Historical and Design Review Commission Meeting – July 2, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Historical and Design Review Commission Meeting – July 2, 2025
The Historical and Design Review Commission met on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, to consider five agenda items. The meeting was called to order with a quorum present. The commission approved the consent calendar, heard public comment, and deliberated on two contested cases involving modifications to properties in local historic districts.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes from the June 18, 2025 meeting.
- Approved three items on consent, including a matter concerning 1900 Airport Boulevard (details not individually discussed). Public comment was received from the San Antonio Conservation Society urging preservation and compliance with Section 106 review for the airport project.
Public Comments & Testimony
- San Antonio Conservation Society (via letter read aloud): Urged the city to maintain the historic structure at 1900 Airport Boulevard, incorporate it into the new terminal design, and ensure Section 106 review minimizes impact to historic properties.
- Barbara Woodhall (Magnolia Avenue District representative): Submitted a letter supporting staff recommendations for 838 Magnolia Avenue, commending staff for protecting historic district integrity.
Discussion Items
Item 4 – 838 Magnolia Avenue (Case 2025-158)
Applicant Michael Salazar and his representative requested approval to add a rear room, replace wood windows with double-pane aluminum windows, alter the front door configuration, and remove a secondary door. Staff recommended approval with stipulations:
- Allow the addition up to 250 square feet, with a roof height subordinate to existing and a cementitious finish distinguishable from the historic structure.
- Windows: Staff recommended repairing existing wood windows rather than replacing with aluminum; the proposed aluminum units did not meet historic specifications.
- Doors: Staff recommended against filling the two front doors, instead maintaining the historic two-door configuration (one original, one a later addition) and repairing them.
Applicant argued that the windows are inefficient and need replacement, that the secondary door is not original (based on framing evidence), and that filling the door opening with stone would create a cleaner look. During deliberation, commissioners noted:
- The existing wood windows are largely repairable; energy efficiency can be improved with storm windows or weatherstripping.
- The two-door configuration appears historic per Sanborn maps, and the addition of a stone infill would remove a character-defining feature.
- The roof of the proposed addition should be redesigned to avoid a prominent peak visible from the street.
A motion was made to continue the item to a site visit to examine the doors, windows, and roof design in person. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
Item 5 – 293 Lovera Boulevard (Case 2025-153)
Applicant Jocelyn (appearing virtually) sought approval to:
- Fill two side doors with stone to match existing stone veneer.
- Replace the roof with metal (later retracted; will use tile shingles).
- Install a 4-foot-high metal fence in front.
Staff recommendations:
- Doors: Not approve filling both doors; instead, replace the farthest door with a window (since it appears to be a later addition) and retain the middle door as original.
- Roof: Approved per general metal roof guidelines (applicant withdrew metal request, will use tile).
- Fence: Continue until a site plan and fence design are submitted.
Applicant argued both doors were added later (framing evidence) and that filling them with matching stone would improve aesthetics. Commissioners noted that Sanborn maps show both doors as original, and removing them would be contrary to preservation guidelines. A compromise was suggested: retain the doors in place (sealed from inside) or replace the farthest door with a window. The commission approved the motion as modified:
- Deny the request to fill both doors; if the applicant returns with a proposal to replace the farthest door with a window meeting window standards, that may be considered.
- Continue the fence item to the next meeting pending submission of a site plan.
Key Outcomes
- Consent calendar: Approved unanimously.
- Item 4 (838 Magnolia Ave): Continued to a site visit (date to be scheduled by staff); applicant must work with staff on window repair options, roof design, and door retention.
- Item 5 (293 Lovera Blvd):
- The request to fill both side doors was denied. The applicant may return with a plan to replace the farthest door with a window.
- The metal roof request was withdrawn; tile roof will follow general guidelines.
- The fence request was continued to the next available meeting pending a site plan showing fence location and simple design.
- Voting tallies for both contested items were unanimous (9-0).
- No permits were issued; certificates of appropriateness will be prepared following final approvals.
Meeting Transcript
Buenas tardes, hoy es miércoles dos, vamos a empezar con la lista, pasando la lista, aquí es Galloway, Givara aquí, Cervantes Holland, aquí tenemos quórum. Tenemos aquí servicios de interpretación, por favor. Sí, buenas tardes. If anybody needs interpretation en Spanish, please pas to the cabinet. So you can get your devices. Gracias. La comisión de histórica y de diseño y revisión es un consejo. Soy el consejero y es la parte de la comisión, el poder darle consejo a la al administrador de la ciudad para hablar de todos los permisos y de las propiedades en los distritos históricos para propiedades para poder mejorar la construcción de las demoliciones. Y considerando lo que se está considerando como aprobación o desaprobación o apropiedad, que sea apropiado o no, se hacen códigos específicos y lineamientos para poder tener los estándares para poder estar a nivel de el consejo en la apelación de las decisiones. Pueden ser seguidas con el código en la ciudad. Si alguien presente quisiera hablar a favor o en contra de cualquier de los temas de la agenda del día de hoy, por favor, hágalo en una hoja común. No es necesario que se registren si son los que están con los temas específicos en la agenda. Se les va a llamar cuando sea apropiado. No les van a dar más de quince minutos para presentar su caso con adicionales dos minutos para contestar a los pre a los comentarios del público. Y se van a limitar a dos minutos cada uno. También los participantes pueden hablar y anotarse para hablar más. Cualquiera que esté acabando su tiempo tiene que estar presente cuando el presentador esté hablando. Los presentadores van a estar llamados en el tiempo en el que se hayan apuntado. Después cualquiera de los comisionados pueden hablar a cualquiera de los presentadores para contestar cualquier pregunta. Y no sé, no se obtiene ningún tipo de permiso desde aquí. Si hay apropiedad, si es algo apropiado, se le mandaría en por un correo por diez días. Ningún trabajo debe empezar sin obtener el permiso adecuado de la ciudad después de un certificado de que sea apropiado por preservación histórica. En este momento, por favor, silencien sus correos, sus celulares. Gracias y buenas tardes, comisionados. En este momento nada más queremos las minutas de el 18 de junio. Sí, presidente, hablamos para poder hablar de junio dieciocho, veinticinco. Sí, segundo. Alguna otra discusión específica. Queremos una pasar lista. Roman, ay. Sabina, ay. Calloway. Yo. Guevara. Ay. Group. Holland. Ay. Ay. Fetcher, yo. Y Gibbs. También. La moción continúa. Gracias. Entonces, si ahora pueden llevar la atención a la pantalla, donde nada más tenemos cinco temas el día de hoy. Los primeros tres son consentimiento. Y si tenemos un mensaje de correo donde vamos a ponerlo en este momento. El primer tema, el 1900, del aeropuerto del boulevard. Tienen un área de la sociedad de conservación. Se hace para el tema 2023, aunque haya sido excluido por trabajo.
openpublica.com