Good morning, everyone.

I'm calling the meeting to order.

August 22nd, 2025.

Go ahead and do roll call.

Davis.

Present.

Flores Garcia Regard.

Spiller.

Present.

Setzer.

Present.

Fullerton Pollock.

Here.

Vasquez.

Present.

And Sepulveda.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Translation Services.

Gracias.

Good morning, everyone.

The compliance and technical advisory board is an advisory board appointed by the city council.

I am Juanita Sepulvara, Chairwoman, and the Vice Chair is Jason Vasquez.

It is the function of the board to advise the city manager and all relevant city departments concerning certain applications for permits for properties in historic districts and landmarks in considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for certificate of appropriateness.

The board shall be guided by the city's unified development code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by the city council.

An appeal of a decision by an administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's Unified Development Code.

If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition in any item on today's agenda, please sign up on the public comment sheet.

It is not necessary to sign up if you are the owner or representative for a project on the agenda.

You will be called on as the case is called.

Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments.

Speakers for an opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each.

Speakers can also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who has signed up.

Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon.

Speakers will be called upon in the order in which they are signed up.

Following public testimony, any commissioner may call upon any speaker to respond to further questions.

Approval by the board 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 board will be emailed to you within 10 days.

No work of any type is to be started without obtaining the appropriate city permits after certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation.

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Morning, everyone.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 18, 2025.

Do we have a second?

Second.

I'll take a roll call vote.

Davis.

Aye.

Garcia.

Aye.

Spiller.

Aye.

Setzer.

Aye.

Pollock.

Aye.

Vasquez.

Aye.

And Sepulveda.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Um at this point we can take a look at our agenda on the screen.

Um light agenda today.

Um we actually will just have one item on today's consent agenda.

Item two will be heard individually at the request of the applicant.

Um we have no public comments on item one, and so at this time we can consider the consent agenda, which is just item one.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh consent agenda item one.

Currently there's a motion to for a consent agenda on item one.

Do I have a second?

I second.

We'll take roll call vote, please.

Davis, aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Spiller.

Aye.

Setzer.

Aye.

Pollock.

Aye.

Vasquez.

Aye.

And Sapulvada.

Aye.

Motion carries.

133 West Craig.

Your case.

Excuse me.

For the record, can we take um make note for our Ms.

Garcia's attendance, please?

Go ahead.

133 West Craig.

Your case has been approved and you do not need to stay for the remainder of this hearing.

If you have any questions, please contact your case manager.

Your certificate of appropriateness will be prepared and emailed to you within 10 days.

We'll move on to item two.

CTAP case agenda item number two, CTAP case number 2025-197, 1213 East Crockett Street.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to replace the existing composition shingle roof with a staining seam metal roof.

Staff recommends approval of the installation of the cityscape color based on findings A and B with the following stipulation that the applicant install a staining seam metal roof featuring a metal roof that's consistent with the historic design guidelines is listed there.

Tatiana, if you can introduce yourself and walk the commissioners through your request.

There is one letter commissioners in your file.

Hi, good morning.

So I did send these photos um to the case manager.

And I went actually to the street over, and the customer really is planning to stay uh with having white siding for a very long time.

I told her, you know, do you plan on changing your color?

Um anytime soon.

She said no.

Uh she really really wants a charcoal gray, uh, which is a little darker.

It is a darker roof.

Um she really does not want galvaloom.

Uh I showed her a picture of the zinc gray, the middle one that's being presented right there.

When I went out and held out the samples, we uh looked at it and we think that the charcoal gray would be a good contrast.

It is it is a little darker.

Um, you know, going with the white siding, you kind of want those accents, but I do know you know you don't want to try and keep preserve everything as um uh as is so I just wanted to help her, you know.

I want to make sure that she's happy uh with what she gets because it's gonna be on her roof for a long time.

So uh another thing is some of the houses around the area, and I did present that to that house actually, the one with the solar panels as well.

That one is right next door to her.

Um if you go like in her backyard, that house is to the left, and that's like I want to say that's kind of a bronze color from what I'm familiar with.

It's a bronze.

Um so I just want to make sure she's happy.

Um, but also, you know, we have to follow your stipulation, so whatever you say, we can, you know, um all the guidelines I'll have it's just the color um Madam Chair, can I offer a little bit of clarification about the issue?

Yes, please.

Um so our guidelines for roofing materials.

Um so this is an appropriate replacement to convert to metal, um, but there are requirements for the color of that metal roof.

Um manufacturers make the materials in a number of colors.

Um so what is recommended normally as the standard Galvalum finish, which is just like a metallic uh kind of natural finish.

Um but over the years the commission has approved kind of variations of that.

Um lighter colors in general that can mimic the appearance of just like a natural kind of light colored metal.

Um and so in reviewing this, that's why we found this the cityscape color to comply with the guidelines.

Um and so we are not recommending um the darker charcoal gray just because manufacturer colors are normally not recommended by the guidelines.

Um however, you are free to consider that um as an option presented today.

Thank you, Corey.

Corey, this was this was also a um they would Brian, you're the case manager.

This was um taken back to the historic society, is that correct?

Or review or the neighborhoods association and what was approved.

So uh it wasn't like an approval process, so the neighborhood association did provide a letter that's in your packets.

They are recommending approval with um staff stipulations and with the understanding that the color would be cityscape.

Um we've reached out to the neighborhood association and asked for feedback regarding the updated request for charcoal gray, and they've indicated that uh their request stance or their recommendation for approval stands with cityscape color.

And you have that letter in your packets from the neighborhood association.

I'm sorry, were they asked?

Were you all asking me or no ma'am?

Uh I was asking the staff because what was what was submitted per your client if I'm understanding is cityscape was submitted and it was also shared with the neighborhood association and in compliance, and now you're coming back and repl and requesting a different color.

Is that correct?

Um, well, she initially wanted charcoal, which is what I had what was submitted with the application.

That was my question.

Yes, the application initially was for charcoal gray, but then she ended up uh wanting uh I actually it said it was too dark that if we wanted to try for the charcoal gray, we would have to wait till this date for the hearing.

So um we were just looking at different options within that gray.

Uh and she was open to cityscape and zinc gray, but she really wanted the charcoal gray because when you take it up in person, it's it doesn't look as dark as it looks on the link, but um yeah, she ended up wanting to stick with charcoal gray, so that's when I reached out and asked if it's possible to that was the initial application was for the charcoal gray.

Thank you.

Brian, when they submitted the application, was cityscape or charcoal gray in the application?

When the application was initially submitted, uh they indicated charcoal gray.

Um, and and I can add some clarity.

So after a conversation with the applicant and with the uh or with the contractor, um staff had let her know that of the historic design guidelines uh general stipulation that the roof should feature a standard galvaline finish.

Um we had discussions uh saying that the cityscape would be closer to that color and would be something that we could recommend approval for at that time.

The uh conversation then turned to cityscape.

That was what the recommendation was written um in mind.

Um the agenda was posted, and then um after more conversation, uh the color was then reverted back to the charcoal gray to obtain approval from this board.

Okay.

At this time, if there are any questions from my colleagues and online, no any comments from yes, go ahead.

Sorry, madam chair, I was just saying no questions here.

Thank you.

Are there any other discussions?

Questions, clarifications.

If I hear none, I'll entertain a motion, please.

I'd like to I did have, I'm sorry, I I did have so um considering that like the neighbor has the bronze, like I just want that to be considered.

Um I do have a better picture.

Actually, I had a different picture from the front, and I I have the address actually.

Um thank you, Kantiana.

This application was submitted and it was discussed.

Correct?

Yeah, um, yes, it was it was on the documents attached in the application.

And you were provided with the compliance of the recommendations.

Yes, this was yeah, but that was after this was again after um we had asked about the cityscape, we're just asking if we could try for charcoal uh that that one actually, so that specific one that y'all are looking at that we've done that that one right there, the 10251 that's actually the zinc gray, but due to the lighting and stuff, you get like different angles, it's not that dark.

Um if you scroll up or down on that, I think you can see an aerial and it looks a lot lighter from the top, but it is a little um darker, but you can't really get like the perfect you know color when it's a photo.

Um I was just that was just an option that was given to her.

I appreciate the clarifications and the examples.

Um is there anything else from me?

Just I I just want the customer to be happy with what she gets the charcoal gray, and I think it would look good at Mr.

Veneuva.

And it was asking, are you providing any other documentations or clarifications?

Was the discussion made?

Were you provided with compliance?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Brian, is there anything else that you'd like to provide?

Um not at this time, Madam Chairman.

Are there any questions, clarifications, or additional chairs that you need?

Nothing.

Then I'd like to entertain a motion.

Thank you.

I'd like to make a motion.

Uh that we support staff's recommendation.

Um, which is approval of the request based on findings A and B with the following stipulations as stated.

I'll second that.

There's currently a motion on the floor with the second to approve staff recommendations on findings A and Bs and the following stipulations.

I'll take a roll call vote, please.

Davis.

Aye.

Garcia.

Aye.

Spiller.

Aye.

Setzer.

Aye.

Fullerton.

Aye.

Paula?

Aye.

Foskis?

Aye.

And Sepulveda.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Vinhu continue to work with the staff, please.

That way you can follow up with them.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

So next item on the agenda is CTAP case number 2025 for 326 West Wesatch Avenue.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to paint the exterior brick masonry of the primary structure in an off-white color.

Staff recommends the brick remain unpainted and repaired in kind as necessary.

And the applicant David Curry is here in person.

David, if you'd like to come up to the podium, you will have 15 minutes to present to the commission your request.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

How y'all doing?

The small apartment building on 326 West We Satch is 14 units.

Mostly we have low-income folks that are living there.

They're not, you know, wealthy people.

So we've had veterans, uh retirees, that sort of thing.

So it can the roof looks really nice.

Facial's been repainted.

But the problem is that the brick um has been described uh in a in a variety of ways, many of which I probably won't uh repeat here, but uh gross, uh ugly things like that.

Um the uh so we thought well the best thing to do would be to kind of refresh it with a neutral white paint and um just make it look good, make it look clean.

Uh one very good reason to paint it, you may or may not be able to see in some of these photos is that we did get hit with some graffiti a while back.

Um two of the walls have graffiti.

We did uh get a company to to pressure wash it and attempt to remove it.

That may be one of them right there.

Uh it is pretty much impossible to remove the very porous clay bricks.

You just can't get it out of there.

And uh it just doesn't look good.

Um so the first thing I did was talk to Monovistic uh historical association.

Uh spoke uh well, I corresponded with Ryan Reed.

And he said it would not be any problem with them.

Uh if we went ahead and painted the uh property, I think uh the main thrust of his his view was that this is not a historical property, it has no historical import.

It was built in 77 and finished in 78.

Uh right about the time Elvis died, you know.

So it's just not a it's not a historical building.

Um so Ryan Reed with the Monovistic Historical Association, so we have no problem with it.

He said, of course, you'll have to check with the city.

He said, of course, you'll have to check with the city, and that's of course why we're here today.

Um so it it is obviously very contemporary construction.

Um what I what I did do uh to provide a little background is I went just to the immediate blocks nearby and took photos of about 20 properties, and this just you all want to circulate these.

I yeah, I wrote the address on the back too, so you can look at them.

Uh each one of these properties has painted brick, and notable about it too, is it kind of runs the gamut of different kinds of properties.

You've got residential, single family, multi-family, commercial, a gas station.

They've all got painted brick.

Um I don't know if their brick was as ugly as ours is, but it probably didn't look too hot.

So they painted it, and I think in every one of those examples, they look really nice.

Um that's that's what we're trying to do is just make the property look good.

And uh I think that uh a lot of the tenants will feel better about where they live, and uh feel better about paying the rent and and telling people where they live.

If the place looks nice and they can feel good about it.

I think that's important.

And we have some other rental properties in different places, and that's been our experience when people feel good about the place they live.

That's a positive thing for the for the business and for the community.

And as I said, I'll reiterate these these are not folks with a lot of money, um, but they all pay their own rent.

And uh I think they deserve to have a better looking place.

Um I think that mostly covers what I would wanted to uh mention to everybody this morning.

Um I appreciate you taking the time to look at what I brought and and consider what I'm saying.

Um I think I think as the landlord, we have an obligation to try to make the place look as nice as possible.

We also need to maintain the property value.

Uh we have obviously a financial obligation to pay our property taxes.

And in order to do that, we need to keep this building full, or at least as close to full as possible.

And when a prospective tenant approaches a building and sees that it just doesn't look that great, they're not gonna rent a space.

Uh they're not gonna rent a an apartment.

And then that makes it harder for for me to pay the property tax to the county.

And uh that's important because that supports the schools, and yeah, I don't I don't need to tell anybody here how all that works, everybody knows.

Um, so you know, we're here to make it look better, do our part.

It's a contemporary building, it's not historical.

It's gonna look better, it's gonna make the neighborhood look better too to work it over and and make it look nice.

And uh that's it.

That's all I have to say.

But if you've got any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

Thank you for being here, sir.

Yes, sir.

Adrian, can we touch basis on your on your findings and the why the recommendations let me just pull them up?

And so I mean, just to clarify, I mean staff acknowledges that this is not historic brick.

Um the the primary reason that painting masonry is discouraged is a technical issue.

Um and so over time, like you know, it might be good for even 10-20 years, but there will be additional maintenance required to upkeep that that paint.

Um, but then there are also potential for moisture issues with the paint retaining moisture in the brick, and then that can lead to advanced deterioration of the masonry.

And so that's the concern.

I mean, we we understand that this is not a historic structure, um, but that technical guidance is in the guidelines for a reason, and so we just wanted to make sure that that was clear in the staff recommendation.

May I comment?

Okay.

So there's actually no guidelines right now.

So the paint the images that you provided, is that it's also in the Monte Monte Monte Vista?

Monte Vista?

Uh the images that you provided.

They're talking about the paint church.

The picture of the pictures that you provide every every one of those pictures from the immediate blocks surrounding our property.

Um, and on the back I put the addresses of each one.

Um yeah, that it's not hard to find.

I didn't have to go very far, just I guess the next two blocks over in each case.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Curry.

At this time I'm going to go ahead and open the floor to my right for questions, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sir, you realize the Ryan Reed sitting right in back of you.

I'm sorry, one more time.

You realize Ryan Reed is sitting right in back of you.

And then uh the Monovia.

I did not, I've never met him in person of correspondence.

Well, the Monte Vista Historic Association uh cited with uh OHP's findings, which finds it inappropriate to paint the brick uh regardless of whether you consider it historic or not, and whether it was built in 1920 or 1975, it sits within the Montista Historic District.

I I do have an email uh from Ryan Reed that said they they were okay with it.

I I can find it on my phone.

Yes, we we did exchange emails.

I yeah I think my words were I'm okay with it.

Yes.

That's what it's the committee speaking for myself.

Yeah, I would never misrepresent anything to anybody here.

Okay.

That would be too smart for me.

Uh well then I'm not sure what I'm saying.

What does this letter write?

That this was a while back, and I think I said personally, I don't have a concern with it.

Um but that was speaking for me, not the committee as a whole.

Uh committee as a whole does tend to be opposed to painting.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Reed, could you come up to the mic, please?

Thank you.

I wasn't signed up to speak, so I didn't know that.

And again, the reason we're clarifying this is because the question isn't in whether or not it's a historical district.

And the vice chair is the clarification of the letter that we received.

Sure.

From the email we placed in the letters file.

Yes.

So the email that I sent this week was that we support staff recommendation.

Uh Mr.

Curry and I did exchange email uh quite a while ago.

Um and I said I personally don't have a concern with it.

Um that was speaking for myself.

But the committee part.

Yes, the committee in general does not support painting um exposed brick, and that's a conversation I had after the fact with um the committee as a whole, um, which is why I sent the email later.

So I I understand it's not historic.

Um it's it we do try to discourage people from painting exposed masonry because of maintenance issues and uh amongst other things.

Um I'll I'll step back at that.

So uh but the neighborhood.

The association supports the staff recommendation.

Yes.

And I apologize for the confusion.

Thank you, madam chair.

Just a moment.

Right now, we're all have the floor open for this for the her colleagues.

Any more questions?

Clarifications?

Uh I actually have a question for staff.

I have a question for staff.

Um this building is 50 years old, give or take, right?

70s?

I guess so.

It was constructed around 1975, from what we can tell.

So technically it would be eligible to be considered historic, correct?

It seems you raise a good point.

There's not an I'm sorry, do you want me to keep it?

Okay.

Um there's no rule that says once something becomes 50 years or older, it's automatically considered contributing.

Um we look at that on a case-by-case basis.

So at some point, something that's built in the 90s would also be considered contributing with that rolling date in mind.

Um so we weren't specifically asked to evaluate contributing status here.

We normally don't do that unless it's a demolition proposal.

Um and so we just we look for the property for what it is, and we look at the materials and we apply the guidelines as best um can be applied.

Thank you.

And I I think my point here would be that um that if we look at it taking the fact of whether it's historic or not out of the mix, then it can't really be used as a reason for why it should be painted either, right?

If I if we can't say yes, it's historic because we don't know, we can't say it's not historic either because we don't know.

I mean, I look at this building as an architect and I see what could potentially be a prototype of a certain style of architecture at that time, right?

And then it comes down to analysis.

But that aside, if we're not looking at that as an issue, I would still say from a technical standpoint that painting any brick, regardless of um whether or not you see other examples in the neighborhood, doesn't mean it's okay.

And I understand that this particular brick is not necessarily attractive at this time, right?

Um but it looks to be fairly porous to me from the pictures I've seen, and to paint it, what caught would cause further damage and um down the road that you would have to deal with at that point, and that too could cause something that does not look attractive and cost you a lot of money.

If you don't are there any other no.

I'll go ahead and take questions from our colleagues to the left, please.

Thank you.

And I'm actually just kind of coming uh off of my colleagues' comment, but um that was part of my question.

I get the visual aesthetic kind of like the right way, it's it's kind of shiny and new, but there are some um points being brought up about future problems with the brick, or if you put up paint that then it retains moisture or causes accelerated deterioration of the brick or any of these things.

Have you investigated any of those?

Am I allowed to um so I have about 30 years of construction experience?

I've been building uh some commercial but also residential in and around Laverne area uh for uh since 1993 I've been doing construction.

Uh the type of paint we would use on this would be a masonry paint that's an elastimer coating, it repels water.

Um we would be absolutely stupid to not maintain that paint coating once it's on there.

Uh this is a valuable building, it is it's a revenue producing building as long as we take care of it and we keep it looking good.

And uh so to uh suggest that I would not and we would not take care of it to the best of our ability.

Uh we just put a lot of money recently in in the roof, you know.

It's it was not a cheap thing.

But it's a smart thing, and that's what we have to do, and that's why I'm here today.

Um but uh yeah, it's that's not an issue as far as we're concerned, and whenever it needs uh any more attention, you know, we'll do it.

Yeah, but today it just doesn't look good.

I think the property is very contemporary, it's almost a blase style.

There's nothing interesting or appealing about its appearance.

It has it has no uh nothing about the image of that building says San Antonio to me.

It's just it's just a small apartment building, it's a practical building.

It's uh that's all it is, it's just a place to live.

And if it doesn't look nice, people won't rent it.

If people don't have an affordable place to stay, then that's not good for them or the economy.

And if I can't rent the building, I can't pay the taxes.

And that's essential to the functioning of everything that's going on here.

Um if it was a historical building, and it you know, it's not and I think that's important too.

Um part of what we're trying to decide here today, I guess, is what's correct, what's in line with your policy.

Well, you have to judge it based on one what the status is today, not a speculative status 10 years from now or 20 years from now or five years ago.

If it's not historical today, that's a decision that has to be made today.

It's not historical, it's contemporary.

It's it's it's a boring looking building, and it'll look a lot nicer and it'll make the neighborhood look nicer, and the people that stay there will be happier with the place they live.

That's what we want to do.

That and and keep it viable, and we can continue to pay our taxes on it.

I think that's very important.

I don't think that's something that can be disconnected from the rest of this discussion.

Uh a lot of people rely on those taxes, the schools, you know.

They rely on this taxes.

We pay a lot of tax, 30,000 a year at least, as far as I can recall.

How much a lot that's a lot of money, you know.

You annualize that in 10 years, that's 300,000 dollars.

How many in the 20 years we've had it?

That's 600,000.

How many units are in that building?

Just 14.

And how many are currently rented?

I believe we may have one vacancy on that one today.

So it it stays fairly full, but we have to spend quite a bit of money on each unit inside when people leave.

Sometimes I tear them up a bit.

But you're not experiencing like a financial hardship because you can't rent it because you're saying the outside looks so bad.

No, ma'am, not not experiencing any financial hardship.

We've had very good experience with this property, but when you're a small company like us, if you don't look ahead and figure out what's coming around the corner and prepare for it today and and and do the right thing, and even you know, participate in something like this when you need to, you will fail and you won't be in business.

We've been in business for 40 years.

So, you know.

Thank you, Mr.

Curry.

Are there any other questions to my left?

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I first want to commend you for uh your careful stewardship for 20 years for taking care of this property.

Thank you for meeting a really important uh part of the neighbor of the city's uh demographic demographics.

Um, as we all know and we see in the news all the time, affordable housing is in short supply around here, and to have it in a relatively central location downtown, all the better.

Um I I struggle because you know, as this committee was set up, we're here to review uh based on guidelines that have been set up for each specific historic district, including Monte Vista, and it's a separate district with its own rules.

It's been highlighted because initially it was set up from the 1890s to the 1920s, and it as your photos showed earlier, it has a remarkable collection of single family homes, single families that have been converted to multifamily, multifamily, like I think it's the Maryland across the street from you from maybe the 20s or 30s, it looks like the the really cool art moderne former gas station on the corner next door to you.

Um and I was looking back on Google Maps, you can see how that that gas station had fallen on hard times about 15-20 years ago, and maybe 10 years ago someone decided to you know take care of it and with a good coat of paint and and some TLC, it's turned turn in the corner, literally and figuratively.

Um I appreciate your your own personal experience in dealing with construction and and masonry in particular.

Um part of our challenge here is you know, we hope that you and your company continues to maintain it for another 20 years or or longer.

Umfortunately, as we all know, you know, recessions happen, succession planning happens, and sometimes it makes good business sense to invest somewhere else.

And the next owner might not be as important, uh might not raise stewardship as importantly as you do.

So I think we're trying to figure out how to balance you know the concerns of the present right now with the larger mandate of the committee and making sure that we can make sure that this building, as contemporary as it seems, continues to feed into that story of change over time in Monte Vista, as we've seen from you know, because the the style of this building is different from the style of the Maryland across the street.

And there are some that were contemporaneous with Maryland that were brick and were painted, and I think Maryland is unpainted, so I there's an interesting complex story here, and and I appreciate your understanding as we try to work our way through it.

May I respond just briefly?

I I think there it's good to know that there are a couple of safeguards to um address the things that you're concerned about, and they're good concerns.

Um the first is that you know, as long as we own the property, we'd be foolish not to take care of it and keep it up to snuff 100%.

Uh if we paint it, we have to maintain it.

We know that.

I I've been doing ground-up new homes and for 28 years, so I have good background on this stuff.

If the property looks nice and we should decide to sell it, which we have no plans of doing because it could took us over 20 years to pay off the mortgage, um, then we're gonna sell it at such a price that whoever buys it, whether they pay cash or they borrow to buy it, they're gonna keep it up too because they're gonna have a lot of money in it.

And they can't just like you know, spend I don't know, I guess if the if the property looked better, maybe you could get you know 1.2 or one.

I don't know.

I don't know the market, and I don't even intend to sell it.

But if somebody pays that much for it, they're not gonna pay that much and then just not take care of it.

You know, we paid far less than that when we bought it in 2000, and we've done a pretty doggone good job of taking care of it.

Um if they have to pay even more for it than we did, believe me, they're gonna take care of it.

They would be incredibly foolish not to.

So there are safeguards in place for them to take care of it.

Uh, there's every economic reason, every prudent sorry, business reason for them to take care of it, and absolutely no reason for them not to.

And if they can afford to buy it, and like I said, we have no intention of selling it, nothing on the horizon like that.

But if they can afford to buy it, uh they're they're smart enough to take care of it.

I'm not worried about that.

And I don't think this board should be either really, Mr.

Curry.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there anyone online?

No comments for online.

No, madam chair.

One comment, go ahead.

Question for staff.

I think I know the answer, but just making sure.

This is within the historic district.

Money Vista Historic District, and it is considered contributing, correct?

It's in the district, and we have not made a determination regarding contributing status.

But anything the guidelines say anything within the historic district is considered contributing.

No.

Anything within the historic district is considered historic and requiring a COA.

Contributing status is determined upon request, and we would do property research and make a determination.

But simply being 50 years old doesn't make it automatically contributing.

We do this all the time.

But that's not really the issue here.

I don't I don't want to get confused about the status of it.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for clarification.

I have another question.

Adrian, I hear Mr.

Curry's concerns and and their justification for improvements.

I'm all for improvements.

However, where does it it fall within the development services?

Because again, the concern with the 28 plus years that Mr.

Curry's informing us of his skill set that the paint would not without maintenance would cause any trouble.

According to development services, what's their guidelines?

Or have we even incurred inquired to them?

They don't have any.

Okay.

So basically, this is just moving forward.

And though I'm I'm in agreement on development, my concern would be the statement that you made, Mr.

Curry.

The decisions that we make today should not affect the things that we do in 10 years.

But then you reverted to say the decisions that we make today is a concern how it's affected in 10 years.

And with your experience, saying that you've owned this property for 20 plus years.

Yes, ma'am.

With 20 plus 28 years of experience, and you're saying that you have no intent of painting of selling the property.

No, no, ma'am.

Right.

And though I am very much in support of the fact that you provide it to a demographic of population of low income, the other thing too is with the great pride that you give us with your experience, shouldn't that also be with the great pride in the in maintaining the contemporary of how we look today for the next 10 years?

And then back to the issue of moisture and everything.

Well, the brick is entirely porous right now.

Basically, when water hits the brick, it penetrates to a certain point and then it stops and then it waits for the sun and the air and the dry air, if we ever have dry air, which sometimes we don't hear, to dry out.

Uh when we put uh an elastomeric coating on it that repels water.

The water really doesn't penetrate into the uh the brick veneer at all, you know.

That's it.

So as long as that coating is is is maintained properly, it's actually more effective at keeping moisture out of the building if that's the concern.

Um is there a clear is it a web?

Adrian, is there such a thing as a clear coating to prevent it so that we don't alter it?

Um we really wouldn't wouldn't accomplish much uh just clear coding it because we'd still be stuck with the appearance, which is not a good appearance in terms of prospects coming up to rent apartments and and frankly there have been complaints from the people there that just the place just doesn't look that good.

And you know, when you get that from people, you kind of think, well, you know, are they gonna move out?

You know, you get a lot of that.

And um it's it's I think it's a feeling of pride when when people uh stay in a place that they think is kind of up to par with places where their friends and relatives stay, and they can feel a little more proud having to come over for a drink or whatever because the place looks good.

But I don't I don't think a lot of the people that stay there right now would feel all that excited about having their friends or relatives come visit them because it just doesn't look that great.

I think we could give them a place that looks that good just with a little work.

I understand that.

Yeah.

I I get where you're coming from.

But there's no material issue.

But Mr.

Curry.

The question was is there a clear coat that can be used to repel the water and be able to maintain the integrity of that porous brick that's currently there?

Well, the uh you could put a clear coat on it, but there's but the process of the brick getting wet and drying is is a common uh thing that goes on every day everywhere.

So that's that's not really an issue that we even need to address today.

Um because it's you know that's not really a problem.

I appreciate that.

Thank you for clarification.

Yes, ma'am.

Are there any other comments?

I have a question for you.

Okay.

Um is the construction of the exterior wall, is that just brick on top of wood construction stud wall.

Uh well, I I didn't actually build this place.

Um I was 10 years old when it got built in 77, I think is when it was finished.

Um but my guess would be, and it's been a really good building.

We've never had to open up the wall and look at it.

Uh but my guess would be that it's it's stud wall construction, and there's probably some sort of a tar or felt paper wrap on the exterior of the studs, sheetrock in the inside, obviously.

Uh around that time period it should be insulated with fiberglass batting.

Um so you've got tar paper, and then you just got probably a gap, it's probably a five and a half inch lug around the base of the foundation.

Um these are I think what they call king-sized bricks, they're large bricks.

Um they're clay too, so they crack more easily than a limestone brick would crack.

Uh so I didn't uh and back when I was doing brick on houses, I didn't do clay because they're just not reliable.

They're a softer brick that crack more easily.

Um yeah, it's just it's a brick veneer, probably a little bit of air gap, then your felt, then your stud wall behind it.

Is that did that answer?

Is it a little bit more?

Yes, that answers my question because that's what I would think uh the construction probably is for building of this time period, uh, which then leads me to just make the comment that um you're still potentially gonna have a moisture issue because through that air gap between the stud and the brick, you're still gonna have moisture.

And what starts to happen if you seal one side and not the other, and there's no way to do that, um, that the moisture travels through because there's still condensate uh from humidity, uh equipment in the building, people in the building, etc.

It cannot migrate through, and that's what starts to trap that moisture in the brick and cause deterioration.

And I just wanted to point that out that um, you know, just painting it is not gonna solve or potentially solve that issue.

Yeah, and there's moisture today in in walls everywhere.

I mean, that's just just the way it is.

Right.

Yeah, it's it's in fact a lot of contractors that I've spoken with in recent years have complained that maybe houses are being built too tight and that maybe moisture needs to be able to escape because it does, like you said, accumulate when you have uh an interface between a really cold inside where people keep their apartments you know 69, 70 degrees, and you've got 110 degrees outside, you're always gonna have issues like that.

Um, I would say if the other there are probably a hundred people that have painted homes in Monta Vista, and if they're happy with the results, then I'm I'm quite sure we will be too.

And I don't anticipate any problems with that.

Did you most of the water penetration issues are the soffit and roof areas generally?

Did you get your answer?

Yes.

Okay.

Adrian, is there anything else that you need to provide to me?

Or to us?

No, madam chair, no.

So it would just be um, you know, the findings here as we have them again, pointing to the maintenance issue above all else.

You know, the other thing would just be um, you know, as we kind of discuss briefly, would be the president.

Adrian, when I went to go view it, were there any kind of exterior damages to the building yet?

None that I could see, uh Madam Chair.

Um, you know, I didn't do um you know a very thorough site visit um to be clear.

But um, you know, as as the applicant has said, the property does look to be very well maintained.

So um, you know, we didn't we didn't see any issues when I went.

Okay, thank you.

I would like to entertain a motion, Madam Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to approve uh staff recommendations.

I second it.

There's currently a motion on the floor and a second to accept staff's recommendations.

I'll take a roll call bow, please.

Davis, aye.

Garcia, aye.

Spiller?

Aye.

Setzer.

Aye.

Fullerton?

Aye.

Paula?

I.

Vasquez?

Aye.

And Sepulveda.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Curry, if you thank you for being here today, and if you would please go back to the staff to see we can discuss further and come up with another solution.

Thank you.

Agenda item number four, CTAP case number 2025-2050 East Wiesatch Avenue.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one construct a three foot tall stone wall parallel to the public sidewalk and along the property line featuring a stone cap.

Two, install a 40-inch tall black metal pedestrian gate at the front walkway.

Three, install a 40-inch black metal vehicle gate across the front walkway or driveway.

Recommendation one.

Staff recommends approval of item one, the installation of a low rock wall based on finding C.

Two, staff recommends approval of item two, the installation of a pedestrian gate based on finding Dree.

The staff does not recommend approval of item three, the installation of a sliding driveway gate as noted in finding E.

Staff does not find the sliding driveway gate to be appropriate.

The applicant Nikki Hendricks is here in person.

There is one letter and one voicemail for commissioner review, and there's one in-person speaker.

And um Nikki, if you'd like to come up and just introduce yourself and present your case, I'll pull up your presentation and you'll have 15 minutes.

Hi.

Hi everybody, I'm Nikki Hendricks.

Uh I am the homeowner at 507 East Wiesach, where I live with my three children and the rest of my family.

So quick presentation of what I would like to do.

It's a contributing craftsman era home with historic features.

Uh elevated from the street.

Um the existing conditions.

So the current frontage is completely open to the street.

Um it's a safety issue for the children and the dogs.

Uh I also have an administratively approved coi pond that I have constructed, and I would like to protect it both from the public and protect the public from it.

Um and also there is a little bit of foot traffic that's a little undesirable combined with at times heavy vehicular traffic.

So all that's a bit of a concern for me.

Um the goal was to do a modest historically compatible barrier that preserves the visibility of the house.

So that's how I started looking into this project.

Um the proposed design is a stone wall.

It's a three-foot tall, locally sourced stone wall with stone cap.

Um the material color and texture consistent with the craftsman era context.

Um the height, the the house is elevated, so you can still see the entire facade despite the height.

Um and it's actually pretty similar to other examples in Monte Vista and quite a few in Tobin Hill.

The pedestrian gate is 40 inches, it's a black wrought iron gate at the front walkway.

The vehicular gate is a similar 40-inch black wrought iron side sliding gate across the driveway.

Um I originally wanted to do a swinging gate, but our driveway is unusually small, and the front yard is also a bit small, and so when you open the swinging gate, it is not um doesn't give you a lot to work with.

So that is why we chose the sliding gate.

And there are also a lot of examples, but they are primarily in Tobin Hill, not Monte Vista.

Um I want to show you guys what my street actually looks like because both staff and the Monte Vista Historical Association talked to me about open front lawns.

Um in that view are four houses with enclosed front yard fences that go across the gate in or go across the driveway in two cases, and in one case or two cases, they actually don't have driveways.

Uh directly across the way is an is a low stone retaining wall as well.

So this is pretty compatible with what you see when you look out from my house.

Um there are also some other precedents.

The one on the right here is actually visible from my front porch.

Uh this other one is about two blocks up on uh East Wee Satch.

Um so at this point I have talked to the HDRC staff, which have already um summarized their opinions uh and their takings.

Uh Monte Vista has values in the open yards.

Uh they don't object to the vehicular gate, but they uh would like to talk mitigation, either a more open design or some greenery or something of that nature to mitigate the appearance of the wall.

Um I'm not opposed to that necessarily.

Um the conservation society um has opposed the wall and the gates question pond safety, which is already installed.

Um their argument is a broader argument that I will address when we get to that part.

Um so there are multiple visible front yard fences and walls, many of them are historic.

The design is historically appropriate, and there are other examples of it.

Um from a safety perspective, it really would I mean we need an enclosure of some sort.

So it's uh, you know, um a challenge to figure out how to do that in a way that's really historically appropriate and um also um you know uh practical.

Um the wall height is within the four foot guideline.

The materials are historically consistent.

The scale and rhythm is compatible with the block.

Uh it balances preservation goals with modern safety needs.

So I would say this is a modest, appropriate, respectful project.

It attempts to preserve historic character while enhancing safety.

Um I would like to request that you all approve the staff recommendation or actually the COA for all of it.

So thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Um you say we have voicemail?

Yes, Madam Chair.

We have a voicemail and an in-person speaker, and I can play the voicemail now.

Go ahead.

The conservation society is San Antonio poses the installation of a stone wall and metal in the front yard of 5070.

These features do not appear to use the historic design guidelines for new fences of the wall.

Which takes the design of fence should respond to the design and material of the house.

And avoid installing a fence, a wall in a location where one did not historically exist, particularly within the front yard.

Uh in terms of material, we know that the case examples show a stone fence confronting uh fronting a stone house and in wood picket and fronting a one-story framehouse, such as this one.

However, it remains unclear why it is appropriate to construct a new wall or fence of any type in this front yard based on the documentation submitted.

Additionally, we are concerned about whether the administratively approved front yards pond at the edge of the sidewalk meet the required code to keep neighborhood children.

Thank you.

And our in-person speaker is Ryan Reed.

Hello again.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Ryan Reed.

I live at 242 West Linwood Avenue in Monte Vista.

And I am the chair of the Monte Vista Historical Association's Architectural Review Committee.

So I signed up to support this application, but I do have some suggestions.

And I did speak with Ms.

Hendricks last week.

And I shared a lot of these um suggestions with her, and I since spoke with the committee and added a few more suggestions, but they're they're in line with what's already been stated.

Um we did have a discussion about Monta Vista traditionally does not have front fences, and that is stated as a contributing factor in our um charter with the National Registry of Historic Place.

Um I do recognize there are some extension uh circumstances here, safety related for her family, um and some related to this pond, which is right off the sidewalk.

So with that in mind, um I'd like to suggest that the rock portion of the wall be lowered from three feet down to one.

Um and above that be an iron picket to promote more transparency.

Um traditionally where fences are allowed in Monta Vista, it tends to be for uh very specific safety concerns, but we do ask that they be picketed so that um they're as least visible as possible since a majority of the homes on this block do not have fences.

Um it is unique in that it faces Tobin Hill, and many of those homes do have fences.

So this is the one block where it's kind of 50-50, one sides, Monta Vista, one sides to open hill.

Um the only other suggestion I had is for the drive gate.

Uh I'm personally not opposed to the sliding gate.

However, I do think it needs to be backed up to the facade of the home so that a full car length is available as you wait for that um gate to open.

So that road does get some heavy traffic at times, especially rush hour.

And I I think if you have to stop and wait for that gate um to open, you may impede traffic.

The people park on both sides of that street.

So those are my suggestions.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Reed.

Sure.

Any other questions for me?

Not at the moment.

Thank you.

Um Brian.

This is already in place, correct?

And was there a certificate of appropriateness requested for this?

So a certificate of appropriateness has been issued for the coupons to the left of the property there.

Um as far as the gate and the remainder of the walls or the wall and the remainder of the gates, um, the the work was done without a certificate of appropriateness.

Um we're here to, or the applicant is here to request approval for the project.

Um and work is approximately 50% complete.

All right, at this time I'll go ahead and open up the floor for questions or comments.

And I'll start to my left this time, please.

No.

Online.

Not here, madam chair.

Okay, I'll go ahead and open up to my right.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Um I've got a few questions for the applicant.

So I'm looking at slide eight, I think that right.

Thank you.

How deep is that?

Uh two feet.

Two feet, two feet below grade, two feet above is the enclosure.

And that is, let's see.

And then go back to the picture of it with the so that's two feet below and two feet above.

The pond is a foot shorter than the proposed wall.

Okay.

Um from the top.

And then you mentioned uh this pond as a safety feature?

Uh no, only in the sense that I'm worried about it being a liability problem because there are cases where people wander onto people's property and fall into their pools or their ponds or whatever, and uh generally speaking, it's I'm a little bit nervous about having it there without some kind of an enclosure for that reason.

So you want to put the the rod iron fence in front of that stone too?

Uh in front of the pond stone?

No.

Uh the the only wrought iron is what you see in place there already.

Oh, because I would consider that more of a liability if the pond is wide open to uh to the public, wouldn't you be concerned?

Uh animals, uh transients, other kinds of I know uh golden retrievers love to jump into any available water during the summer.

Yes.

Um I I would consider that too.

Well, when the when the wall is completed, it would be three feet tall, which I think is sufficient to keep the majority of these things out.

Um I also have escape routes for mammals that fall in, uh, but not golden retrievers, smaller things.

Yeah.

Uh let's see.

And then uh this question was for let's see.

For Ryan.

Uh so y'all were okay with the architecture review committee was hoping it would come down to one foot versus the three-foot curve.

And I and I did discuss it with committee members, and they were okay with that suggestion.

You know, it given the choice, an open front yard would be preferable, but since the pond is there, um and I and I do uh recognize that the applicant has children, and as you mentioned, the location does get a transient population back and forth.

Um I I can see an exception here to allow the fence.

We would just like it to be more transparent.

So lowering it down.

Lowering the rock to one foot.

Yes, and I think uh, you know, as above that have the metal ticket similar to what's shown, just as long as that's no higher than four.

Uh that that would be our suggestion.

Is that something you'd be open to?

Again, I'd mention I'd consider it more of a liability than it currently the height it is now.

Um well the height it is now is not its completed height.

It would be three feet high.

Currently it's like two and a half because it doesn't have the cap on it.

So it would be even higher.

Yeah, a little higher than that, yes.

Um it the gate the gates don't sort of pop out as much as they appear to in this because the wall is not fully constructed.

So the wall will be about three feet high, and then the gate is about 40 inches high, so it's four inches above that.

Um I do think that's typically sufficient to keep nuisance traffic out of it.

Okay.

And then uh go ahead, Ryan.

Um I will say when we spoke, I I had not seen the pond.

Ryan, make sure you use the mic, please.

I'm sorry.

When we spoke, I had not seen the pond completed.

Um I'm thinking out loud here, but it a one-foot wall may look a little odd having that tall of a pond there.

So I don't know whether it should match that height.

Um but again, traditionally we are against a solid wall.

Um something more transparent be preferable.

That's assuming that that pond is completed.

So I don't think we can change that at this point.

Thanks, right.

And then uh Corey, what is the what did you find out from development services about what is considered a pool versus what is considered a pond, because from what I've read it's if it's more than 48 inches deep, that is considered a pool.

And that would need to be uh fully gated so to clarify, so this is the response from DSD.

It says, good afternoon.

This was yesterday.

None of our current adopted codes address pond fencing on a residential lot.

Fencing standards can be found in our adopted UDC uh and those can relate to the swimming pool and spa code.

Um Jason, yesterday you had shared a link to the SA property maintenance code, and so in that uh ordinance, there's requirements for fencing of pools and spas, and pools and spas are defined in that code.

Um there is language that says if exceeding 24 inches, then it would have to be fenced.

However, DSD's interpretation is that because of how specifically pools and spas are defined as you know, the recreational use that a pond, which this is would not fall under that category.

So there is just to summarize, there is no requirement to have them fenced any particular way.

Residential lot.

Okay, so they were fine with considering a pool versus I'm sorry, a pond versus a pool.

Correct.

If this was a hot tub, then it would be a different story.

This is another animal.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Uh I realized I didn't fully answer your question.

I am amenable to mitigation, including possibly changing the design.

Obviously, anything that we would change would come with a certain amount of financial hardship, and I do appreciate I mean I we chose this design because we actually think it it doesn't obscure the front.

You can kind of see how high it is.

Uh, and that it is appropriate, and we'd be open to something like growing greenery on it or something else to mitigate it.

Um that would not be my first choice to change the kind of arrangement of the stone and the iron, but I'm not opposed.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Mrs.

Hendrix.

Are there any comments or clarifications?

Um I will make the comment that I think that putting any kind of wall in this front yard is problematic from the standpoint of um what is kind of um appropriate to a historic neighborhood, right?

Um but the point is made that this is a street where it's Montavista on one side, Tubin Hill on the other, and they have fences, you can see them from your your yard.

Um so I can understand your desire.

Um I think that Mr.

Reed's suggestions on how that design for the fence might be might be modified, as well as the design and placement of the gate uh for the driveway, pushing it back.

Um I think would be more agreeable than having it on the street for a variety of reasons, both aesthetic and potentially uh from a vehicular safety standpoint.

So I think that there are options that you would have, but you know, in its current kind of iteration, it just seems to be problematic, and my concern is still for that that poll.

I'd almost like to see iron fencing on top of what you have there, because it's still low enough that kids are gonna want to go there and play in that poll.

And even grown-ups.

I don't know.

It just seems you know, uh like hey, come over here, there's water.

Um so I would I would have some concern about that as well in terms of it of its current um situation, not so much the location.

I know it got approval from OHP, so that's all good, but uh just in terms of safety, not just for um the residents here, but also for people who might be tempted to come and try and plan your poll.

Thank thank you.

All right, so uh can I respond at all?

I just I have a question about the vehicular gate or uh just a moment comment.

So we're gonna address what's actually on here.

So let's go back to what we're why we're really here.

We're really here is because the recommendations on your application.

We already have one violation and we move forward with the staffing came and observed.

The recommendations is to give you what was recommended already by this committee, right?

The other thing too is this is not the place to negotiate.

This is a place to address the application that was submitted, and that's what we're going to address.

So at this time, are there any other comments?

Any other clarifications?

We reviewed extensively some of the areas, but we're here to address what would the recommendations, what the application is actually requesting.

If they're none, I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, before we make a motion, I wanted to ask the applicant if they'd be willing to work with the if we can delay this a month, would that help?

And uh in working with Chair.

Well Vice Chair, what we're doing right now is addressing what is on the application.

This is not a time to negotiate.

Once we pass the motion and make that observation, we can then move it forward to have a discussion.

Corey, can we postpone or are already because we went into the discussions already?

I mean, for COA requests, there is a six 60-day maximum uh review period.

Um so yeah, put that date on us.

So we have until October 3rd, so we do have at least one postponement that the commission could do and not exceed that timeline.

Um any point the applicant could also um uh agree to a postponement, which would extend the time at their request.

Um but I also would want to know you know what the intent would be.

Would that be for additional time for the applicant to come up with a revised proposal based on the discussion?

I see nodding, okay.

Go ahead.

Ma'am, would that help if we gave you the allowed uh time that is actually allowable within the code?

Uh I need a clarifying question.

So there are three separate items in the COA.

Uh-huh.

Is does this are you deciding whether to approve the entire three items, or would you be deciding whether to approve individual items or that's what I'm trying to figure out?

What we're addressing right now is the application.

This is not the place to negotiate whether or not we're going to consider one part of the other.

What you've put on the floor is whether we postpone for you to resubmit a new new design for reconsideration to work with the staff.

Or are we moving forward with this application so we can move either with or without the recommendation on what was presented?

Go ahead for the question.

Are you entertaining to withdraw your application for reconsideration?

Are you wanting to are we looking to postpone so that we have additional resources to be able to redesign?

She says that was her question.

And that is my return question to you, Miss Hendricks.

Is that it which you're proposing?

To have it postpone for reconsideration and redesign, or are we withdrawing to start all over again?

I'm sorry, I'm just a homeowner.

I'm doing my best here.

Um what you're trying to ask is if I don't postpone, you will take a vote, and that vote is on the staff recommendations.

Is that correct?

That is what we're about to determine that.

Okay.

Um I suppose I'm open to a postponement.

Thank you.

It it will be a financial hardship, but I will do it.

That's what I must do.

So at this time, Corey, moving forward or Brian, what do we do?

We would need an action to postpone to a to the next available hearing date, which would be September something.

I'll end attend a motion, please.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to uh uh postpone uh this application until the September 19th.

September 19th uh meeting date to allow the homeowner uh to work on this uh both with the neighborhood association and OHP Do I have a second?

Second.

There's a motion on the floor to postpone to September 17th for reconsideration with the home with the Historic Society and September 17th?

Yes.

And what was it?

The department in a second.

Can I go ahead and have a roll call vote, please?

Davis?

Aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Spiller?

Aye.

Setzer.

Aye.

Fullerton?

Aye.

Pollock?

Aye.

Vasquez?

Aye.

And Sapulva.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Ms.

Henderson, if you'll please go back to the staff so that we can better support you.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Ryan, you're up again.

Okay.

Okay.

Agenda item number five, CTAB case number 2025-195-323 Divine Street.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to install a five-foot-tall black rod iron fence at the front side of the property.

Staff recommends approval of the request based on findings A through C with the following stipulation.

One that the fence not exceed four feet in height from the window bay fronting Labor Street through to the south and aligned parallel to Divine Street.

The applicant Craig Hutchinson is here in person along with his contractor team.

There are additional photos in your late folder.

There is one letter and one voicemail for commissioner review.

Mr.

Hutchinson, if you can come up and present your case, you'll have 15 minutes.

The big concern for this fence was for safety.

The third night we stayed in the house.

Thankfully the alarm system went off by the time I was able to get to the front door, of course, a person was gone.

The police did come to look around, made sure the cars were not broke into or anything.

But that was number one, day three, we had that situation happen.

Commercial property, there's commercial property right beside us off the labor street.

Not exactly sure what's going on there.

And then there's a convenience store.

A lot of shady type of activity going up and down the street.

Stray dogs off leashes.

Members of the community seem to think our yard is a meeting spot when they are out walking their dogs.

Very loud.

We've encountered several loud altercations at that bus stop.

So for personal safety, that is a reason we wanted to go with a five-foot fence around the Premier property.

The five-foot fence is when you're standing on the sidewalk looking at our house, is almost level, perfectly level with our hand railing on our uh surround porch.

Uh so that is the reason we were requesting the fence.

I have my uh contractor here if uh he may be able to answer any additional questions.

Thank you, sir, for being here.

At this time, Brian, can you go over some of the things so that way we can address and then we'll move over?

Do we have anything other than a letter or voicemail?

Yes, so we do have a voicemail and I can play that now from the neighborhood associate.

Please.

Good afternoon, Ms.

Melissa and all on behalf of the La Vaca Neighborhood Association calling for the C tab August 22nd regarding item five, uh address 323 divine street.

The Lavaca Neighborhood Association support staff's recommendation of the fence not exceeded four feet in height or the specifications in the recommendation.

The case material show that the fence installation was completed after the stop work order was issued, according to the timing of the stop work order and the status of the fence installation on July 15, 2025.

There appears to have been an opportunity to make modifications or to get proper approval for a variant.

We encourage property owners to follow historic design guidelines and to follow the property to apply for a variant if that is or desired.

And we're happy to assist with any guidance we can and making sure that approval is gained.

Thank you for consideration.

Do we have anything else?

I see the letter.

Thank you.

Brian, the stop order work was was presented one one more time.

Um let me go back.

So we had initially received a report um it's listed in finding B.

So yes, on July 16, 2025, the OHP staff received a report of fence installation without a COA at 323 Divine Street.

Um we coordinated with development services the department to issue a stop work order and for the property owners to submit a COA application to us.

Um they did so on July 21st, 2025.

On July 25th, um the DSD code officer who had initially submitted or initially um issued the stop work order for development services, informed OHP staff that the work on the fence had been completed.

Um and I can uh in just to add a little bit of clarification.

So uh we do work with DSD um development services uh to coordinate stop work orders if the work that's done on site also requires a permit as well.

So um so there was two stop work orders issued at this address.

Was there a certificate of appropriateness for the fence for the for the initial installation?

No, madam chair.

Okay, I'll go ahead and open up the floor for questions and I'll start with online, please.

None here, madam chair.

Thank you.

I'll start to my left.

Just go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A point of information, maybe this is for staff.

It looks like um the property across the street at 711 divine has a fence.

Um do we have any sense for whether or not that uh meets the four-foot uh standard?

It appears to be shorter.

Um if you can give me just one moment um to pull up and see if I can search for that on Google Street View.

Um just one moment.

Um while Brian does that, I'm gonna provide one more tidbit.

Um up until a few years ago, the citywide code for front yard fences uh re tops out the maximum fence height at four feet for the front yard.

That was updated um, I guess about four or five years ago to be five feet.

Um that was based, that amendment was based on the number of uh Board of Adjustment Variances for front yard fences that were being approved.

Um and so our historic guidelines that say it needs to be four feet have stayed the same.

It used to be consistent with the city code, now the city code allows a little bit more.

And so if this was not in a store district, five feet would be allowed.

Um, and so he wouldn't have to get a variance if this was approved today.

Um but our historic design guidelines still apply, and so four feet is what is typically recommended in the historic district.

Okay, so let me make sure I I understand.

He would have to get a variance for five feet, but it does not apply because of the historical district opposite actually.

Um so uh if this was not in a historic district, he could have five feet.

Um so you can approve up to five feet today without requiring a variance, but our guidelines still say four feet is most appropriate.

Okay.

Does that answer your question, sir?

For clarification?

That helps, yes, thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Questions?

I'll open up the floor to the my right.

Just a point of clarification.

Um this fence is five feet high and it's completely installed already?

Is that correct?

Correct.

And um can I just ask what the reasoning was for ignoring to stop work orders?

The the reason it was so the reason that Mr.

Hutchison continued and we continue with the installation was the safety.

Uh there was people that were loadering.

There was paraphernalia on the uh front porch.

And if you notice, there is a bus stop right at the corner.

So he had the option, uh, and there's no clarification, but I think we have somebody from DSD.

He could have installed a six-foot high temporary fence, which is modular that we install all over uh the city, and also FYI, we are also the official city contractor for the city of San Antonio.

So he could have put installed something that looks out of the norm and put a six-foot high tall chain link temporary fence, meanwhile.

Um with the intentions, the intentions were good.

Um but he didn't want it to look like a construction site, although he has the means and the rights to do so of putting up a temporary fence.

So he said, let's let's see what we can work out.

And that's the reason that we we continue with the process of the installation.

Thank you.

Any other what's your name?

Larry Sauce.

Can you come up to the mic?

Sure.

For being an official contractor for the city of San Antonio, and you move forward ignoring the stop loss, the stop order.

Knowing that was the right thing to do.

Isn't that such a contradiction, sir?

It's not a contradiction in the sense of the safety, outweighing the safety of uh Mr.

Hutchinson and his wife.

Uh again, we could have put the temporary fence and it was it was his his doing it following his instruction.

So that's the reason that we that we did that.

I mean, we we he's the homeowner of the property.

And that being said, again, he had the option to continue with the temp fence or finish it out.

And out of safety and it not looking out of the norm, and at least something that looks productive and conducive to the property, is that's why he continued with the the rod iron fence.

So that kind of gives me a little bit of concern, sir.

Seeing that you're the city official contractor, and I know you're doing for safety.

So I guess I'd like to be at this area, Brian.

Go ahead and have a seat, sir.

Thank you.

So, Brian.

At this point, what was the end results with what was done?

How can we actually move forward with this?

Sure.

So there's a few options.

So staff is recommending approval um for the fence, just that it be lowered to four feet in height.

So there's nothing inherent about the design um or the materials used that is uh that does not conform to historic design guidelines.

So we are fine with the material, the the style um at issue though is the height of the five feet.

So the historic design guidelines list four feet as being appropriate within front yards.

Um so that would be our recommendation would be that the potentially that the uh contractor reduced the height.

Um additionally, the CTAC could deny outright deny the request.

Um, but again, the OHP staff were we're fine with the fence, it's just the height that's the the contentious issue.

Understood.

So I would like to entertain a motion at this time.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve with staff recommendations.

Is there a second?

Second.

There is currently a motion on the floor with the second to accept staff's recommendation.

I'll take a roll call vote.

Davis, aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Spiller?

Aye.

Setzer?

Aye.

Fullerton?

Aye.

Paula?

Aye.

Vasquez?

Aye.

And Sepulveda.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

If you'll please go back to and work with the staff.

Thank you.

We have no more items.

Thank you so much.

At this time, we'll go ahead and adjourn at 1031.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you all.