THESE TOWN HOMES ARE MOVED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE FRONT, AND THEN WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO IS TO CLOSE THE BACK END. SO THERE, THERE SEEMS TO BE KIND OF LIKE A, LIKE AN EVOLUTION, UH, OF, OF NEED THERE. UH, SO I I I WOULD THINK THAT IF IT'S, IF IT'S DONE APPROPRIATELY THAT IT, IT SERVES A NEED. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS NOT HISTORIC ABOUT THE AREA IS THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT THEY GET, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO YOU COULD IMAGINE IN THE 1920S AND 1930S, YOU KNOW, THE AREA HAD PEOPLE WALKING IN ON BICYCLES, BUT TODAY PEOPLE ARE PARKING THEIR CARS TO GO TO SOUTHTOWN. AND, AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF I'M HELPING YOU KEEP DOGS SAFE TO KEEPING PEOPLE FROM PEEING IN YOUR FRIEND YARD, SO THEY PEE IN MY CAR ALL THE TIME. THAT'S SO FUNNY. WHEN FRANK'S WAS OPEN, I YELLED AT TWO GUYS PEEING IN MY VINES AND I WAS PREGNANT AND I YELLED AT THEM FROM THE BALCONY. AND THEN I'VE HAD, UM, PEOPLE LIKE RUNNING DOWN THE STREET SCREAMING LIKE, I THINK THEY'RE ON DRUGS AND I HAVE TO CALL THE COPS, OR LIKE YELLING THE FIRE THE HELL. AND THEN THE OTHER TIME THERE WAS A WOMAN GETTING HER HAIR PULLED AND IT'S THE CRAZIEST STUFF. SO IT'S JUST SAFETY AND IT'LL BE LOW. I WANNA BE SENSITIVE TO THE VERNACULAR, VERNACULAR. I STUDIED ARCHITECTURE. I LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I WORK FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I WANNA BE SENSITIVE TO THE DESIGN. I'LL WORK WITH ANYBODY ON THAT. UM, BUT I JUST WANNA SENSE IT FOR LIKE HALLOWEEN SO WE CAN ENJOY THE FRONT PORCH AND SIT OUT THERE AND NOT HAVE TO LIKE CHASE THE BABY. LIKE DON'T GO TO THE STREET, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S ALL. WELL, I WOULD JUST, UH, APPEAL TO, UH, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO ACHIEVE A BOUNDARY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN A FIVE FOOT FENCE. IT COULD BE AS EASY AS A THREE AND A HALF FOOT, 40 INCH FENCE, 44, 48. UM, AND, AND IF IT'S MEETING, YOU KNOW, THE CRITERIA OF WHAT YOU WOULD FIND, LIKE SOUTHTOWN IS KIND OF FAMOUS FOR HAVING THE LITTLE THREE FOOT FENCES, RIGHT? REALLY BEAUTIFUL TURN OF THE CENTURY WROUGHT IRON THAT DO NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE VISUAL. BECAUSE IN REALITY, WHEN YOU'RE WALKING OR WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING, YOU SEE RIGHT OVER THE FENCE, YOU ALMOST DON'T EVEN SEE THE FENCE. SO, UM, JUST TO THAT, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THAT COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT EXISTING IN THE 1930S AND 1940S, UH, SOUTHTOWN IS IS IS PRETTY, UM, AGGRESSIVE ON A, ON A FIRST FRIDAY. UH, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. YEAH. AND, AND I'M, AND I'M THREE PROPERTIES OVER FROM THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, YOU KNOW, SOUTH. I CAN LOOK AT SOUTH ALAMO FROM MY WINDOW. I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW. SO THAT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT ELECTRONIC BIKE SHOP SLASH YOU KNOW, THEY SELL ALCOHOL THERE. SO THE FOOD TRUCKS PARKED THERE ON FIRST FRIDAY. I LOVE THE ACTIVITY, IT'S WHY I LIVE HERE. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. BUT AT THE LATE HOURS, THAT ACTIVITY DOES BRING FROM THE VARIOUS ACTIVITY, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY, WELL THANK YOU. UM, WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSE. PLEASE UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY, NAY NAYYY. UM, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION WAS. ACTUALLY, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. Y'ALL HEAR ME? OKAY, MR. CIA, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, SO I'M CONFUSED. YOU WERE S SUPPORTING OFFENSE? UH, I'M, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. I'M, I'M INS I'M IN SUPPORT OF OFFENSE. THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION WAS. THE MOTION [00:35:01] WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION SUPPORT. OH, OKAY. I I HEARD IT BACKWARDS. CAN YOU CANING HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? YEAH, IF YOU COULD READ THE MOTION AGAIN, THEN I I CAN RESTATE IT. I WAS, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REQUEST WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. I THINK WE NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT PASSES AND THEN WE CAN RESTATE THE MOTION AND TAKE ACTION. IS THAT CORRECT, ALMA? UH, JUST A SECOND. I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT PASSED ANYWAYS, RIGHT? YEAH, IT WAS FOUR TO TWO, RIGHT? I DON'T, I DON'T VOTE RIGHT. THE THE OWNER DOESN'T VOTE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? JUST WONDER. YEAH. DO I VOTE ME? I DON'T KNOW. YES, NO, WE CAN HEAR YOU GREAT. UH, YEAH, THE MOTION PASSED ALREADY. YOU GOT, YOU HAD AT LEAST FOUR VOTES. OKAY, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL UPDATE THE RECORD COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ TO SAY THAT YOU INDICATED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. MUCH APPRECIATED, COREY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYONE MOVING ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CASE [13. 20-6165 Address/Description: 203 S ST MARYS ST/Multiple Locations in the Right-of-way near: 520 S ALAMO ST 304 E PECAN ST 113 SOLEDAD 205 AUGUSTA 105 VILLITA ST 329 CONVENT 705 N ST MARYS 701 DOLOROSA 121 S FLORES ST 224 E MARTIN ST 1228 DWYER AVE 101 AUDITORIUM CIRCLE 909 DOLORSA 209 JEFERSON ST 205 N ALAMO ST 512 E CESAR E CHAVEZ 104 E CROCKETT ST 100 N PRESA ST 241 E COMMERCE ST 109 JEFFERSON 205 S ST MARY'S ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-460 RIO District: RIO-3 Applicant: Kevin Bowyer/Modus LLC Request: Replace an existing streetlight pole with a new pole with network node equipment City Council Dist.: 1] NUMBER 13. LEE, ARE YOU THERE? I DO HAVE, UH, KEVIN BOYER WITH MODUS VERIZON ON THE LINE TO ANSWER QUESTION. UH, FOR THE RECORD, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REPLACEMENT OF 21 EXISTING STREETLIGHT POLES WITH NEW STREETLIGHT POLES PER THE PILOT PROGRAM DESIGN WITH NEW NETWORK NODE EQUIPMENT FOR, UH, VERIZON AND MODUS. SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER CAR CARPENTER. I, UH, PULLED THIS BECAUSE, UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION, UH, TO THIS, UH, THE APPLICATION OF THIS, UH, PILOT PROGRAM HERE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR THIS, UH, PROJECT TO BE REVIEWED IN A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING, UH, SOON. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I, I HAD SOME CONCERNS, UH, WITH, UH, ABOUT A, A THIRD OR MORE AT LEAST OF THESE. AND I THINK THE BEST WAY AGREE, THE BEST WAY TO, TO KIND OF MOVE THROUGH THESE ITEMS WOULD BE IN A, IN A D R C. SO I'D CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT. UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I BELIEVE THAT WAS A MOTION FROM YOU. YES, THAT WAS A MOTION ON MY PART AND IT SOUNDED LIKE A SECOND ON, UH, COMMISSIONER THAT, THAT'S A SECOND ON, THAT'S A SECOND ON MY PART. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. I'LL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE AUDIO ISSUES, BUT I THINK WE'RE DOING BETTER NOW. [17. 20-6217 Address/Description: 431 ADAMS ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-437 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: San Antonio San Antonio/CUMMINGS SCOTT & HODA Request: Front yard fence installation City Council Dist.: 1] UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO ITEM 17. STEPHANIE, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I'M HERE. YEP, I'M HERE. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 17, H D R C. CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 4 37. ADDRESS, ONE 30 OR 4 31 ADAMS STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A NEW CATTLE PANEL STYLE FRONT YARD FENCE MEASURING FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT TO INCLUDE A PEDESTRIAN GATE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD FENCING BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE FENCING MATERIAL WILL BE MODIFIED TO BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE FENCE STYLES THAT ARE CHARACTERISTIC AS TO THE DISTRICT SUCH AS WOOD PICKET OR RAW IRON. AS NOTED IN FINDING B, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED TO DESIGN AND STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS AN UPDATED SITE PLAN THAT INDICATES THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TRANSITION FROM FOUR FOOT TALL FRONT YARD FENCING TO SIX FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCING ON THE BARBIE STREET PROPERTY LINE. THE FRONT YARD FENCING SHALL EXTEND TO A MINIMUM ONE FOOT BEHIND THE FRONT CORNER OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, NOT INCLUDING THE FRONT PORCH. AND THREE, THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT OF AN APPROVED FENCE MAY NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AS APPROVED BY THE H D R C AT ANY PORTION OF THE FENCE. FRONT YARD FENCES SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AT ANY POINT. ADDITIONALLY, ALL FENCES MUST BE PERMITTED AND MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTLINED IN U D C SECTION 35 5 14. I HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE AND THEY PULLED THIS ITEM FROM CONSENT TO INDIVIDUAL TO DISCUSS THE MATERIALITY AND DESIGN OF THE FENCE. AND I HAVE THE APPLICANTS ON THE LINE. CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? HI, THIS IS HODI CUMMINGS AND SCOTT CUMMINGS. HOLD ON. SCOTT, IF YOU WANTED TO, UM, GO AHEAD AND SUMMARIZE YOUR, UM, REQUEST FOR THE CATTLE PANEL STYLE FENCING. SURE. SO, UM, [00:40:01] WE HAVE MET THE LAST TWO CRITERIA FOR THE FENCE. UM, BEING THAT IT'S FOUR FOOT, WHICH WE ARE FINE WITH. UM, WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED THE UPDATED PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING WHERE THE FENCE WOULD END INTO OUR BACKYARD REAR FENCE. SO WE ARE FINE WITH THAT. UM, WHAT WE ARE NOT AMENABLE TO IS THE FIRST FINDING THAT STATES WIRE PANEL FENCES ARE NOT PREVALENT IN KING WILLIAMS. UM, THEY ALSO SAY THEY'RE NOT ON ADAMS STREET, WHICH IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT. UM, UPON WALKING AROUND KING WILLIAMS BEING THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE, SOUTH OF SOUTH ALAMO, KING WILLIAMS, THEY KIND OF CALL IT BAJA KING WILLIAMS. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY, THEY'RE ACTUALLY EXACTLY WAIT 40, 40, UH, I'M SORRY, 30 PROPERTIES WITH WIRE PANEL FENCING, UM, TO THE EXACT TWO 18 ATOMS HAS A WIRE PANEL FENCE. UM, AND I SUBMITTED A LIST OF WIRE PANEL FENCES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL THAT UP, STEPHANIE. YEAH. YEP. LAUREN'S GONNA NAVIGATE TO SOME OF THOSE EXAMPLES ON STREET VIEW. OKAY. UM, UM, SO TWO 18 ATOMS OF A WIRE PANEL FENCE. UM, A LOT OF THESE RY ON THEM AND SO YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. SIX 13 MISSION ALSO HAS A WIRE PANEL FENCE 1 27 CROFTON ALSO HAS A WIRE PANEL FENCE 6 22 SEATER AND 1 46 SEATER ALSO HAS A WIRE PANEL FENCE. THE FOUR THAT I JUST LISTED ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE FENCE WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, AGAIN FOR A TOTAL OF 30 PROPERTIES IN BAJA KING WILLIAMS. AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF KING WILLIAMS, THERE ARE AN ADDITIONAL, BY OTHER SIDE, I MEAN LIKE THE NORTH SIDE OF KING WILLIAMS, THERE ARE ANOTHER 10 PROPERTIES. SO FOR A TOTAL OF 40 PROPERTIES WITH WIRE PANEL FENCES. UM, IN ADDITIONAL, SO IN ADDITION TO OUR STREET ON EVERY PARALLEL STREET TO ADAMS, INCLUDING ADAMS, THERE ARE WIRE PANEL FENCES. UM, FOR INSTANCE, THEY ALSO, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE ALL IN A ROW EITHER. SO 1 27 CROFTON IS SANDWICHED BETWEEN A ROT IRON FENCE AND A STONE FENCE. UM, 1 21 SEATER HAS A WIRE PANEL FENCE. AND ACROSS THE STREET THERE ARE WOOD PICKET FENCES. UH, UM, LET'S SEE ACROSS FROM FOUR 15 AND FOUR 19 MISSION, UH, ALSO WOOD PICKET FENCES. UM, AND THEN I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE A CORNER LOT. SO OUR, WE ONLY SHARE ONE PROPERTY LINE WITH ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. UM, THE OTHER SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY WOULD BE FACING BARBIE STREET. SO THERE'S NOT ANOTHER FENCE THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, SHARE AN ADJACENT SIDE. UM, LASTLY, A ROT IRON FENCE IS COST PROHIBITIVE FOR US. A WOOD PICKET FENCE WOULD NOT BE AS STURDY OR DURABLE. IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE MAINTENANCE BEING THAT OUR FRONT YARD RECEIVES FULL SUN. I ALSO HAVE AN 80 POUND DOG, UM, WHICH A WOOD PICKET FENCE WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL FOR. UH, WE ALSO FOSTER DOGS FOR TWO NEIGHBORHOOD NONPROFITS. AND WHEN DOGS VARY INSIDE, UM, THEY CAN GO THROUGH THESE ROT IRON FENCES, UM, WHICH I'VE SEEN HAPPEN WITH MY NEIGHBOR'S KIDS DOGS. UM, SO A WIRE PANEL FENCE IS THE BEST FENCE FOR DOGS OF MULTIPLE SIZES. UM, THE WIRE PANEL FENCE IS ALSO THE MOST SENSIBLE IN TERMS IN TERMS OF LONGEVITY AND COST. SO THE TAKEAWAY I WANT YOU GUYS TO SEE IS THAT THERE ARE 40 PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WIRE PANEL FENCES ARE VERY PREVALENT. UM, AND I THINK HAVING DIFFERENT FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS JUST PART OF OUR CHARACTER. UM, AND SO THIS WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING NEW. SO, YEAH, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU COREY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. YEAH, WE HAVE A LIVE CALL. IF WE CAN UNMUTE JESSICA. SHE HAS LISA LYNN ON THE LINE. [00:45:01] LISA, YOU HEAR? I'M HERE. ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS LISA LIN CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION. THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND DO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FENCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL FRONT YARD FENCES ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE 400 BLOCK OF ATOMS, THERE ARE VERY FEW ON THE EAST SIDE. THERE IS ONLY ONE FRONT YARD FENCE IN THE LONG 500 BLOCK OF ATOMS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. THE GUIDELINES STATE THAT NEW FENCES SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED WHERE THERE HISTORICALLY WAS NO FENCE, PARTICULARLY FRONT YARD FENCES. 4 31 ATOMS IS A CORNER LOT. NONE OF THE OTHER THREE RESIDENCES AT THIS INTERSECTION OF BARBIE AND ADAMS HAVE FRONT YARD FENCES, NOR DO THEIR SIDE AND BACKYARD FENCES EXTEND FORWARD FROM THE BACK CORNER OF THEIR HOUSES. ALTHOUGH THE GUIDELINES ALLOW FENCES IF THEY ARE PRESENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT ALSO SAYS THE APPROPRIATENESS IS DEPENDENT ON THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WITHIN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT. THREE, IN OUR OPINION, THIS FRONT AND SIDE YARD FENCE WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THIS INTERSECTION. AND THEN FINALLY, FOUR CATTLE OR HOG PANEL FENCES ARE NEVER APPROPRIATE IN THE CANYONLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROOM. UH, BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD EARLIER, I THINK STAFF HAS IT RIGHT ON THE TYPE OF FENCE THAT, UM, IS RECOMMENDED, WHICH IS THE WR IRON IS RIGHT IN THE DOOR NEXT, THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR HAS IT ACROSS THE STREET. I GUESS THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT'S MOST COMMON SEEN IN, IN, UM, IN KING WILLIAM, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT MADE A GREAT CASE OF THE SHOWING EXAMPLES OF, UM, OF THE FENCE THAT SHE WOULD LIKE NOW, UM, TO THE APPLICANT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ALSO THE STIPULATION THE STAFF SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO PUSH YOUR FENCE BACK? 'CAUSE WE'RE ONLY ONLY TALKING MATERIALS, BUT I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU COMMENT ON THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE. YES. UM, SO I SPOKE WITH OUR CASE MANAGER, STEPHANIE, UM, AND WE TALKED ABOUT EXACTLY WHERE THE FENCE WAS GOING. I EVEN SUBMITTED A PHOTO AS TO WHERE THE FENCE WOULD DEAD END. SO IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE SIDE PHOTO OF OUR HOME, THE SIDE FACING BARBIE, YOU CAN SEE A REAR FENCE, IT WOULD DEAD END STRAIGHT INTO THAT FENCE. YEAH, THIS IS STEPHANIE. THE APPLICANT HAS MET THAT STIPULATION. IT WAS MORE OF, UM, A STIPULATION JUST TO ENSURE THAT ANY SORT OF PRIVACY FENCING WOULDN'T ENCROACH ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND THIS PHOTO ILLUSTRATES THAT. UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ COREY ON WITH RESPECT TO THE, UM, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S BROUGHT ALL THESE COMPELLING IMAGES OF OTHER FENCES. IT COULD BE ARGUED, I THINK, VERY, VERY WELL BY STAFF THAT THE APPROPRIATE FENCE SHOULD BE THE FENCE THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. BUT, UH, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, PEOPLE ENJOYING THE SAME RIGHTS, IT'S PRETTY COMPELLING. UH, IN TERMS OF, UM, NOT REALLY BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT HOW WE SHOULD MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS INDIVIDUAL WHEN IT'S LIKE THE, LIKE THE, THE TRAINS OUT OF THE STATION, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT, THERE'S, SHE'S SHOWING 30 EXAMPLES. UM, AND, AND, AND I I WONDER WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE, WHAT IS STAFF'S TAKE ON? I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOTTA FOLLOW THE, YOU BRING TO THE COMMISSION RULE AS IT IS. YEAH, I CAN RESPOND. OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR WIX THAT WE HAD. OUR, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THIS APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN STAFF STIPULATED. SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A, A WIRE FENCE. THE OTHER ONE WAS REQUESTING A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. SO JUST A DIFFERENCE, DIFFERENCE IN DESIGN. RIGHT. BUT NOW, BUT NOW THE, THE PRECEDENT THAT SHE'S, SHE, SHE'S BRINGING BEFORE THE D IS HERE A PRECEDENT THAT IF IT WAS ONE OR TWO, WELL THEY, THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T GET PERMITS TO DO THEIR FENCES, RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. RIGHT. HOW DID THEY GET WIRE FENCES? UM, OFTENTIMES, UH, FENCES ARE APPROVED. CHAIN LINK FENCES ARE APPROVED TO BE REPLACED WITH SIMILAR STYLE. AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT CHAIN LINK FENCES WERE REPLACED WITH THOSE FENCES AND THAT WAS FOUND TO BE APPROPRIATE. UM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO 30 OR 40 CASES. RIGHT. UM, NO. AND, AND IF I COULD INTERJECT FOR ONE MOMENT, THE PROPERTY AT 6 22 CEDAR, UM, IS RECENT [00:50:01] AS WELL AS SIX 13 MISSION AND AS WELL AS 2 35 PEDA. THOSE OH YES. 1 1 46 CEDAR AND 2 35 PEDA. THOSE WERE ALL INSTALLED WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS. OH, CO CO CORY, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT OUR, UH, APPLICANT HERE IS SAYING, UPGRADED OR DOWNGRADED, IT STILL SETS A PRECEDENT AND THE PRECEDENT BECOMES EXISTING. SO IT JUST SEEMS THAT, UM, THAT IT WOULD, THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT TO MAKE YOUR JOB HARDER THAN IT ALREADY IS, BUT THAT STAFF SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE US WITH RECORD WHAT IS EXISTING AND THEN THE DILEMMA BECOMES, UH, A C A PRESIDENT OR ARE WE USING ONE APPLICANT TO, TO BE A GOOD EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE APPLICANTS THAT COME BEFORE US, UNLESS THEY HAVE A LOWER LEVEL CHAIN LINK FENCE, IN WHICH CASE THEY CAN GET JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THEY WANT BECAUSE CHAIN LINK FENCE, RIGHT. THAT THE CHARACTER IS, IS ALREADY MANIPULATED AND, UH, UNLESS WE'RE SAYING THAT, WELL, YEAH, BUT LOOK AT IT, IT'S RUIN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, OR THAT MAYBE IT ADAPTS. UM, IT, IT JUST SEEMS FAIR. SO JUST IS UNFAIR. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UH, NUMBER OF THE, THE WIRE FENCES WITH WOODEN POSTS, UH, WERE SHOWN IN, IN SOME AREAS, PARTICULARLY OVER IN LA BACA, A HOC PANEL. THERE'S KIND OF A, A GREATER PREVALENCY OF, OF PANEL OVER THERE. I THINK, UH, IN KING WILLIAM, THE EXAMPLES OF PANEL FENCES USUALLY, UH, INCLUDE, UH, WOOD STRUCTURE AND NOT STEEL STRUCTURE. THE STEEL STRUCTURE REALLY STANDS OUT AS NOT INTO CHARACTER OF THE FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN I'M LOOKING UP AND DOWN ATOMS, UH, UM, THE, THE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FENCES THAT ARE PRESENT ARE, ARE WROUGHT IRON OR WOULD PICK IT. AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE TYPE THAT MEETS THE CHARACTER OF THIS AREA AND THIS DISTRICT. UH, BUT I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF FENCES, AGAIN, ON BLOCKS WHERE, WHERE THEY'RE NOT PREVALENT NOR WERE THEY HISTORICALLY PREVALENT. I JUST THINK THESE ARE ARE IMPORTANT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. SO THOSE ARE, THAT'S MY 2 CENTS. I, I DON'T KNOW IF I AM ALLOWED TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT, UM, ON ADAMS STREET, ON MY BLOCK ALONE, THERE ARE FOUR FRONT YARD FENCES. AND I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH 1 27 WIX. YOU KNOW, THERE MAY HAVE NOT BEEN FENCES, YOU KNOW, IN THE THIRTIES OR 1925 WHEN MY HOME WAS BUILT, BUT THEY WERE ALSO NOT VEHICLES. UM, I, ADAMS STREET IS ONE OF THE BUSIEST WIDEST STREETS IN KING WILLIAMS. WE LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL. I HAVE SEEN CARS DRAG RACE DOWN KING WILLIAMS FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL. SO, UM, I CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, NOT BEING EXCITED ABOUT HAVING FRONT YARD FENCES, BUT AT THIS POINT, LIKE IT'S, IT'S WHEN THERE'S BEEN THAT MANY FENCES METAL. UM, SO THOSE FIRST FOUR I LISTED, I DIDN'T WANNA BORE YOU WITH ALL THE DETAILS OF EVERY SINGLE FENCE OF IT, ALL 40 FENCES. BUT THE FIRST FOUR FENCES ARE METAL FRAMES, HOG PANEL CATTLE, PANEL WIRE PANEL FENCES, AND THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO MY FENCE. AND THREE OUT OF THE FOUR WERE INSTALLED WITHIN THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS. SO , WERE THERE ANY OF THOSE, SORRY TO INTERRUPT. WERE THERE ANY OF THOSE ON ADAMS? BECAUSE I'M REVIEWING THE, THE SUBMITTAL AND I'M, AND I'M ALSO TRYING TO TRACK ON GOOGLE EARTH. SURE. UH, OH. THERE ARE, THERE WERE OTHER STREETS THAT ARE, THAT ARE KIND OF MORE TOWARD COMMERCIAL AREAS WHERE THERE, THERE MIGHT BE AN ADJUSTMENT TO CHARACTER. UM, AT THE END OF ADAMS TOWARDS ALAMO, I CAN SEE A WOOD FENCE WITH A, A HOG PANEL FRAME THAT IS IN RELATIVE DISREPAIR. I CAN SEE, UM, MID-BLOCK, UH, TIMBER POST FENCE WAS SOME KIND OF PANEL. UM, BUT I, I'M JUST NOT SEEING ANY, ANY METAL FRAMES. CAN YOU, CAN YOU LOOK UP 13 MISSION? I I I UNDERSTAND ON DIFFERENT BLOCKS THERE ARE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID REPEATING ANY OF THOSE MISTAKES GOING [00:55:01] FORWARD BECAUSE THEY'RE VISUALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I THINK THAT'S SOME OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE. NOW. IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF POSITION OR, OR IN YOUR POSITION. SO I, I SUSPECT I'M PROBABLY IN THE MINORITY IN MY OBJECTIONS, BUT THE, UH, I, IT LOOKS LIKE TWO 18 ADAMS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP ON THE SCREEN. THE, THE CHARACTER OF THIS FENCE IS NOT SIMILAR TO THE CHARACTER OF THE FENCE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT THERE ARE TIMBER PIECES. I SUSPECT THAT'S NOT GONNA BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE AS WELL, BUT NO, IT WOULD NOT. I WAS BASICALLY RESPONDING TO, YOU KNOW, THE FINDING THAT CATTLE PANEL FENCES OR HOG WIRE FENCES ARE NOT PREVALENT IN KING WILLIAM AND THAT THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE. YEAH, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND, UM, I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GRU THAT I THINK STAFF HAS THIS CORRECT, UH, UH, APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION OF A, OF THE FENCING, BUT OF EITHER A WROUGHT IRON OR WOOD PICKET FENCE, WHICH IS, UH, MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT'S EXISTING ON ATOMS. SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT EVERY OTHER BLOCK, WHETHER IT'S MISSION CEDAR OR GUNTHER, YOU HAVE A VARIETY OF FENCES. EVEN IF THERE ARE WR WROUGHT IRON FENCES, PICKET FENCES, CHAIN LINK CHAIN LINK FENCES, OR HOG PANEL FENCES, ALL OF THESE STREETS HAVE ALL OF THAT ON IT. AND IT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IF IT'S ALLOWED ON MISSION AND CEDAR AND GUNTHER IN EVERY PARALLEL STREET TO ADAMS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ADAMS WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF STIPULATION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, VELASQUEZ? I'LL SECOND IT. UH, I WANNA MAKE A COMMENT WITH THAT. SECOND, I, I'D LIKE TO SAY, TO SAY TO THE, THE, UM, STAFF THERE THAT IT, THAT A A, A ITEM LIKE THIS SHOULD COME IN WITH SOME, UM, INFORMATION OF, OF WHAT IS EXISTING THERE. AND, AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT BRINGING ALL THAT DATA IN. UM, THAT, UH, BUT, BUT WHEN IT'S, WHEN, WHEN THERE'S THAT MUCH OF IT, IT, IT, IT'S, IT DOESN'T HURT FOR FOR US TO, TO BE GIVEN A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF THAT SAYS, NOW THESE DO EXIST IN THE COMMUNITY, HOWEVER, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BRIEF EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS. BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE ON THE COMMISSION, LIKE RIGHT NOW, AND, AND, AND THE PUBLIC IS, IS, IS, UH, LISTENING AND WATCHING IN, UM, THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A PRECEDENT AND WHAT CONSTITUTES WHAT WE WOULD DO TO SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. I KNOW IN SOME CASES WE'RE NOT TOO FAR FROM SAYING, WELL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOMEBODY GO LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T COME THROUGH THE COMMISSION. RIGHT. WHAT, WHATEVER THAT CASE IS. BUT I, I WOULD, UH, JUST WANNA MAKE KNOWN THAT, THAT I'LL BE VOTING, UH, FOR THIS WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS, BUT ONLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UH, THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT'S GOING TO GET, UH, BECAUSE THERE PRECEDENT LOST THE RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION THAT I'M, UH, DOING RIGHT NOW. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND, MY MOTION CAN CITE YEAH. OKAY. I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTION. YOUR MOTION IS EVERYTHING EXCEPT WIRE, EXCEPT HOG WIRE OR, OR WHATEVER THEY CALL THAT, THAT GRID WIRE NOW. UM, AND, AND I'M, AND I'M, AND I I'M HAPPY THAT IT CAN GET THAT FAR. I I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF THERE, THAT THAT IF AN APPLICANT COMES IN AND PRESENTS ALL OF THIS PRECEDENT THAT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, IT SEEMS LIKE AT SOME, SOME BASELINE LEVEL AN APPLICANT CAN BE RIGHT AND CAN HAVE, UM, SOME WEIGHT TO SAY, HEY LOOK, I HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYBODY ELSE. BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A, A LEVEL OVER LIKE 30, THEN IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE, LIKE I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF SPOT ZONING IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, LIKE WE USE OUR DISCRETION BEYOND WHAT IS OBVIOUS, EVEN IF IT DISRUPTS THE URBAN FABRIC. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AND I, AND, AND I AM SECONDING THE MOTION. [01:00:01] THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. UH, ALL IN FAVOR. UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK [18. 20-6149 Address/Description: 514 W QUINCY HDRC Case No.: 2020-416 Applicant: Liz Hurd/RVK Architects Request: Construction of a multi-story parking garage, signage City Council Dist.: 1] YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 18. STEPHANIE, ARE YOU THERE? I, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 18, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 416 ADDRESS, 5 1 4 WEST QUINCY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT, A FOUR FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE TO TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 206,882 SQUARE FEET TO MODIFY THE MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN TO INCLUDE AMENDMENTS TO A 2018 SIGNAGE APPROVAL FOR THE PRIMARY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ON SITE AND SIGNAGE FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE. ITEM ONE, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PARKING GARAGE BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH H. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE H D R C ONE THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TOP LEVEL LIGHTING THAT IS REDUCED IN HEIGHT AND SCALE OR INTEGRATED INTO THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE IS NOTED IN BINDING H H TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DESIGN THAT INCORPORATES GROUND FLOOR USES. AS NOTED IN BINDING E AND THREE ARCHEOLOGY, THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY AS APPLICABLE. ITEM TWO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE PACKAGE BASED ON FINDING G WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCES THE HEIGHT OF THE NORTH FLORIST, S A I S D SIGN TO MA TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE FEET TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE U D C AND TO ALIGN WITH THE PREVIOUS H D R C APPROVAL FROM 2019 AND TWO THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCES THE OVERALL SIGNAGE FOR THE SITE, INCLUDING THE BUILDING SIGNAGE AND MONUMENT SIGNAGE FOR BOTH STRUCTURES TO BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN THREE SIGNS AND A MAXIMUM OF 50 SQUARE FEET TO COMPLY WITH RIO STANDARDS FOR SIGNAGE. AND THE APPLICANT LIZ IS ON THE LINE. LIZ, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? UM, LAUREN MAY NEED TO UNMUTE RACHEL. HELLO? YES, WE FOR YOU . LIZ, ARE YOU THERE? OKAY. YES, I AM HERE. I THINK THEY HAD ME ON MUTE FIRST. YES, THIS IS LIZ HEARD WITH R V K ARCHITECT. GREAT. AND IF YOU COULD, UM, JUST WALK US THROUGH THE PROJECT AND, UH, YOUR RESPONSE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SURE. UM, SO THE FACILITY THAT WE ARE PRESENTING WITH THIS PARKING GARAGE, UM, THE PARKING GARAGE IS ACTUALLY FUNDED BY THE BEX COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT. UM, IT'S A 600 SPACE PARKING GARAGE. UM, IT'S USED AS A, IT WAS A GROUND LEASE, UM, IN A DEVELOPMENT WITH, IT'S ON THE PROPERTY OF SAS'S CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING. SO BEXAR COUNTY IS ACTUALLY FUNDING THE GARAGE, BUT IT'S ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PROPERTY. UM, AND SO RIGHT NOW, UM, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LIGHTING, THE GROUND FLOOR USE AND THE SIGNAGE, UM, THE GROUND FLOOR USES, SINCE IT IS FUNDED THROUGH THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, COUNTY, UM, IT'S WITH TAX FREE BONDS AND SO THAT THE COUNTY'S NOT PERMITTED TO ENGAGE ANY KIND OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THAT GROUND FLOOR USE OR THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION. SO WHAT WE DID, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE, THE ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, UH, RETAIL SPACE IN THERE, WE WERE USING IT MORE AS KIND OF LIKE A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AND A GREEN SPACE. SO IF YOU GO TO THE ONE THAT SHOWS BETWEEN THE, UM, TWO BUILDINGS, YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT NUMBER 23, THE NEXT ONE. SO ON 23 WE'VE ADDED, UM, THE CANOPIES AS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED. UM, WE ALSO HAVE, SO YOU CAN SHOW WHERE THE PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES ARE, BUT WE HAVE THAT SPACE THAT'S MORE OF A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY THAT ALLOWS MORE OF A SAFETY CONCERN BETWEEN THE BUILDING. UM, AND SO WE ARE WANTING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THAT MORE OF LIKE A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, UM, AND A GREEN SPACE. AND THEN WE ALSO ADJACENT TO THAT, WE HAVE AN AMPHITHEATER. THERE'S SEATING VARIOUS LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS OFF TO THE SIDE, AND THAT IS THE MAIN ROUTE THAT'LL TAKE YOU TO SAN PEDRO CREEK. SO WE WERE, I, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GROUND FLOOR USES ON WHAT, I MEAN, IT'S A PARKING GARAGE, SO I JUST DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A RETAIL SPACE IN THAT PARKING GARAGE. [01:05:01] IT JUST, IT JUST ISN'T FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE BY BEAR COUNTY BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING OF THE, THE FACILITY THROUGH THE COUNTY. SO ARE THERE OTHER EXAMPLES THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND OR HOW, HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT? I, I'M REALLY CONFUSED ON HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT, UH, CO COREY, I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHAT THE QUESTION IS. SO, UM, THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT REVIEW UNDER RIO SEVEN. AND RIO SEVEN HAS A STANDARD THAT REQUIRES ANY NEW GARAGE STRUCTURES TO, UM, HAVE GROUND FLOOR USES ON PRIMARY STREETS. SO THIS STANDARD IS NOT MET IN THE PROPOSAL. I I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION. UM, THIS IS JUST THE OUTCOME OF THE REVIEW. THIS IS THE STANDARD. UM, EVEN IF IT'S APPROVED TODAY, IT MIGHT REQUIRE A VARIANCE IN THE FUTURE. . WELL THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, RIGHT? SO WE COULD PROBABLY, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. UH, I THINK THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY MAKING A PRETTY GOOD STATE, UH, CASE FOR, UM, US TO REMOVE THAT STIPULATION. NOW, DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE LIGHTING AND THE OTHER STIPULATION? I'M GO TO THE NEXT, I WAS JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THE ALL THREE ITEMS. SO THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE. YEAH, LET'S THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON. OKAY. AND THEN, SO FOR THE LIGHTING, UM, WE ARE SHOWING IT, IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE, UM, REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHTS, ALSO PROVIDE THE 4,500 K, UM, THE, THE TEMPERATURE AND HOLD, LET ME PULL UP. UM, OH, AND THEN THAT WAS SAYING HOW, UM, TO MINIMIZE THE HEIGHT AND THE BRIGHTNESS WHEREVER POSSIBLE WITH THE HUGHES MATCHING 45,000 K OR AS CLOSE TO DAY LIGHTING AS POSSIBLE. UM, AND THEN TO HAVE THE HEIGHT, UM, OF THE ROOFTOP, UH, FIXTURES TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THE TOP FLOOR STRUCTURE. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS IF YOU PULL UP, IF YOU GO TO THE, UM, ONE OF THE FLOOR PLANS, AND I'LL SHOW YOU THE LOCATION BECAUSE FROM THE CREEK, THE CREEK SIDE IS CAMERA ON SIDE. AND WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE, YOU'LL ONLY SEE THE LIGHT FIXTURES FROM THAT ONE END. AND IF YOU COULD PULL UP THAT, THAT, THAT FLOOR PLAN, I COULD, IT KINDA SHOW YOU WHAT LOCATION THE LIGHT FIXTURES ARE LOCATED AT. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL COULD PULL IT UP. YEAH, LIZ, WE HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE OH, OKAY. DELAY WOULD MAKE DELAY. SHE DELAY THAT. OKAY. SO ON THE VERY END, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A FIXTURE AT THE, UM, ON THE WALL SIDE, TWO ON THE INTERIOR SIDE WHERE THE RAMP IS, AND THEN ONE ON THAT BOTTOM SIDE. SO THERE'S PRETTY MUCH FOUR LIGHTS ON THAT END. WHAT WE COULD DO IS POSSIBLY TAKE OFF THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING AND STILL KEEP THE ONES IN THE CENTER. WE HAVE 12 FOOT HIGH POLES, WHICH ARE ON A THREE FOOT HIGH, A CONCRETE BASE, WHICH HELPS WITH, YOU KNOW, IF ANYBODY HITS THEM, THEY'RE GONNA HIT THE CONCRETE INSTEAD OF THE POLE. SO IT'S 15 FEET HIGH. SO IF THEY'RE LOCATED ONLY IN THE CENTER PART, AND LIKE I SAID FROM THE CREEK SIDE, YOU WOULD ONLY SEE THOSE END FIXTURES. YOU WOULDN'T REALLY SEE THE REMAINING OF THEM FROM THE ACTUAL CREEK. SO WE COULD DO THAT FOR SURE. WE COULD REMOVE THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE ACTUAL EDGE OF THE BUILDING AND JUST KEEP THE ONES IN THE CENTER. SO LIKE WHEN I SAY THE CENTER, IT'S GONNA BE ON THOSE ISLANDS. SO YOU SEE WHERE IT HAS LIKE A FIVE FOOT, UM, GRIDDED AREA. IT WOULD BE ON THAT MAIN LINE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RAMP. SO THERE WOULD BE TWO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE. AND THEN THE ACTUAL LIGHT FIXTURE. THE LIGHT FIXTURE, UM, IT IS, UH, DARK SKY COMPLIANT WHERE THERE IS ZERO UPLIGHTING. UM, AND AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE TEMPERATURE, THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR TYPICAL LIGHTS IS EITHER 3000, 4,000 OR 5,000. WE SPECIFIED THE 4,000. AND WHEN I WENT BACK TO OUR MANUFACTURERS, THEY WERE SAYING NO MANUFACTURER HAS A 4500, 4500 K STANDARD. SO WE WERE HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING ONE THAT'S AT 45 K. SO WE HAD SPECIFIED THE 4,000. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, YEAH, THAT'S A PERFECT VIEW RIGHT THERE. SO IN ADDITION, THE, THE CORNER, THAT POINT IS 75 FEET FROM THE BUILDING TO THE CAMERA ON THE FRONT, THE START OF CAMERA ON. SO THEN YOU HAVE CAMONS IN THE CREEK. SO YOU HAVE POSSIBLY A HUNDRED FEET AWAY OF WHERE THAT LIGHT FIXTURE WOULD BE SEEN. AND ACTUALLY THE LIGHT FIXTURE YOU SEE ON THAT, THAT ELEVATION WHERE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE STAIRWELL, WE WOULD KEEP THOSE TWO MIDDLE ONES AND WE CAN GET RID OF THE ONE BY THAT STAIRWELL. 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE REALLY THE ONE THAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE CREEK. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER WOULD THE ONES ALONG, UH, QUINCY, COULD YOU ALSO GET RID OF THOSE SINCE THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING AND JUST KEEP THE ONES IN THE CENTER? THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WHAT, WHAT MY LIGHTING REP WAS SAYING [01:10:01] IS THEN THE CENTER ONES WOULD HAVE TO GO TALLER IN ORDER TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD NEED FOR THAT LIGHTING. UM, AND OR WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT MORE OF THEM. AND, AND, AND OH, GO AHEAD. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MEAN, SO THE, THE, THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD IS SO THAT WHEN WE'RE ON ADJACENT STREETS, AND PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANTLY IN THE NEW CULTURE PARK VERY NEARBY, THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING UP AT PARKING LOT LIGHTS. IT'S LIKE NOT A PARKING LOT IN THE SKY. GENERALLY THE WAY THAT, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS MET BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF FIXTURES AT A LOWER HEIGHT TO GET THE PROPER LUMENS. UM, SO YOUR SUGGESTION IS HOW DO YOU GET THE PROPER LIGHTING WITH A LOWER HEIGHT? I MEAN, IT ALMOST REQUIRES NUMBER OF FIXTURES, RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO SLIDE 26 MAKES THE, THE, THE SLIDES THAT WE SEE GOING DOWN THE PERSPECTIVE SHOTS, I THINK ARE THE ONE THAT'S MORE, THE ONES THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT. THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE TALLER IN THE CENTER, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, IT'S THE WAY THEY'RE PERCEIVED FROM THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND THEM. AND FROM THE CULTURE PARK, I'M SEEING THE CENTER RUN OF LIGHTS, UH, APPEARING ABOVE THE, THE PARAPET AS WELL, FROM FROM THE SIDE STREETS. THEY'RE VERY PROMINENT. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SOLUTION WHERE MAYBE WE CAN LEAVE THE CENTER, THE CENTER LIGHTS IN THE WAY THEY ARE OR MAKE THEM HIGHER. UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALREADY GONNA BE VISIBLE FROM THE, FROM THE PARK, I THINK. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? SO LIKE THAT VIEW RIGHT THERE IS, IS IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE CREEK. UM, LIKE I SAID, THAT ONE THAT'S REALLY SHOWN IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THE OUTSIDE EDGE. SO THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE COULD REMOVE THAT OUTSIDE EDGE ONES. AND SO EVEN FROM THAT OTHER VIEW, YOU DON'T SEE THE CENTER ONES. IT'S THE OUTSIDE EDGE ONES THAT YOU SEE. WELL, I GUESS I GUESS MORE SPECIFICALLY, MY QUESTION IS IF THOSE ARE REMOVED, DOES THAT MEAN THE CENTER ONES ARE GONNA BE TALLER? BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SLIDE 26, I THINK I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE DOUBLE-SIDED CENTER ONE RIGHT THERE, DEAD CENTER IN THE, IN THE VIEW. AND MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS POSITIONED FROM. THERE'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT OF TO WATCH THE LIVE CAST. YEAH. AND SO WHAT, WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO IS I NEED TO GET WITH MY LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVE TO SEE IF WE KEEP THE SAME HEIGHT IN THE MIDDLE AND JUST ADD MORE OF THEM. AND MAYBE THAT THAT BEAN SPREAD COULD GO FARTHER OUT. I I REALLY, I I, I'D HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT THOSE, YEAH, SO THOSE ARE ALL THE ONES ON THE EDGE RIGHT THERE. UM, AND THEN ALSO IF I CAN ADD TO THIS, IF, YOU KNOW, HAVING PRECEDENT, THERE IS A PARKING GARAGE AT THE OTHER END OF THE CREEK THAT HAS LIGHT POLES THAT ARE JUST AS TALL AND THEY'RE VISIBLE FROM THE CREEK. SO I, I TRULY DON'T, I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME CONDITION. NOW, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UH, CO COREY, I KNOW THIS WENT, THIS CAME BEFORE, UH, COMMITTEE, UM, AND, UH, WE REVIEWED IT. UH, THE, UH, THE APPLICATION, THERE'S, THEY'RE ASKING FOR TWO THINGS NOW. UM, IT COULD BE THAT THE LIGHTING SITUATION IS A RESULT OF THE BUILDING SITUATION. AND, AND I'M KIND OF WONDERING WHY, WHY ARE WE LOOKING AT THE LIGHTING IN THE SAME CONTEXT? WHY ARE WE LOOKING AT ITEM TWO IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS ITEM ONE? 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE ITEM ONE IS A, IS A PRETTY BIG SITUATION, RIGHT? AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WHAT, TWO, 206,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT IS BEFORE US AND THIS COMMISSIONER, IT'S NOT ITEM TWO, IT'S STIPULATION TWO OF ITEM ONE. IT'S THE STAFF STIPULATIONS APPLICANT IS, UH, JUST TALKING ABOUT STAFF. SO APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL. TWO, CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE, RIGHT? AND THEN ITEM TWO, THERE IS SIGNAGE. NOW, NOW, WHEN WE HAD MET, WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE BUILDING IN, IN, IN TERMS OF THE DESIGNED EXISTING BUILDING. THE NEW BUILDING WAS JUST DESIGNED AND IT HAS, UH, CLEAR ATTENTION TOWARD DESIGN. AND THAT THE THING THAT BEGINS TO TAKE PRECEDENT IS THIS BOX THAT NOW COVERS UP THE DESIGNED BUILDING, RIGHT? AND WE, WE HAD, I KNOW THAT IN THE DESIGN, UH, COMMITTEE DISCUSSION, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FLORES SIDE, I GUESS IT IS, UH, OR THE, UH, OR THE SIDE THAT IS TO THE FRONT OF THE NEW BUILDING, NOT THE PARKING LOT, BUT THE NEW BUILDING, BUILDING, UH, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO, TO READ FROM THAT BUILDING AND TO, TO INCORPORATE, UH, UM, DESIGN THAT, THAT, THAT, YOU [01:15:01] KNOW, THAT I IMAGINE THAT WE'RE REVIEWING DESIGN AS WELL. RIGHT. UM, SO IF I, IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, WE HAVE RESUBMITTED OUR, OUR INFORMATION BACK ON THOSE COMMENTS. AND THEN THE RESPONSE BACK, Y'ALL SAID, WE NOW MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON OUR RESPONSES, AND THE ONLY THREE ITEMS THAT WERE STILL OUTSTANDING WERE THE GROUND FLOOR USES THE LIGHTING AND THE FINDINGS. THOSE OTHER ITEMS WERE, UM, WERE APPROVED THAT MET THAT RECOMMENDATION. SO THEN, SO THEN, AM I READING THIS WRONG, CORY? WERE REQUEST APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE, APPROXIMATELY 206,000 SQUARE FEET. YES. THAT'S THE REQUEST. WE REVIEWED IT AGAINST THE RIO STANDARDS. AND SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE STIPULATIONS IS THE OUTCOME OF THAT REVIEW. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS. I JUST THINK THAT THAT IN TERMS OF FINDING A, AN APPROPRIATE LIGHTING SITUATION, THE BUILDING IS STILL BEFORE US. AND, AND MAYBE WHAT IS IMPLICATING THE LIGHTING SITUATION IS THE BUILDING, AND, UH, MAYBE ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE BUILDING LEVEL, NOT AT THE LIGHTING LEVEL. UM, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT CONTINUE WITH ITEM TWO STIPULATIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO THAT? AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST ONE, OH, I GUESS, UH, THE SIGNAGE WAS UNDER ITEM TWO. YEAH. SO THAT ONE, BASICALLY WE, AGAIN, LIKE, LIKE YOU HAD MENTIONED, WE HAD A PREVIOUS MEETING, WE HAD, UM, REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF SIGNS. IF YOU CAN GO TO THAT ONE THAT'S ON, UM, QUINCY, EVEN THOUGH I SHOW THERE'S LIKE TECHNICALLY FIVE SIGNS, BECAUSE EVEN OVER LIKE THE ENTRANCES WHERE YOU DRIVE IN, WE PUT THE WORDS PARKING. I WAS THINKING Y'ALL WOULD CONSIDER THAT A SIGN. SO I WANTED TO SHOW IT. THE TRUE SIGNS ARE THERE'S ONE SIGN THAT WE REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF FOUR S A I S D THAT'S OFF OF, UM, NORTH FLORES, WHICH IS IS YOUR ENTRANCE INTO THE CAMPUS FROM NORTH FLORES. THAT ONE WE REDUCED A THREE FOOT HIGH. THERE'S ANOTHER SS A I S D SIGN THAT'S, UM, ON THE SIDE OF KINGSBURY. WE REDUCED THAT TO TWO FEET HIGH. UM, SO THOSE WERE THOSE TWO. AND THEN THE THIRD SIGN WE'RE CALLING TRULY IS THE SIGN THAT'S ON THAT CORNER FOR QUINCY, UM, FOR THE PARKING GARAGE. SO THOSE WERE TRULY THE THREE SIGNS. AND YES, THEY'RE OVER THE 50 SQUARE FEET, BUT WE WERE FEELING THAT BECAUSE OF THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING, THAT, AND EVEN IN THAT LAST COMMISSIONER, THE MEETING WE HAD WITH OUR DESIGN REVIEW, UM, IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS SECONDARY TO THE BUILDING, THAT IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT OVERPOWERED IT WITH THAT SIZE. WE HAD ACTUALLY THE PARK ON BOTH SIDES. WE REMOVED THAT AND WE PUT PARK ON ONE SIDE. UM, BECAUSE THE, THE REASON WE PUT THE, THE SIGNAGE ON QUINCY IS BECAUSE OUR ADDRESS IS ON QUINCY. SO WE NEEDED TO HAVE OUR SIGNAGE, UM, THAT STATE THE, UM, ACTUAL ADDRESS OFF OF QUINCY. AND SO QUINCY'S THE ONE WAY, SO AS YOU'RE GOING UP, WE HAD IT ON THAT CORNER JUST BECAUSE OF THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU WOULD SEE THAT YOU SEE AS YOU GET INTO THE, UM, THE ENTRANCE ONTO QUINCY. AND SO THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE HAD, UM, THE LARGER SCALE SIGN WAS BECAUSE OF THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. YES, WE DID DISCUSS THE SIGNAGE. UH, WHEN THEY CAME TO D R C, THEY HAD THE VERTICAL PARK, UH, WORD ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS CORNER. AND, UH, FELT THAT SINCE QUINCY'S ONE WAY THAT HAVING THE, THE SINGLE VERTICAL PARK WAS, UH, SUFFICIENT. WE DID TALK ABOUT DELETING THE, THE WORD PARKING, GAR WORDS, PARKING GARAGE ABOVE THE ADDRESS. UH, WE COULD DO THAT. WE COULD TAKE THAT OFF. YEAH. FEELING THAT THAT WAS REDUNDANT. OKAY. WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF. MR. CHAIRMAN. MY FEELING IS, IS THAT WHILE THIS EXCEEDS THE 50 SQUARE FEET, THAT THE, THE SCALE OF THE SIGNAGE IS APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE CONTEXT GENERALLY. AND I ALSO SUPPORT A LITTLE FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE, THE PARKING GARAGE. TEXT, UH, ON THE IMAGE BELOW IS REDUNDANT AND CAN BE REMOVED. OKAY, WE CAN DO THAT. SO, UM, ON THE LIGHTING, I, I'M FINE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONERS ALSO SAID ON THE SIGNAGE. UM, SO THAT COULD BE PART OF A STIPULATION. SO LET'S JUST MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. UM, I HAVE A FEELING, WELL, THE ARCHEOLOGY WILL, THE STIPULATION THAT, YOU KNOW, WILL REMAIN, AND I'M SURE YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THAT ONE. I THINK THAT, UM, THE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL REQUIREMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALSO LEAVE THAT STIPULATION OUT. UM, [01:20:01] MAYBE STAFF WILL JUST REDO. I THINK THEY HAVE TO GET A, SOME KIND OF A ALARM FOR THAT. BUT I, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WON'T BE, UH, SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY VIABLE AND WE'LL PROBABLY. BUT THE LIGHTING, I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FISH. I THINK HE'S GOT SOME GREAT SOLUTIONS, I DON'T THINK IS THE FORUM TO BE DESIGNING LIGHTING. SO MAYBE THIS PROJECT CAN BE APPROVED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE LIGHTING, UH, A LIGHTING SCENARIO BE DEVELOPED. AND I DO FEEL LIKE MORE THAN TALKING TO YOUR LIGHTING GUY, LIKE YOU TALK, UH, GET AN IDEA OF WHAT'S, NOT SO MUCH AROUND THIS AREA, BUT MORE IN THE DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS, HOW THEY HAVE PERFORMED. I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FISH, IT'S MORE ABOUT MAYBE ADDING MORE LIGHTS AND LOWER THEM SO THEY'RE LEAST VISIBLE. UM, EVEN IF THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR HAS VISIBLE LIGHTING. I DON'T WANNA, I, I THINK THAT THE SAN PEDRO CREEK, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT IT'S BECOMING MORE PUBLIC AREA AND MORE ART AREA, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO KEEP, UH, THE LIGHTING AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. AND I THINK YOU CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT. WE CAN LOOK AT IT. YEAH, FOR SURE. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. COMMISSIONER, IS IT, WAS THAT A MOTION? WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO COMMENT ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S JUST HOW I WOULD MOVE FORWARD. I WILL TRY MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A STIPULATION. MOTION TO APPROVE . UH, SORRY, JUST TO STAFF. CAN I, I CAN REMOVE ITEM NUMBER TWO WITH A GROUND FLOORING, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SORT OF RIO. UM, OUR RECOMMENDATION CAN BE WITHOUT THAT STIPULATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO AND GET AN ALLOWANCE FOR THAT POTENTIALLY. UM, OKAY. YES, YOU, YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION, CERTAINLY. AND THEN WE WILL REVIEW IT WITH LEGAL TO SEE WHAT MOST APPROPRIATE STATEMENTS. OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM ONE WITH STIPULATION. STIPULATION. WELL, THE NUMBERS WERE WRONG. IT'S STIPULATION THREE, THE ARCHEOLOGY STIPULATION, AND ANOTHER STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH A LIGHTING DESIGN OR FINAL APPROVE, FINAL PROJECT FOR THE LIGHTING, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM TWO AS DISCUSSED TODAY, WHICH IS REMOVING THE WORD, THE ADDRESS AND THE WORD PARKING ON THE SOUTH FLOORS CORNER, IF I'M CORRECT. WELL, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ADDRESS. IT'S JUST THE FORD PARKING GARAGE, I THINK IS WHAT WE GOT. REMOVING THE WORD PARKING GARAGE. UH, I SECOND THAT. I THINK WE GOT EVERYTHING. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND IN, IN DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN, I, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECT TO, TO LOOK AT THE LENGTH OF THESE, UM, LONG, UH, WALLS AND, UM, TO, TO MAKE A, A MORE, UH, INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO BREAK UP THE DISTANCE, UH, WITH, UM, WITH, WITH SOME, SOME, UH, UH, SOME NODES OF, OF, UH, DIMENSION AND SHADOW, UH, FROM, FROM THE, FROM THE SIMPLEST. UM, I, I, I, WHILE I WOULD SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A WONDERFUL IDEA, WONDERFUL PROJECT TO SERVE BOTH THE PUBLIC AND, UH, THE NEEDS OF THE BUILDING THERE. BUT, UM, I DON'T FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISIONS THAT, THAT ARE GOING, THAT COME BEFORE US AND HAVE BEEN BEFORE US. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A, UH, STORAGE FACILITY THAT WE LOOKED AT YESTERDAY. IT'S NOWHERE NEAR THIS SCALE. AND, AND SIMPLE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT IT'S JUST A FLAT WALL AND, AND THAT THERE SHOULD, THERE SHOULD BE AN EFFORT TO, TO BREAK UP THE, THE CONTINUITY OF A STRAIGHT LINE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ALMOST LIKE A ELEMENTARY, UH, UH, EXPECTATION. UH, SO WHILE I, WHILE I DO, UH, SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, UH, I, I, I DON'T SUPPORT IT AT THIS POINT, UH, TO, TO, TO REPRESENT A FINAL, UH, FINAL FOR, FOR, UM, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UH, SO I, I WON'T BE SUPPORTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY, MOVING ON [19. 20-6153 Address/Description: 1323 FULTON AVE HDRC Case No.: 2020-413 Historic District Name: Fulton Applicant: Paul Tausch/TAUSCH VENTURES LLC Request: Window material amendment, fenestration modifications, porte-cochere reconstruction City Council Dist.: 1] TO ITEM 19 V. ARE YOU THERE? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19, CASE NUMBER 20 24 13 AT [01:25:01] 1323 FULTON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE FOR APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, AMEND THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR FULL WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT TO ALLOW FOR ALUMINUM CLOUD WOOD WINDOWS BY GEM BRAND TWO, PERFORM THE FOLLOWING FENESTRATION MODIFICATION A MODIFICATIONS ON THE EAST SIDE ELEVATION, B MODIFICATIONS ON THE NORTH REAR ELEVATION, C MODIFICATIONS ON THE NORTHWEST REAR CORNER, D MODIFICATIONS TO THE WEST SIDE ELEVATION AND E MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTHWEST FRONT CORNER, AS WELL AS RECONSTRUCT THE PORT SHARE ON THE EAST ELEVATION. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE. THE AMENDMENT OF REPLACEMENT WINDOWS STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WOOD WINDOWS BE INSTALLED THAT MEETS STAFF STANDARDS FOR REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. THE REPLACEMENT WINDOW IS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO STAFF, PRIOR TO, UH, PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO A THROUGH E. BASED ON THE FINDINGS, D THROUGH H STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE ORIGINAL FENESTRATION PROFILES BE RESTORED AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PER SHARE BASED ON FINDING I. THIS WAS REFERRED TO, UH, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH YOU'LL FIND IN FINDING J AND I'LL READ A SUMMARY AT THIS TIME. AT THE OCTOBER 7TH, 2020 HEARING, THE REQUEST WAS REFERRED TO A D R C SITE VISIT. AT THE SITE VISIT CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 13TH. THE TWO ATTENDING MEMBERS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. I WINDOW MATERIAL SUPPORT TO FULLY AMEND FULLY WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT TO ALLOW FOR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW PRODUCTS FOR SIDE AND REAR ELEVATION. WINDOW CONFIGURATION SIZE, LOCATION, AND TRIM ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE CONSIDERATION BELOW TWO WINDOW TRIM. ALL WOOD, ALL WINDOW TRIM SHOULD BE RESTORED TO BRICK MOLDING WITH STUCCO SURROUND INSTEAD OF ONE BY FOUR WOOD TRIM THREE, THE FRONT MOST WINDOWS, THE FRONT MOST WINDOWS SHOULD BE RESTORED TO FEATURE THREE FULL HEIGHT, ONE OVER ONE WOOD WINDOWS INSTEAD OF CONVERTED INTO RAISED CHICAGO STYLE WINDOWS FOUR FRONT PORCH WINDOWS, THE FRONT WINDOWS IN THE PORCH SHOULD BE RESTORED TO FEATURE THREE ONE OVER ONE WOOD WINDOWS INSTEAD OF CONVERTED INTO CHICAGO STYLE WINDOW SET FIVE, THE FRONT DOOR, THE FRONT DOOR SHOULD BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL SIDE FACING LOCATION WITH THE ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR RESTORED. INSTEAD OF RELOCATED OR REPLACED SIX FRONT CORNER WINDOW, THE FRONT MOST SIDE FACING CORNER WINDOW SHOULD BE RESTORED TO A ONE OVER ONE WOOD OR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD. INSTEAD OF FULLY REMOVED SEVEN EAST SIDE HALF WINDOW, THE HALF WINDOW SHOULD BE RESTORED TO A ONE OVER ONE WOOD OR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW INSTEAD OF A SLIDING WINDOW. EIGHT EAST SIDE THREE WINDOWS SET. THE SET OF THREE WINDOWS SHOULD BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL HEAD HEIGHT WITH ONE OVER ONE WOOD OR ALUMINUM CLOUD WOOD WINDOWS. BUT MAIN MAINTAIN THE TWO WINDOW CONFIGURATION. NINE, THE NORTH REAR AND WEST SIDE ELEVATION. FENESTRATION SUPPORT TO APPROVE AS INSTALLED. AND 10 PORTICO SHARE RECONSTRUCTION SUPPORT TO APPROVE RECONSTRUCTION WITH CLOSE ATTENTION PAID TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND UPDATES TO STAFF. I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE HAS AGREED TO, UM, TO THESE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS AND AND PROVISIONS BY THE COMMISSION OR BY TWO, UH, D R C MEMBERS. SO I'LL HAND IT OFF TO, UH, THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE D R C MEMBERS TO COMMENT. PAUL, IF YOU'RE THERE, IF YOU WANNA, UH, HAVE SOME OPENING STATEMENTS. YES. YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. AND, AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR TAKING THE TIME TO REVIEW, UH, MY CASE TODAY. UH, FIRST OFF, LET ME THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER GRUBER AND, UH, CHAIRMAN FESTER FOR MEETING ME, UM, ON THE 13TH. SO I TO TRY TO WORK OUT THESE ISSUES. UM, CONSEQUENTLY, AFTER WALKING THE PROPERTY AND DISCUSSING THE LAYOUTS, I CAME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE REQUESTED CHANGES. SO AS AS STATED, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH ITEMS ONE THROUGH 10 THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE D R C AND, UH, WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT, UH, COMMISSION MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS. YES. UM, THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY PATTY ZIONS, PRESIDENT OF THE KING WILLIAMS, OR SORRY, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED WINDOW REPLACEMENTS ADMINISTRATION MODIFICATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LOST PORTICO SHARE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT OF THE CLAY TILE ROOF. THAT WAS ALSO LOST. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRUB. UM, DO YOU WANNA START CHAIRMAN FETZER, [01:30:01] OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD? UM, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, UH, WE DID MEET OUT WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, COMMISSIONER GRUB AND MYSELF. AND, AND WE, AND THE SUMMARY ON ITEM J WITH THE 10, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE D R C IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED. SO I KNOW THIS IS UNUSUAL FOR THIS, UH, COMMITTEE. I MEAN, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WAS REALLY HARD. I THINK WE WERE OUT THERE ALMOST AN HOUR. UM, WE WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE WINDOW, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE ASKED THIS FOR D R C VISIT BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY ALSO WANTED TO SEE THE INSIDE. ALL THE INSIDE, UM, FRAMING HAS BEEN CHANGED, SO THERE'S NONE OF THE OUT, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL FRAMING IS NOT THERE. SO THIS IS, UM, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ARE COMING TO THIS AGREEMENT. NUMBER TWO, I DO AGREE WITH THE, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. IT IS NOT THE IDEAL SITUATION. UM, IT IS SUCH A LOVELY HOUSE AND GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SOME, UH, THE APPLICANT AND, UH, SOME CONTRACTORS. UM, THEY'RE WAY AHEAD IN THE PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF WANTS TO GO THROUGH THE PICTURES JUST FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO KIND OF, UH, GET AN IDEA. BUT WHAT WE FOCUSED ON WAS ESPECIALLY THE FRONT OF THE HOME, IF YOU WANNA STAY RIGHT THERE. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS REALLY TO RECONSTRUCT MOST OF THE WINDOWS, ACTUALLY, ALL OF THE WINDOWS, THEY'RE VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT, OR ACTUALLY THE FRONT OF THE TWO SIDES AS WELL, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE GETTING THAT, UM, RESTORED TO WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY IN SIZE, ALL THE WINDOWS ARE GONE. UM, SO WE ARE ASKING TO RESTORE MATERIAL. SO WE ARE ASKING WOOD WINDOWS IN THE FRONT, AND WE'RE ALSO ASKING TO RESTORE THE SIZE EXACTLY AS THEY ARE PRESENTED ON THIS PICTURE COMPARED TO WHAT IS, UH, THE NEXT PICTURE DOWN OR ON SLIDE 15, WHICH IS WHAT WE SEE TODAY. SO THEY ARE GONNA HAVE SOME, UH, PUT SOME INVESTMENT INTO THE PROJECT BECAUSE, YEAH, THERE'S BEEN SOME MODIFICATIONS THERE THAT WE WERE NOT MENTION THAT THEY WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY THE PORT SHARES RESTORED AS IT WAS. AND EVERY SINGLE DETAIL WE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE TILES AND THAT ARC THAT'S ON THE PICTURE. THE TILE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE CLAY TILE. WE DID TALK ABOUT ALL THE DETAILS, MAKING SURE THAT WORK WAS STAFF CONSTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S RESTORED AS IT WAS. THE FRONT DOOR, UM, WAS ACTUALLY REMOVED. AND THEY HAVE NOW HAVE, THEY WANTED A FRONT DOOR THAT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT THERE THROUGH THE ARCH, BUT WAS NOT THERE ORIGINALLY. THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR IS STILL INSIDE THE HOME. WE LOOKED AT IT, IT'S IN A GREAT SHAPE. SO WE ASKED, YEAH, WE WENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT TO RE, TO PUT BACK THE, UH, ORIGINAL DOOR IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION RIGHT THERE. SO IT'S MORE AN ENTRY THROUGH THE PORT , I THINK THE APPLICANT. UM, I THINK IT'S A GREAT COMPROMISE, A GREAT CONVERSATION. I THINK THE APPLICANT STILL HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO, BUT, UM, THIS WAY AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT CAN MOVE ON WITH THE PROJECT AND UNDERSTANDS THAT, EH, WE WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER GRU AND CHAIRMAN FETZER'S, UH, PARTICIPATION IN THE D R C. AND I THINK, UH, I THINK IT'S LIKE A, A REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES AND A GOOD SOLUTION HERE. I HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOFING MATERIAL. IS THERE DISCUSSION A ABOUT ROOF MATERIAL REPLACEMENT? I MIGHT BE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT ISSUE. WELL, YEAH, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT, BUT THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY MENTIONED JUST MAKING SURE THERE WAS RED FLAG, BUT THE APPLICANT CAN ALSO RESPOND TO THAT. YEAH, ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR ANY TYPE OF, UH, ROOFING MATERIAL, IT HAS TO BE LIKE KIND MATERIAL, UM, TO TRY TO WHAT IS, UH, CURRENTLY EXISTING. UM, THE ROOF WAS IN DIRE REPAIR. UH, THE HOUSE WAS LEAKING A LOT OF BROKEN TILES, SO, BUT WE ARE GOING TO DO LIKE KIND REPAIR REPLACEMENT. PERFECT. THANKS FOR THAT. UM, LIKE RIGHT HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS PICTURE, WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT LITTLE DETAIL OF A TILE DETAIL RIGHT THERE UP THERE, UM, UH, KIND OF BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE PORT, PUSH AIR, WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE KIND OF DETAILS, MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ARE RE UH, INCORPORATED IN THE NEW PORT PUSH AIR. AND THAT'S, UH, IT'S NOT IN THE DRAWINGS, BUT, UM, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF WILL BE MONITORING IT. GREAT. WELL, I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR ITEMS, UH, ONE THROUGH THREE, UH, WITH THE STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH 10 FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED OCTOBER 7TH, 2020. I'LL SECOND VELASQUEZ. SO WE HAVE A MOTIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND AS NOTED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [01:35:02] ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY, IS [20. 20-6276 Address/Description: 313 N PINE ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-388 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Felix Ziga/Ziga Architecture Studio PLLC Request: Construction of two, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] THIS TO ITEM 20? EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? YES, GO AHEAD. YES. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 88 3 1 3 NORTH PINE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT 3 1 3 NORTH PINE, LOCATED WITHIN THE DIG WITTY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS LOT IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH NORTH PINE AND POTOMAC STREET STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND FINAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL STIPULATIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO A RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ONE, THAT BOTH SETBACKS BE GREATER THAN THOSE FOUND ON THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURES. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT SETBACKS BE MEASURED FROM THE FRONT TO THE STREET BASE OF THE CURB TO ENSURE A UNIFORM MEASUREMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED SETBACK DIAGRAM BE REVISED NOTED. DEEPER SETBACK IS NOTED IN FINDING D TWO, THE FULL-SIZED WINDOWS WITH CORRECT PROPORTIONS THAT'S FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT BEING INSTALLED IS NOTED IN FINDING I THREE THAT'S PROPOSED STANDING SEA METAL ROOFS, FEATURE PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE. THINGS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE STANDARD THEO FINISH IN A CRIMPED REACH TEAM OR LOW PROFILE REACH CAP RIDGE CAP IS USED AND MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PROPOSED SIDING SHOULD FEATURE AN EXPOSURE OF FOUR INCHES TO SMOOTH FINISH, EXCUSE ME, AND THE THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH CORNER TRIM WAS CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED, AND COLUMNS ARE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED TO BE 12 INCHES SQUARE. FOUR, THAT A LANDSCAPING PLAN BE DEVELOPED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS IS NOTED IN FINDING Q AND FIVE THAT A LENTIL SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE BOTTOM PORCHES GABLE. AND ON THE SECOND STORE, EXCUSE ME, ON THE SECOND STRUCTURE IS NOTED IN FINDING JAY, UH, THERE'S A CASE COMMON IN REGARDS TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FOUNDATION INSPECTION, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, STANDING SEA METAL ROOF INSPECTION. UH, I WILL NOTE THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED LATE DOCUMENTS, UH, THAT ARE NOT REFLECTED IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR FINDINGS, UH, THAT WE CAN ALSO PRESENT HER SHOW DURING THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT, UH, FELIX ZIKA, IS ON THE LINE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. UM, WE, UM, RECEIVED STAFF'S COMMENTS AND DID, UH, AS EDWARD HAS STATED, WE DID RESPOND. UM, WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE COMMENTS. UM, THE ONLY ONE THAT WE DO NOT OR THAT WE NEED TO PRESENT IS THE SETBACK, UH, ONE, UM, EDWARD WOULD, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, UH, BASED ON THE OTHER, THE WAY WE ADDRESSED ALL THE COMMENTS, CORRECT? YES. THAT'S, UH, BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, THE SETBACK DOCUMENT IS THERE. THE SETBACK STIPULATION NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED TODAY. OKAY. SO EVERYTHING ELSE WE CONSENT TO AND WE BELIEVE WE'VE ADDRESSED, UM, UH, SUCCESSFULLY, UH, BASED ON STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, IF, IF, UM, IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN SHOW, UM, THE COMMISSIONERS OUR REVISED SETBACK DIAGRAM, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF ITEMS OF WHY WE'RE, WE'RE REQUESTING A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY ON, ON THIS SPECIFIC COMMENT. OKAY. WE HAVE THAT ON THE SCREEN NOW, IT'S JUST DELAYED. YEP. THANK YOU. SO BASED ON, BASED ON OUR SETBACK ANALYSIS, RIGHT? AND, UM, AND ALSO THE, WE WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST, UM, FLEXIBILITY ON THE SETBACK ALONG PINE STREET FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. UM, REASON NUMBER ONE, ONCE WE RECEIVED THE TREE SURVEY, UM, WE, WE, WE ARE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO SAVE, UH, TWO PROTECTED, UH, SLASH HERITAGE TREES, AS NOTED ON, ON BOTH OUR, OUR ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANTS. UM, AND ALSO THIS, UH, REVISED SETBACK DIAGRAM. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S, THERE'S A, A, A CON TREE, UH, BETWEEN BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO, AND THERE'S AN IN AQUA TREE SOUTH OF BUILDING TWO, UM, BUILDING TWO. UH, WE'VE, WE'VE SHIFTED IT AS FAR SOUTH AS POSSIBLE. UM, AND BUILDING ONE, WE'VE SHIFTED IT AS FAR NORTH AS POSSIBLE. UH, TRY AND STAY WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THE LIMITS OF THE HISTORIC SETBACK LINE ALONG POTOMAC. UM, I KNOW WHEN, WHEN, WHEN STAFF BROUGHT UP THIS CONCERN TO US, UM, THEY WERE, THEY WERE TRYING TO GET US TO BE FURTHER SET BACK, UM, THAN THE HISTORIC BUILDING TO THE SOUTH OF US, WHICH IT WOULD PUT US AT, UH, MORE THAN A 25 FOOT, UM, FRONT SETBACK. UM, WE, WE ARE BASICALLY MAXED OUT OF HOW [01:40:01] FAR WE CAN PUSH THOSE, THE TWO STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, TO THE WEST. UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SETBACK ANALYSIS, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR BLOCK FACE, BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, ON, ACROSS THE STREET OFF ATOMIC. SO IF YOU COULD ZOOM OUT, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER HISTORIC STRUCTURE, UM, TO THE NORTH OF US, TWO HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO THE NORTH OF US, WITH ONE WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, SHALLOWER, UH, SETBACK OF 18 FOOT. UM, SO WE DID SOME MATH RIDE AND, AND BASED ON, BASED ON TWO STRUCTURES AT 25 AND ONE STRUCTURE AT 18, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE HISTORIC SETBACK IS 22, AND WE'RE WELL WITHIN THAT, RIGHT? SO WE'RE WILLING TO COMMIT TO PUSH OUR BUILDINGS BACK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, UH, FOLLOWING THE U D C GUIDELINES, WE, WE REALLY CAN'T PUSH 'EM BACK ANY FURTHER WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THAT SIDE SETBACK LINE. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, MOVING THE BUILDINGS BACK FURTHER WOULD, WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT THE FLOOR PLANS AND DIRECTLY IMPACT THE BUILDING PROGRAMS. WE ARE ALREADY AT THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATHS IN, IN A TIGHT 1,421 SQUARE FEET, UH, FOR EACH STRUCTURE. UM, AND, AND AGAIN, RIGHT BASED ON, BASED ON THE, NOT THE, THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH OF US, THE ONE AFTER THAT. SO THAT, I GUESS THE NORTH MOST BUILDING ON THAT SETBACK DIAGRAM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE ONLY 18 FOOT OFF THE, THE, THE CURB VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THE 25 OF THE, OF THE BUILDINGS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH. AND SO OF US. SO THAT, THAT'S OUR, UM, KIND OF OUR POSITION. SO WE'RE TRYING, WE'RE SEEKING FLEXIBILITY ON THE, ON THE SETBACK ALONG PINE STREET, UM, IN EFFORT OF MINIMIZING, UH, THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON ANY TREES. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE, THE, THE CALCULATION WE JUST DID FOR THE AVERAGE HISTORIC SETBACK LINE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, JUST SAYING, HEY, YOU NEED TO BE BEHIND THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES. UH, WE, WE ARE SEEKING FLEXIBILITY ON, IN THIS CASE STAFF. DID WE HAVE COMMENTS? WE DO. UM, THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY MONICA SINO. UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, LATE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF SHOW THAT UNIT NUMBER ONE APPEARS TO HAVE DECREASED FRONT SETBACK ON PINE STREET COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO DISCERN WITHOUT CONSISTENT DIMENSIONS. UNIT NUMBER ONE ALSO SHOWS A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK ON POTOMAC FROM 27 TO 26 FEET. IN RESPONSE TO STAFF STIPULATIONS, UNIT NUMBER TWO SHOWS AN INCREASED FRONT SETBACK OF ONLY SIX INCHES. THIS WILL BE BARELY PERCEPTIBLE ON, ON A TWO STORY HOUSE PER THE GUIDELINES. UNIT TWO SHOULD MINIMALLY ALIGN, ALIGN TO ITS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR AT 3 0 3 NORTH PINE VERSUS APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS RELATING TO HOUSES ON THE NEXT BLOCK. FRONT SETBACKS NEED CAREFUL REVIEW, UH, REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL. THE 24 INCH EXISTING PER SHOWN BETWEEN UNITS ONE AND TWO REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE IT'S . THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. FISH. I, I'VE GOT A QUESTION, UH, FOR MR. ZIGA. UH, CAN, CAN WE ZOOM IN ON THE IMAGE, THE LOWER PORTION OF THIS IMAGE SO I CAN SEE THOSE NUMBERS ON OUR SCREEN? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT. SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. ZIGA ON THE, ON THE, THE, THE FRONT FACE OF THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH MM-HMM. , DO YOU, UH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT SETBACK IS? BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT YOU'RE MEASURING TO A STEP AND NOT THE FRONT FACE OF THE HOUSE? YES, AND THE REASON WE WERE MEASURING TO THE STEP IS BECAUSE WE, WE HAD ASKED STAFF FOR, UM, DIRECTION ON HOW TO MEASURE, UM, THE SETBACK TO OUR PROPOSED STRUCTURES, AND THEY, THEY, THEY REQUESTED WE MEASURE TO THE OUT OUTERMOST PROJECTION OF OUR STRUCTURE, WHETHER THAT BE THE FACE OF THE BUILDING, THE EVE OR THE STEPS. UM, SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE AGAIN, CONSISTENCY, RIGHT? SO WE ARE MEASURING TO THE STEPS, UM, OR OUTERMOST PROJECTION OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UM, KEEPING IN LINE WITH HOW WE'RE GONNA BE MEASURED, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION. I MEAN, I, I'M MORE ACCUSTOMED TO MEASURING TO THE PRIMARY FACE OR FIRST VERTICAL ELEMENT THAN A, THAN A STEP. COULD STAFF ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY TO THAT INTERPRETATION? I WOULD AGREE. UM, I WOULD SAY THE APPLICANT'S TAKEN A BIT OF LIBERTY, UH, STAFF FOR SURE SAID THE FURTHEST MOST PROJECTION. UM, BUT I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS EVER REFERRED TO A, A PORCH STEP AS, UH, A PROJECTION PROJECTION OF MASSING, UH, CORRECT. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROOF FORM THAT PROJECTS PAST THE FRONT WALL OF A STRUCTURE. WELL, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT STATED IN THE GUIDELINES, BUT WE LOOK FOR CONSISTENCY IN THE THING THAT'S BEING MEASURED. SO SOMETIMES IT'S A PORCH, AND SO SOME PEOPLE MIGHT MEASURE THE PORCH, AND THEN THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY READING THE SAME WAY AS A FRONT BUILDING WALL PLANE THAT'S NOT OPEN. AND SO, [01:45:01] UM, SOMETIMES THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN SETBACKS, JUST THAT THING IS BEING MEASURED. SO WE, SO IF, SO IF THERE'S PORCHES ON BOTH THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, WE'LL REQUEST THAT THAT'S SORT OF THE TOUCHSTONE FOR THE SETBACK MEASURE OR THE FRONT YARD. FRONT WALL. YEAH. YEAH. YOU, YOU CUT OUT. I THINK, UM, I, I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT AS WELL, AND BOTH OF OUR PROPOSED STRUCTURES DO HAVE PORCHES. UM, OF, I, ON BOTH LEVELS, THEY'RE STACKED PORCHES. UM, SO ONLY ABOUT 50% OF THE BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY AT THAT OUTERMOST PROJECTION, UM, WHERE THE OTHER, THE OTHER 50% OF THE FACADES ARE, ARE RECESSED. RIGHT. FOR, FOR THOSE DEEP PORCHES, THIS COMMISSIONER GIBBS, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, WELL, NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT PRETTY MUCH A STATEMENT WHEN I AM KIND OF IN AGREEMENT WITH, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT, IT STATED, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DISCERN WITHOUT CONSISTENT DIMENSIONS. SO CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THAT? BECAUSE I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MEASURING TO THE STEPS, MEASURING THE PORCH, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, EDWARD MENTIONED THAT YOU'D PROBABLY TAKEN SOME LIBERTY ON THAT. SO CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR INTENTIONS ON THAT PLEASE? I MEAN, UH, THE LIBERTY WE'VE TAKEN, RIGHT, WAS, UM, IT, IT WAS BASED ON DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY, UM, CONFUSION OR MIS MISINTERPRETATION ON OUR BEHALF, BUT, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE DEFINITELY TRYING OUR BEST, RIGHT? UM, IF THE, UM, AS FAR AS THE PROJECTIONS GO, RIGHT, WE, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE FOOTPRINTS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE ARE GONNA BE IN FRONT OF A COUPLE OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES. WE'RE TRYING TO BASE THE DATA OR THE NUMBERS BASED ON AVERAGE, INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, HEY, YOU NEED TO BE BEHIND HISTORIC STRUCTURES, PERIOD. BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IT, IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS, UM, THE OVERALL FLOOR PLANS AND THE OVERALL ELEVATIONS. YOU KNOW, WE, WE KIND OF HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND NOTHING HAS MATERIALLY CHANGED FROM OUR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL REQUEST. AND THIS FINAL REQUEST, WE'VE CLARIFIED SOME INTENT, WE'VE CLARIFIED SOME DIMENSIONS, UM, THAT DID REQUEST THAT WE MEASURE FROM THE CURB INSTEAD OF FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WE, WE'VE DONE THAT AS WELL. UM, SO WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, IF WE COULD PUSH THE BUILDINGS FURTHER BACK, WE WOULD, BUT WITH THE CURRENT, UM, UH, OR, UM, WITH THE CURRENT, UH, SETUP AND LOCATION, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S REALLY NOT FEASIBLE. UM, WE, WE CAN'T PUSH THEM BACK FURTHER WEST WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THE SIDE SETBACK OF THE PROPERTY. WE, WE DO, WE DO FEEL THE MASSING OF OUR STRUCTURES WILL, WILL HELP SOFTEN, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY KIND OF PROJECTION. UH, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF FEET, RIGHT? UM, SO IT'S, WE'RE HOPING BECAUSE HALF OF OUR MASSES, FRONT FACADE MASSES ARE, ARE PORCHES, THAT, THAT THING HELP SOFTEN THE TRANSITION. UM, AND THEN AGAIN, RIGHT, THE, THE, THE BUILDING, UH, TWO PROPERTIES NORTH OF US, UM, PROJECTS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE, UH, THAN WE WOULD, RIGHT? SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. YOU'RE, THIS IS NOT YOUR FIRST TIME WITH A PROJECT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SAY THAT YOU'VE MISUNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, YOU'VE DONE THIS MANY, MANY TIMES. I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS NOT A REASON FOR YOU HAVING A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH STUFF YOU'VE ALWAYS USED THE SAME, UH, MEASUREMENT. I MEAN, MENTION A GROUP, SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT THE, THE, THE, THE WAY THAT THESE THINGS ARE MEASURED HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. UM, WE USED TO CONSISTENTLY MEASURE THEM TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MEASURE TO THE, TO THE CURB, WHICH IS FINE. UM, BUT IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND, AND IT'S ALSO, IT'S BEEN INCONSISTENT, RIGHT? THERE'S, THERE'S NEW PROCESSES IN PLAY, AND I UNDERSTAND THE, THE INTENT BEHIND THEM, RIGHT? WE, WE, WE WEREN'T DOING SETBACK INSPECTIONS BEFORE. UM, THIS, THIS IS PRETTY RECENT AS WELL. SO WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP IN LINE WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE AND THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. WE, WE FEEL WE'RE DOING THAT. AGAIN, WE CAN'T PUSH THE BUILDINGS BACK ANY FURTHER OR ELSE WE WOULD. UM, SO IT, YOU KNOW, WE THINK WE'RE STILL KEEPING IN LINE, UM, AND, AND THAT THIS IS ADEQUATE, UH, INFILL, UM, FOR THIS PROPERTY. UM, AND BASED ON THE CURRENT DESIGN, RIGHT, LOOKING AT THE DESIGN OVERALL, IT MIGHT HELP IF WE LOOK AT THE FRONT ELEVATIONS OR MAYBE OUR, UM, OUR, OUR SECTION CUT THROUGH THE STREET, UM, TO SHOW THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PORCH MASSING, UM, WHICH, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS GONNA HELP, IS GONNA HELP SOFTEN UP, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL PROJECTION OR ANY PROJECTION CONCERNS THAT WE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE FEET IN FRONT OF, UH, SOME OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES. THIS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, UH, LET ME, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. UH, THE, THE [01:50:01] SETBACK AT THE REAR, HOW DID, HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH A FIVE FOOT MINIMAL SETBACK? HOW, HOW, HOW, UH, WHAT, WHAT RULE ARE YOU USING FOR THE FIVE FEET? ABSOLUTELY, SIR. SO THAT'S BASED ON THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. UM, THE, WE ARE, WE ARE BASING THE PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH THE HOME SPACE, PINE STREET, WE ARE BASING THE PROJECT ON, AND, AND THE ORIENTATION ON THE LOT AS, AS A, AS A LOT THAT FACES POTOMAC, RIGHT? SO OUR, OUR, OUR ZONING FRONT, FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE ON POTOMAC STREET, AND THEN OUR SIDE SETBACKS WOULD BE, UH, GOING PARALLEL WITH PINE STREET. OKAY? AND THEN THE, AND THEN THE, THE SETBACK TO THE SOUTH WOULD BE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE OUR REAR SETBACK, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR DRIVEWAY IS. AND THAT ACTUALLY, THAT DRIVEWAY IS, IS EXISTING. SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE, WE'RE INTERPRETING. I, I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER. I'M LOOKING AT YOUR FLOOR PLAN, AND I, AND I CAN SEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 10 FOOT BEDROOM OR A 12 FOOT BEDROOM OR THAT, THAT, THAT YOU'RE KIND OF BACKED UP AGAINST THE WALL BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ABILITY ORIENTED, OR ONE COULD SAY BECAUSE, BECAUSE MAYBE POTOMAC IS THE RIGHTFUL AIR OF THE, YOU KNOW, OF THE, OF THE ORIENTATION AND, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING TWO HOUSES IN HOUSES. THESE TWO HOUSES ARE ON ONE LOT, OR ARE THEY ON TWO? SO THOSE TWO, THE TWO PROPOSED STRUCTURES WOULD BE ON ONE LOT, UH, LEGAL LEGALLY LOT EIGHT. SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT, UH, INTENDED TO BE SOLD TO ONE OWNER. THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE OR LEASED OR WHATEVER. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? UM, YOU CUT OUT, SIR. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY. SO, SO THEY'RE NOT INTENDED TO BE SOLD AS LIKE TWO HOUSES. UM, THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE SOLD. THEY ARE, THEY ARE SPECULATIVE IN NATURE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT, THAT YOU WOULD THEN LATER HAVE TO, UH, PUT A LINE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM? YOU'D HAVE TO PROPERTY LINE LINEUP? UH, NO, NOT NECESSARILY. UM, THEY CAN BE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY THROUGH LIKE A, A, A TWO UNIT H O A, UH, REGIME. AND THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, HOW WE'VE BEEN, THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN HANDLING SOME OF THESE, UH, PROJECTS IN THE PAST, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE STORAGE DISTRICTS. OKAY. OKAY. BECAUSE IT, JUST IN TERMS OF, UH, WELL, I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT YOU, YOU'RE MAXED OUT IN TERMS OF SPACE, BUT, UM, WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE PRESENTED IN TERMS OF THE SITE, THE, THE, THE OTHER SIDE OF POTOMAC AND THIS SIDE OF POTOMAC, I THINK YOU'RE WITHIN THE REASONABLE, UH, UH, UM, UM, MODULATION, RIGHT OF, OF THE FRONT LINE THAT IN REALITY MM-HMM. , YOU'RE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THERE. IT, IT, IT IS KINDA LIKE WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU HAVE A CROOKED, CROOKED ENVIRONMENT AND YOU HAVE TO DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE, THE LAST THING YOU'RE GONNA DO IS DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT WON'T LOOK STRAIGHT. UH, SO I, I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR ARGUMENT, AND I, YOU KNOW, I, I, IT'S, IT'S USUALLY FRONT FACE OF THE MOST VERTICAL OBJECTS. UH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, I, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UH, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S MOST BENEFICIAL TO LOOK AT IT IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR YOU. I I DON'T, I DON'T JUDGE YOU BASED ON THAT, BUT, UM, BUT, BUT, UH, I, I DO SEE THAT, THAT YOU'RE MAXED OUT, AND I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, UH, TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE LISTENING, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S VIABLE, BECAUSE IF IT, IF IT'S THE SLIGHTEST BIT VIABLE, THEN I THINK IT HIT A SITUATION WHERE THEY EITHER GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND GIVE UP, IT SEEMS LIKE A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, UH, IN BOTH SITUATIONS, OR THAT THE MODULATION THAT'S, THAT'S CREATED IS ACTUALLY ACTUALLY THE MOST CONSISTENT ELEMENT OF THE FRONT LINE OF THE ENVIRONMENT, UM, THAT WITHIN A FOOT, TWO FEET, ONE FOOT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO THAT ONE, THAT REALLY STEPS OUT 18 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO TO, TO ANY MAKER OF A MOTION, I, I WOULD SUPPORT, UH, ENABLING THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE A WELL-DESIGNED PROJECT, UM, UH, IN AN AREA THAT IT'S A LOT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND SOME OF IT, I, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, UH, UH, HOW, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MEETS THE UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS. THIS SEEMS TO BE ONE IN ON, ON PINE THAT IS WELL DESIGNED. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER, UM, LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE BUILDING TWO, UM, THE PORCH AND BALCONY THAT ARE THE 25 FOOT SIX FROM THE CURB, UH, PROJECT, A FOOT AND A HALF BEYOND THE, THE LIVING ROOM WALL. UM, AND I WOULD THINK THAT WITH [01:55:01] SOME, UH, MINOR REDESIGN THAT THIS PORCH AND BALCONY COULD BE DESIGNED SO THAT IT'S EITHER FLUSHED WITH THE LIVING ROOM WALL OR SLIGHTLY BACK FROM THE LIVING ROOM WALL, AND THEREFORE YOU'D PICK UP 18 INCHES OR MORE, UH, CLOSEST TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? UM, COMMISSIONER FETZER, YOU ARE, SIR. UM, I, I CAN, I'D LIKE TO ELABORATE AS TO WHY WE HAVE THAT, UM, 18 INCH PROJECTION. WHY WE, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN IT, UM, THAT, THAT DESIGN FOR THIS HOME IS CRAFTSMAN INSPIRED. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE HOME THAT, UM, WE WERE GIVEN, UM, UH, CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO ACTUALLY KEEP, YOU KNOW, 12 INCH COLUMNS INSTEAD OF THE, THE STATS STIPULATED SIX INCH, UH, SQUARE COLUMNS. AND THE, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ADD ARTICULATION TO THE ELEVATIONS, RIGHT? WE'RE TRYING TO ADD, BREAK UP THE MASSING. UM, THIS, THIS, UM, THIS ACTUALLY, THIS DESIGN IS INSPIRED FOR BY THE HOUSE DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US, AND IT'S, WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW A SIMILAR MASSING SCALE AND PROPORTION. UM, SO EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, IF WE SHAVED THAT BACK AND MADE IT FLUSH, IF WE WOULD GAIN 18 INCHES AND IT, AND IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, LESS OBTRUSIVE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S ALSO LESS OBTRUSIVE ALREADY BECAUSE IT'S OPEN SPACE, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A PORCH. IT'S NOT A HARSH WALL. SO EVEN THEN, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE WALL WITH THE FRONT DOOR, NOT SO MUCH THE, YOU KNOW, THE TWO COLUMNS. UM, AT LEAST THAT'S OUR OPINION. WE'RE AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE, IF WE MAKE IT FLOOD, THEN THE TWO HOUSES START BECOMING MORE AND MORE SIMILAR AND THERE'S LESS, YOU KNOW, DISTINCTION AND ARTICULATION BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES SIDE BY SIDE. SO WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO MAKE THEM, UM, UNIQUE EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR IN FLOOR PLAN. UM, THAT, THAT, THAT, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS TO THAT, UM, IDEA. THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. I, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE, WITH THE, UM, APPLICANT, UM, THIS WAS LITTLE DETAILS, RIGHT? THAT BEING ABLE TO PULL SOMETHING TO, TO GO OVER THE EDGE BEHIND ON, ON THE PORCH IS IT REALLY TAKES SOMEBODY WITH AN EYE TO BE ABLE TO EVEN SEE THAT. 'CAUSE IT, IT OBVIOUSLY, IT, IT JUST MAKE IT FLUSH, PULL IT BACK, BUT YOU LOSE THAT, THAT ELEMENT. UM, BASED ON THAT, I, I, I, I WOULD, UH, LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, FOR APPROVAL AS, UH, SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THREE, FOUR, AND I HESITATE TO SAY BOTH THREE AND FOUR, AND THAT WOULD BE THAT THE ROOF SEEMS MA MEET STAFF'S, UH, UH, APPROVAL AND, UH, LANDSCAPING PLAN IS, UH, SUBMITTED. SO A, A, UH, A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, BUT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE AND FOUR, JUST TO CLARIFY, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT STIPULATION TWO, THE APPLICANT SAID THEY WOULD AGREE TO IT. CAN WE JUST KEEP IT SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE STEP, I DON'T, I DIDN'T SEE THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT JUST KEEP IT, APPLICANT SAYS, COMPLY WITH IT. SURE, SURE. UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP, I, UH, MY MOTION IS, UH, FOR THE MOST PART, BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE ELEVATION, BUT IF, IF, UH, UH, UH, I CAN, UH, ACCEPT THAT FREE AMENDMENT TO, TO MY MOTION AND, UH, THE MAGIC THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, SO FINE WITH IT BECAUSE THEY, THEY WERE SO, OF COURSE, OF COURSE. SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, APPROVAL I SUBMITTED AND I CHANGED THE PAGE HERE. SO IT WOULD BE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. RAISE YOUR HAND. UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY, NAY, NAY, NAY. I THINK, WE'LL, I THINK THAT WAS THREE TO THREE. YEAH, THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS, SO THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS. SO WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION. MOTION TO SEND THIS BACK TO D R C SECOND, DOUG GI. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [21. 20-6249 Address/Description: R-O-W near 502 BONHAM HDRC Case No.: 2020-457 Public Property: Right-of-way Applicant: Lourdes Mendoza/Extenet Systems Request: New network wood pole installation City Council Dist.: 1] NAY. ITEM 21, [02:00:02] WE ARE YOU THERE? ITEM NUMBER 21, CASE NUMBER, CASE NUMBER 20 24 57. AT, UH, RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 5 0 2 BOTTOM. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL A NEW POLE FOR NETWORK NODE EQUIPMENT AT THE SUBJECT COORDINATES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 5 0 2. BOTTOM STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW NETWORK NODE POLE BASED ON FINDING D SEPARATION BETWEEN EXISTING POLES. IF THE COMMISSION IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL NETWORK NODE EQUIPMENT IS PAINTED, MANUFACTURED, OR SCREENED TO MIMIC THE POLE COLOR IF APPROVED, THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY. APPROVAL FROM THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION DOES NOT OMIT OR SUPERSEDE ANY ADDITIONAL PERMISSIONS REQUIRED BY C P S ENERGY OR RELATED PERMITTING CITY DEPARTMENT, UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR REFERENCE, UH, ONE OR TWO POLLS WERE TWO BRAND NEW POLLS WERE APPROVED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THIS POLL COMES TO US, UH, ON THE INDIVIDUAL AGENDA BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UM, TO PROTEST FOR KEEPING THE LOCATION AS, UH, AS PROPOSED RATHER THAN RELOCATING OR CONSIDERING, UH, CO-LOCATING ON AN EXISTING POLE. FOR YOUR REFERENCE, THE BEST, UH, PHOTO OF THIS IS ON SLIDE 13 OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AND I DO HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT, JOE MOLINE ON THE LINE ON, UH, REPRESENTING MO, UH, REPRESENTING XNET. JOE, IF YOU WANNA OPEN, UH, WITH SOME COMMENTS. UH, YES. HUG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TO, TO PRESENT OUR CASE HERE. UH, WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S, UH, WORK ON THIS. UM, THE REASON WE ASK FOR THIS ONE FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION, UM, AS HE INDICATED THERE ONLY ONE FINDING OF NINE THAT COULDN'T BE MADE WERE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. UH, BUT I DID WANNA REPORT TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE DID REALLY DO AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH OF, UH, POLES AROUND THE AREA. AND BECAUSE OF C P SS ENERGIES, UM, RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON WHICH POLES WE CAN CO-LOCATE ON, UM, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, UM, ON ANY OF THE NEARBY POLES, UH, IN THIS AREA. SO THAT, THAT LEFT US WITH A CHOICE OF JUST PLACING A NEW POLE. UM, WE WERE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, OUR PREFERENCE AND OUR FIRST PREFERENCE ALWAYS IS TO CO-LOCATE AND USE AN EXISTING POLE. IT IS OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT CLEANER, AND IT'S A DEFINITELY A LOT CHEAPER TO DO. UM, SO, SO GIVEN THAT WE DO AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO APPROVE IT, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM PAYING IT TO MATCH. UH, WE ALSO ADD, AND WE CAN ADD A MASS ARM IF NECESSARY, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A STREETLIGHT ADJACENT TO IT THAT, UH, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT ANOTHER LUMINAIRE THERE. UM, AND WE DID LOOK AT SEVERAL LOCATIONS TO PLACE THIS, THIS NEW POLE TO TRY TO GET THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE REALLY, THE ONLY FEASIBLE AREA WOULD BE AROUND THE CORNER, BUT THAT WOULD PLACE THE POLE IN FRONT OF WHAT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS ALREADY THERE, AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BE FACING THE GARAGE OF THE HOTEL RATHER THAN FACING TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS. SO, UM, I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT THOSE ARE THE REASONS WE CANNOT CO-LOCATE AND THEN WHY WE SELECTED THIS LOCATION, AND AGAIN, WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO APPROVE THAT IS CHAIRMAN VELASQUEZ. I GOT A QUESTION. UH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THIS, THIS, UH, APPARATUS DOES? WHY, WHY IT'S NEEDED? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. THIS IS, SO THIS IS A, UH, SMALL FIBER BASED SMALL CELL NODE, UH, FOR, FOR WIRELESS, UH, COVERAGE AND CAPACITY. UM, WE ARE A NEUTRAL HOST BUILDER. WE BUILD FOR, FOR ALL THE CARRIERS, BUT THIS ONE HAPPENS TO BE OUR ANCHOR TENANT OF T-MOBILE. OKAY. SO THIS IS TO PROVIDE WIRELESS COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, CURRENTLY FOUR G, BUT IT IS GONNA BE READY TO GO FIVE G AS WELL. AND, AND IF, IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS NOT APPROVED, WHAT OPTIONS DO YOU ALL HAVE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THAT, UH, ADVANCEMENT IN YOUR TECHNOLOGY BESIDES PULSES? UH, UNFORTUNATELY, YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS AREA, WE DON'T HAVE HAVE MUCH. UM, THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE ASKED, WE'RE COMING HERE, UM, TO, TO SPEAK TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, DENIAL. UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE HISTORIC COMMISSION AND WE, WE WANT TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS. UM, TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THERE WERE TWO OTHERS THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS. SO WE END PULLING THOSE FROM, FROM THE CALENDAR AND WE'RE GONNA SEEK OUT THOSE ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS. WE'RE, WE'RE COMING TO YOU FOR THIS ONE IS WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICES. LIKE I SAID, WE CAN MOVE THE POLE AROUND THE CORNER, UM, TO GET THE SEPARATION REQUIRED, BUT IT WOULD BE, AGAIN, IN FRONT OF, UH, POTENTIALLY TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS. UM, SO, SO WE'RE REALLY LIMITED AT THIS LOCATION. UM, AND IF NOT, WE WOULD JUST, WE WOULD, UH, WE WOULD LOSE COVERAGE AND, AND, UH, IN THIS AREA. AND, AND WOULD, WOULD IT, [02:05:01] WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT IT WOULD MEAN THE INTRODUCTION OF YET ANOTHER POLL OR, YES, SIR. UM, IT, IT WOULD BE THE INTRODUCTION OF ANOTHER POLL. AGAIN, IT'S, THAT'S NOT OUR FIRST CHOICE, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITATIONS PLACED ON US BY C P S ENERGY, WE CANNOT USE THAT ADJACENT POLE RIGHT THERE. WE COULDN'T EVEN USE THE ONE FURTHER DOWN THE LINE AS A TRANSFORMER ON THIS. SO, UM, THEIR, THEIR STANDARDS AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE, ARE SOMEWHAT RESTRICTIVE. AND IN THIS LOCATION THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO EXISTING POLE THAT WE COULD USE. OOPS, SIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FITCH. UM, I'M, I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THESE AT THIS POINT. UH, I KNOW WE HAD A BIG BATCH THAT WE NEEDED TO TALK MORE ABOUT. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR STAFF ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY OF THIS LOCATION FOR THE PILOT PROGRAM, THE GREEN LIGHT PILOT PROGRAM? YES. SO, UH, ELIGIBLE, SO I BELIEVE THE POLE THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN, THE GREEN ONE THAT WOULD BE UP FOR REPLACEMENT WAS ACTUALLY, UH, CLAIMED BY MODUS VERIZON IN THE PREVIOUS PATCH REFERRED TO D R C. OKAY. SO THAT, THAT GREEN POLE IS ALREADY, UH, ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR, UM, UH, A NODE REPLACEMENT UNDER, UNDER THE, THE PILOT PROGRAM. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE NODES WERE TO ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE CARRIERS FOR THE POLE? NO, FOR, UH, FOR, FOR THAT SPECIAL PROVISION, IT WOULD BE, UH, ONE PROVIDER PER POLL. SO THERE WAS A SEPARATE, UH, CITY PROCESS IN WHICH PROVIDERS WERE ABLE TO CLAIM POLLS AHEAD OF TIME PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN CONVERSATION. OKAY. SO, SO I MEAN, THE REASON, THE REASON WHY WE, WE'VE SPENT A FEW YEARS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS IS BECAUSE WE KNOW WE NEED, UH, FIVE G SERVICE AND WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO MINIMIZE, UH, STREET SCAPE AND SIDEWALK CLUTTER. UM, I THINK THAT A DIFFERENT LOCATION NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. THIS IS FAR TOO MANY ADDITIONS HERE, GIVEN THAT THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN OTHER, OTHER APPLICATIONS IN THIS SECTION OF RIGHT AWAY, I CAN'T IMAGINE HAVING THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT KINDS OF, UH, UH, POLES WITH MAYBE LUMINAIRES ON THEM HAPPENING AT OUR, AT OUR INTERSECTIONS SO I WOULD SAY I AGREE WITH STAFF AND WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER FISH. THIS IS A BIGGER, UH, PROBLEM AND I THINK THE APPLICANT MAYBE SHOULD TAKE IT UP WITH THE CITY. WHAT IS PROPOSED IN OTHER CITIES AND WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN LENGTHY AS WELL IS TRYING TO FIND A WAY FOR ALL THESE PROVIDERS TO FIND A WAY TO KIND OF JOIN IN TOGETHER. 'CAUSE OTHERWISE, YES, WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH THREE DIFFERENT POLES WITH THREE DIFFERENT CARRIERS. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WELL, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT ACCEPTABLE ALL ON ONE CORNER. YEAH. COMMISSIONER, THIS IS, UH, JOE WONG AGAIN, EX TO THAT. I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS AND UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE THING THAT'S VERY FRUSTRATING FOR US AS WELL, BECAUSE AS EX THAT SYSTEMS, UM, WE ARE A NEUTRAL HOST COMPANY, SO WE DO HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF CO-LOCATING MULTIPLE ON US, BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STATE LAW, UH, WAS WRITTEN, UH, AND THE CARRIER'S PREFERENCES TO SELF-PERFORM, UH, THEY PREFER TO HAVE THEIR, THEIR OWN POLLS. UM, SO A AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND AND IS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY LOOK AT, UH, THE PILOT PROGRAM GOING CATTY CORNER OR ACROSS THE STREET TO A DIFFERENT STREETLIGHT AND A DIFFERENT CORNER. WITH THAT, UM, ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS IF YOU LOOK TO PLACE THE POLE IN A DIFFERENT CORNER, BECAUSE WE DO NEED THIS GENERAL INTERSECTION COVERED, UH, BASED ON WHERE IT IS IN THE, IN THE HOTEL. THIS IS CHAIR, THIS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UH, SINCE WE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER, UH, SIMILAR CASES ON THE D R C, COULD WE PUSH THIS ONE TO D R C AND CONSIDER IT WITH THE OTHERS? AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE APPLICANT CAN LOOK AT, UH, POSSIBLE OTHER LOCATIONS IN AT THIS INTERSECTION, OR MAYBE A DENIAL IS BETTER FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, TO KIND OF FURTHER DISCUSS THIS WITH CITY, I THINK EITHER WAY, IF THERE'S INTEREST IN THE APPLICANT AND ATTENDING A D R C TO DISCUSS OPTIONS, THAT WOULD STILL BE AN OPTION. EVEN DENIAL. AND WITH A DENIAL, IT WILL STILL BE AN OPTION, CORRECT? SURE, YEAH. I TO DENY. COMMISSIONER GIS, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DENIAL. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. UH, ABSTAIN. ALL OPPOSED. [02:10:01] RAISE YOUR HAND. UNMUTE AND SAY NAYYY. NAYYY, I BELIEVE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [22. 20-6225 Address/Description: 415 HAYS ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-448 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Juan Fernandez/CVF LLC Request: Construction of 3, two story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] A ITEM 22 EDWARD. A FOUR 15 HAY AGENDA ITEM 22 H D R. GO AHEAD, EDWARD. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22 H D R, EXCUSE ME. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24 48 4 15 HAYES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THREE, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LIGHT AT FOUR 15 HAYES LOCATED WITHIN THE DIG WITTY HILL. HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. WHILE STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MASSING OF THE SOUTHERN STRUCTURE TO BE APPROPRIATE, STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONFIRM THAT THE SETBACK OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE FRONTING HAY STREET SHOULD BE GREATER THAN THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF FINDS THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WHEN THAT THE APPLICANT UTILIZED FOUNDATION AND FLOOR HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES IS NOTED IN FINDING I THROUGH THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT RESULT IN A UNIQUE DESIGN FOR EACH STRUCTURE IS NOTED IN FINDING M UNIQUE MATERIAL PROFILES, PAINT COLORS, ROOF FORMS, FENESTRATION PROFILES, AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS SHOULD ALL BE CONSIDERED. THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT ADHERE TO THE MATERIALS AND WINDOWS STANDARDS NOTED IN THE APP, IN THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS AND IN FINDINGS, K AND L, UH, FOUR, THAT THE APP THAT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WIDTH BE REDUCED TO NO MORE THAN 10 FEET IN WIDTH. FIVE, DID A LANDSCAPING PLAN BE DEVELOPED AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS? AND SIX, THAT REDUCE MASSING IS PROPOSED FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD STRUCTURES TO FOLLOW THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOUND THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT OF SECONDARY AND THE ARY STRUCTURES FEATURING THE REDUCED MASSING IN COMPARISON TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE LINE, HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, ONE FERNANDEZ OF C V S HOME, C V F HOMES ON THE LINE? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, WE HAVE THIS PROJECT, UH, WE HAVE THREE HOMES WITH TWO STORIES, AND WE'RE ALIGNING THE SETBACKS WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UH, WE'RE, WE AGREE WITH SOME OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF, UH, SUCH AS, UH, REDUCING THE, THE DRIVEWAY. WE AGREE. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS THAT YOU ONLY SEE ONE HOME FROM THE, FROM HAY STREET, WHICH WOULD BE, UH, THE MAIN STREET. HOWEVER, WE ALSO WANT TO CREATE ON THE ALLEY, THE ALLEY'S GONNA BE IMPROVED, SO THE ALLEY HAVE SOME CHARACTER THROUGH THE HOUSE THAT IS GONNA BE FACING THE ALLEY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE, WE WERE PROPOSING FOR THAT HOUSE TO HAVE A, AN, AN, UH, PORCH AS WELL, A FRONTAGE TOWARDS THE ALLEY. UH, WE SPOKE TO THE, UH, BIG NORTY HILL HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH, WITH DID ASSUME MEETING WITH THEM. AND THEY HAVE A FEW COMMENTS THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED AND, UM, THAT, AND MAINLY IT'S ON THE MAPPING. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS, I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE THAT UP FROM HAY STREET, YOU ONLY SEE ONE HOUSE. UH, WE WILL NEED TO PLAY, UH, WITH MAYBE THE ROOFS AND SOME OTHER, THE STUFF ON THE STRUCTURES TOWARDS THE BACK, UH, FROM HAYES TO MAKE THEM LOOK LESS, UM, UM, I MEAN TO, TO, TO, SO THEY DON'T, DON'T LOOK AS BIG FROM THE STREET. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS. YES, WE DO. UM, THE FIRST IS FROM MONICA SINO, WHO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, ESPECIALLY AS THEY RELATE TO BUILDINGS TWO AND THREE. THE TWO REAR BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE GREAT REDUCED MASSING, HISTORICALLY SECONDARY AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OF THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE NUITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT FEATURE REDUCED MASSING, HISTORIC CONFORMING MASSING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN INFILL. UM, THAT LOOKS LIKE A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE NEXT COMES FROM PAT ZIONS, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED CARPORTS SETBACKS AND IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE APPEAR TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE FOUND IN DIGNITY HILL. THE INTEGRATED CARPORTS AND IDENTICAL MASSING CONTRIBUTE TO AN OVERWHELMING VISUAL IMPACT, THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF HOMES FOUND IN THIS DISTRICT. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, SO YOU'RE ASKING CONCEPTUAL AND I MEAN, UH, I THINK THAT THE STIPULATIONS IS THAT HAVE WE CAN KEEP THOSE BECAUSE I MEAN IT IS, UH, ON THE CONCEPTUAL SIDE. IS THAT BECAUSE, AND I GUESS IT'S ONE OF THE COMMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS IT, UH, THREE DIFFERENT LOTS? ARE WE TAKING THIS [02:15:01] AS ONE LOT AND THEN WE'RE CONSIDERING MAYBE THE MIDDLE PROPERTY AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE, TO THE ONE ON FAY AND HAY? WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF, UH, PROJECTS THAT HAVE THAT FA HAY FACING. SO I GUESS THAT'S THE THING IS, YOU KNOW, AN ALLEY IS BECOMING A STREET. SO I GUESS THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU HAVE BUILDING THREE FACING FAME. RIGHT. AND WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO, NO. SO JUST MY QUESTION IS, IS YOU GONNA USE THIS AS THREE DIFFERENT LOTS OR IS IT ONE LOT? NO, IT'S, THESE ARE THREE DIFFERENT LOTS. AND THERE'S A, A PROJECT RIGHT IN FRONT OF US, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS THE SAME. THERE ARE FOUR, ACTUALLY FOUR UNITS THAT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE, MAYBE THE SAME, IT WAS ON THE SAME WAY, SO THAT THE FRONT STRUCTURE KIND OF COVERS THE, THE REAR STRUCTURES. EVEN THOUGH THE FOUR, THE FOUR STRUCTURES, UH, ARE, ARE THE SAME SIZE, THESE LOGS, UH, HAS, UH, TOPOGRAPHICALLY DROPS TOWARDS THE ALLEY. SO EVEN IF THE, EVEN IF THE STRUCTURES ARE ABOUT THE SAME, THEY WILL, UH, COME DOWN BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE, THE NATURE OF THE LOCK. YEAH. SO NORMALLY IT WOULD REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION FOR CONCEPTUAL, BUT I THINK THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS, AND IT IS TRUE, UH, THE PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROJECT WHERE YOU, WHERE IT WAS LIKE THREE HOMES, RIGHT. UM, ALSO, UH, BEHIND EACH OTHER. AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE A REALLY GOOD, NICE PROJECT. UM, THIS IS RIGHT WHEN YOU COME DOWN FROM THE BRIDGE. SO, AND I ALSO FEEL LIKE STAFF HAS A STIPULATION WITH A SETBACK, BUT IT'S, I DON'T THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN ANYWHERE WHERE IT SAYS ACTUALLY WHERE YOU'VE MEASURED THE SETBACKS OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU COMPLY WITH IT. SO THAT'S A STIPULATION THAT CAN SAY, AND THIS IS CONCEPTUAL AND IT SEEMED LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONFORMING WITH ALL THE STIPULATIONS. I MEAN, COULD WE MOVE 'EM AND SAY, WE, WE, WE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE WITH ALL STIPULATIONS AND THEN GO TO A D R C WHERE WE KIND OF DISCUSSED THE MASSING AND THE SETBACKS. I, I WOULD SECOND THAT IF IT WAS A MOTION. WAS THAT A MOTION COMMISSIONER GROOVE? I JUST WANTED TO SEE, UH, WAIT AND SEE IF I HEARD ANY OTHER COMMENTS. UH, YES, I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH ALL STIPULATIONS. AND, UH, CAN I MOVE THIS TO D R C? WELL, I COULD JUST RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT TO, UH, REQUEST A D R C MEETING FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. I THINK YOU CAN, UH, REQUIRE THAT, UM, THE D R C OCCUR PRIOR TO A APPLICATION. YEAH, SO, UH, WITH THE D OR, AND I MOVED TO, UH, ASK THE APPLICANT TO GO TO D R C BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL. AND COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, YOU SECONDED? DO I HEAR A SECOND? OH, OH, I SECONDED. YEAH, I WAS ON MUTE. I'M SORRY. . OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UH, I DO WANNA, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. AT THIS POINT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I THINK THERE'S STILL TOO MUCH INFORMATION MISSING SUCH AS, UH, BUILDING ELEVATIONS OR SECTIONS SHOWING HEIGHT, UH, THE CONTEXT SHOWING THE, UH, SETBACKS, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE STIPULATIONS. UM, I THINK THERE'S JUST NOT QUITE ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE FOR ME TO SUPPORT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE ONE, UH, WE HAVE ONE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS ALL THE SETBACKS AND ALSO THESE ARE GONNA BE LOWER THAN NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS IN, I WAS IN THE IMPRESSION THAT THE, THAT THE MOTION WAS TO MOVE IT TO D R C NOT FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. WELL, I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THE MASSING, TALK ABOUT ALL THE STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF HAVE THERE. I THINK WHAT I'M, WHEN I, WHEN WE SEE CONCEPTUAL AND WE'VE SEEN SOME CONCEPTUAL, AND I THINK THAT WITH THIS APPLICANT, I FEEL CONFIDENT TO DO A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY, I MEAN, FOUNDATION FLOOR, I THINK WHAT WE CAN REALLY DECIDE IS CONCEPTUALLY, OKAY, APPROVE THREE HOMES AND THEN LET'S MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT ALL THESE STIPULATIONS. THE REASON ALSO WHY I DO GO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CONCEPTUAL IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID THE PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET AND WORKED OUT REALLY WELL. UM, HE IS TALKED WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH HE ALWAYS DOES. THIS IS NOT HIS FIRST PROJECT IN THE NUITY. UM, AND THAT'S JUST THE REASON WHY I'D SAY, YOU KNOW, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, THEN HE CAN, UH, MOVE ON WITH, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DESIGNING THIS PROJECT AND, UH, TO THE APPLICANT. WHAT CHAIRMAN FETZER [02:20:01] IS SAYING IS HE WANTS TO SEE SETBACKS MEASURED. WHERE'S THE, YOU KNOW, TELL US WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES, THEIR HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, SHOW US ALL THAT IN DRAWINGS. AND I FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES WE'RE ASKING FOR A LOT BEFORE CONCEPTUAL AND I THINK THAT HE JUST NEEDS THAT GREEN LIGHT FOR THE CONCEPTUAL TO MOVE ON TO DO ALL THESE, UH, ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. WELL, AND COMM COMMISSIONER GROUP WITH RESPECT TO THAT. AND, AND MY SECOND LOOK, ONE, ONE OF THE REASONS ON, ON ME, MY SECOND IS THAT I, I'M NOTING THE 24 FOOT DIMENSION. SO I, I HEARD THE COMMENTS ABOUT MASSING AND ALL OF THAT, BUT PRACTICALLY THESE ARE PETITE ALREADY, RIGHT? THERE MIGHT BE BIG PETITES, BUT THEY'RE PETITES. SO, UM, WHILE IT, WHILE I WOULD, YOU KNOW, IT WAS TO MOVE IT TO D R C, I THINK, I DON'T THINK THAT IT CHANGES, UM, UM, UH, UH, PROACTIVE OUTCOME, UH, AS YOUR MOTION STANDS. I WOULD STILL, I THINK I COULD STILL SECOND THAT BECAUSE I'M, I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THE THINGS, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I MEAN THAT'S ALSO GETTING USED TO THIS IDEA THAT THE FRONTAGE IS, UH, ON A, ON A, A, A PERPENDICULAR TO THE FRONT OF THE, OF THE, OF THE, WHERE THE STREET IS AND THAT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A SIDE YARD AS A REAR YARD. I'M NOT USED TO THAT. UM, BUT CONSIDERING THE LAST CASE THAT WE HAD, APPARENTLY THERE'S A, A TREND GOING ON, UH, THAT THAT IS, UH, UH, OKAY. UM, CON CONSIDERING WITH, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE MASSING, I'M NOTING THE 24 FOOT WITH, AND NOT ONLY ON THE SIDE, BUT IN THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE, THEY SEEM TO BE LIKE 24 BY 24. SO I WOULD STILL SUPPORT YOUR MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP. UH, SO I WOULD SECOND ANYWAY. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I, I, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, UH, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, MODERATING THE MASS IN THE REAR TWO STRUCTURES AND STAFF STIPULA STAFF STIPULATION POINTING TO THAT, UH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE THE PROJECT TO EVOLVE A LITTLE BIT AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D BE LOOKING FOR, UH, AT THE D R C OR WHENEVER THIS MAKES IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, MOTION A SECOND FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND, UM, SENDING THIS TO A D R C. UM, I ASSUME I GOT THAT CORRECT. UM, SO ALL IN FAVOR. UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY, NAY, NAYYY. I BELIEVE IT WAS FOUR TO TWO. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SO I BELIEVE CASE NUMBER 23 HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY THE APPLICANT? THAT'S CORRECT. [Approval of HDRC Meeting Minutes for October 7, 2020.] SO WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 7TH. MOTION TO APPROVE MADE MINUTE MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 7TH. SECOND. SECOND. UH, ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YEAH. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.