Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is down 3 p.m.

I'd like to call to order the historic design review commission for Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mahmon.

Present.

Seven?

Here.

Velasquez.

Galloway.

Givada.

Here.

Group.

Here.

Cervantes.

Here.

Holland.

Fetzer.

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please.

Good afternoon.

See I'm going to persona necessita interpretation alespaniol.

Favor de Passar a la Cabina Paracle de su equipo.

Gracias.

Thank you.

The historic and design review commission is an advisory board appointed by city council.

I am J.

Maurice Gibbs, Chairman and Vice Chair is Jeffy Fetzer.

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 and a river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

And considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for certificate of appropriateness.

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

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

You will be called upon 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 or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each.

Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who is 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 speakers to respond to further questions.

Approval by the commission does not take the place of any type of permit.

Permits must be attained 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, please silence your cell phones.

Good afternoon, everyone.

So hopefully here on the screen we'll see it in a second.

So announcing our new preservation academy.

Um this is a new classroom educational series for anybody who's interested in learning how to take care of old buildings, um, preservation policy at the city, um, doing work with permits and tax incentives and all navigating those processes and also how to make buildings more environmental friendly um and and more.

Um and so uh the first uh session will be uh right here in this room um on Saturday, September 20th in the morning.

Um this is a free event for anyone who's interested in learning more.

Um there is a place on SA Speak Up for registration where you can tell us you're coming and RCVP.

Um we will have breakfast and coffee and things like that for those that attend.

Um the next uh session will be it'll be monthly, um, will be on October 7th.

Um will be all about historic architecture in San Antonio, and that one's gonna be virtual, and so there'll be a mixture of in-person and virtual opportunities, and so we welcome everyone to Google Preservation Academy or visit SA Speak Up.com and search for Preservation Academy.

You'll be able to find all of the upcoming events there.

Um with that we can do uh action on meeting minutes from August 20th.

Mr.

Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting minutes from August 20th, 2025.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Any further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'amin.

Aye, Savino.

Aye.

Galloway.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group, aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Okay.

Um back to the screen.

Uh, we have 10 items on today's consent agenda.

Um, we don't have any in-person speakers, but we do have voicemails for a couple that we'll play at this time, starting with item two.

Just bear with me one minute, please.

Our files have gone missing, so one second.

Are you in today's folder, Edward?

For the third.

Agenda item number 10, case number 2025, 211, 327, Donaldson.

My name is Robin Foster, Monticello Park Neighborhood Association Architectural Review Committee, offering comments on behalf of Gian Camaldonato, President of MPNA and its board of directors.

TO Box 100315-78201.

We support staff seven recommendations for the conceptual construction of the new accessory structure.

We express concern with the mapping and scale of the accessory structure, as its roof line, even with staff's recommendations, is incongruent with the historic district and does not relate to the main house.

In regards to the carport, its roof line must be flat and its position on the property should be re-evaluated.

Based on the separation distance shown of the carport to the residential home, plus or minus five feet, the two structures are too close together.

The carport looms over the main home.

Also, from an operational standpoint, two cars maneuvering the tightly constrained parking pad with its supports is not functional.

The applicant should consider reviewing design guidelines and minimum dimensions and radii for driveways, turnarounds, and back out maneuvering space.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Commissioners, um on the tracking sheet up here, it's noted that there's a voicemail and support for two to two weeks.

Um I think that's a typo.

We have a letter of support from the King William Association.

Uh so I believe uh that that that was just added to the wrong column.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Um so that was ended to voicemails, correct?

That concludes voicemails for the consent agenda.

There are other letters in your packets.

Thank you.

Um I understand we have one recusal.

Um I'd like to pull number four for questions.

Okay.

And then I'll be recusing off the uh consent agenda.

Thank you.

Item number four.

Any other commissioner would like to pull any items?

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to pull item number six.

Item six.

Any other items like the record state that Vice Chair Fetzer is leaving the room, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to for the consent agenda to accept items one through ten, less item number four, less item number six, all with staff stipulations for approval.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Mayor Roll Call, please.

Mammon?

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Commissioner Galloway.

Aye.

Thank you.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda, your address is 201 Newell, 222 WICs, 3350 East Commerce, 109 West Grayson, 102 Thrain, 142 Armor, 135 West Linwood, and 327 Donaldson.

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 a member or staff of staff or your case manager.

Your certificate of appropriateness or commission action letter will be prepared and emailed to you within 10 days.

Commissioners, I'll pull up item number four, which is 343 West Houston Street.

Please step up to the podium.

Can you please state your name for the record?

Oh I'm sorry.

Yes, Conrad Martinez with R VK architecture here in San Antonio, Texas.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I pull this off for clarification.

In the application description, it says installation of blue tinted glass, but the drawings show reflective blue tinted glass.

Is the glass actually going to be reflective?

It's yes, it is going to be reflective blue tinted glass.

Okay.

Have any sort of studies been done to see what sort of reflections might affect drivers or other businesses in the in the vicinity?

I know in the past, some if something's too reflective or it's the wrong angle or what have you, that it affects other property owners as well as uh drivers.

Understood, we have not, but we can definitely look at possibly looking into that.

Uh the only reason why we decided to use the highly reflected blue tinted glass is because the frost tower across the street, we're using the same type of glazing that they're using.

Uh which obviously that's a lot more expansive with more square footage.

Ours is ribbon windows, so we didn't think it would be you know out of the question to use that same type of glazing system.

So you're actually putting tint on the the existing windows or actually changing the the glass?

We're actually replacing all of the exterior uh window systems.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, just the one time.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions for this applicant?

May I have a motion, please?

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the request with all of staff stipulations.

I'll second.

It's been moved then properly second.

Any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item number six, one twenty-five sweet street.

I believe the applicant Chris Coker is here virtually.

Please step up to the podium.

I think it's virtual.

Oh.

Chris, are you there?

I'm here.

Can you all hear me?

Sure can.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Sabine will pull this item for you for questions.

So Commissioner Savino.

Um yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My question, I'd like to begin my questioning to staff.

Um I as I'm going through the file, I see that a number of the actions on this were done previous to any COA being issued.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Um, why would this not why would this come to our commission rather than to CTAB?

Oh, well, so um the scopes of work that were approved, staff found to be eligible.

There was a scope of work that was to the removal of the rear accessory structure that came to this commission.

Um this is the current item on the agenda, if I'm not mistaken, is for a tax certification and verification.

Uh so just the the the tax incentive.

Okay.

No no actual scopes of work.

Okay.

Um I guess the the benefit of requesting a COA before you do the work is so that you can make sure it's being done correctly and properly to the style and to the guidelines.

And for staff, can you talk about the railings, the front ballister and the turnaround with the post as it goes creates railings, hand railings to the stair.

That whole assembly.

How did you come to approve that?

Yeah, Edward, can you pull Google Street View?

Yes, sorry.

So just to clarify, so the issue here is that there is a uh concrete slab porch, and so prior to the rehabilitation work here, um there was a metal rail that kind of went to the perimeter um of that porch.

And so it is odd that the railings are not spaced between the posts as they would be historically.

Um but we follow the um the guidelines which are based on the standards for rehabilitation, and so there's no requirement to restore.

We deal with what's there, and so it was deemed to be an appropriate replacement for the metal railing that was in place.

Even though we would know that the style does not call for that.

I mean it it's sort of an aberration to create uh a Victorian handrail outboard of turned columns.

Yeah, I mean this house probably originally didn't have a railing at all.

True.

True.

Okay, thank you.

And if I if I could clarify, this is Chris.

I I did actually reach out to historic uh prior to removal of any railings or anything like that, just to make sure that I was in compliance.

I didn't I did request multiple POAs on this property, um, but there was a lot done to it, as you can see, like on the outside, it was cinder block, and so we um uh that was just one of the things a rear struct uh uh accessory structure.

Um but I I did um and I and I do rent uh rehab quite a few historic properties, and so um so I do tend to reach out to uh OHP and get their advice on a lot of this stuff before uh before I think uh sometimes COA just kind of skips by or I think or I thought that I have put in a certain thing and and my original COA packet and it wasn't there, whatever it may be, but um yeah, I tend to uh be a uh rule follower as far as um what Edward and the rest of the staff there uh requirements.

Sure.

I I understand.

Um I just want to go on the record that it is an aberration, and I just would like um when subsequent cases from the neighborhood come forward wanting to do something like this, that once again we let them know it's a case-by-case thank you.

Any other questions for this applicant may I have a motion, please?

I'll make a motion to accept the um to approve the request with staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second any further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and Savino?

Nay Galloway.

Uh Mazuka.

Hi.

Givar?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Can you repeat that, please?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number 11, please.

Next up on the agenda is uh HDRC case number 2025-213 for 322 Lamar Street.

So the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval of a non-continuous front walkway already installed that is composed of charcoal gray concrete pavers with white stone gravel in between the paths that also extends across the left side of the front facade of the primary structure and connecting to the driveway.

And the applicant is also requesting historic tax certification for the property at 322 Lamar.

Staff does not uh does not recommend approval of item one based on the findings.

Staff recommends the walkway be replaced with a continuous walkway that matches the previous walkway in color within material.

Should item one receive approval or otherwise come into compliance, then staff recommends approval of historic tax certification.

And I was under the impression the applicant would be here.

I'm just not sure if they're online.

No, uh we don't.

Gustavo?

Yes.

Yeah, I don't think he's here.

So it seems the applicant um did not show up.

Uh we do have a voicemail for this item that we'll go ahead and play if that's okay.

Yes, please.

Hello, my name is Louis Francois, chairperson for the Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee calling in on HDRC case number 2025-213-322 Lamar.

We agree with staff's recommendation to replace the newly installed white gravel and charcoal gray papers with a continuous walkway that matches the previous walkway in color width and material.

This applicant should be familiar with requesting changes to the exterior of the house to include landscaping and walkways since he has already been through this process for the main structure.

Other applicants have had their request to install gravel and pavers for front walks denied, and so should this one.

In addition, we received notification that the fish scale sighting above the window on the west side of the house was removed.

Please see the image in your notes for historical accuracy.

The applicant needs to replace the fish scale siding since it is one of the details that made this house stand out.

It is obvious that a lot of time, effort, and money has gone into renovating this house, for which we commend the applicant, but both the walkways and fifth scale siding need to be returned to their original state before historic tax certification should be approved.

Thank you.

Setting on your voicemail.

Yes, yes, Commissioner, that's correct.

Thank you.

Corey, so since the applicant is not here, um do can we do we need to take action on this now or just move it to the end of the agenda, or what do we have?

We could try that, and we can try to reach out to the applicant to see if they can join by the end of the hearing.

Um it's it's really up to you.

You're able to take action, it's on the agenda, um, or it's up to you to postpone.

I have a question, so ahead.

Does staff do you know anything about the fish scale that was removed from the gable?

No, we'd have to clarify that with the applicant.

And then do you know the concrete has been removed?

Yes.

Yes, so we we discovered that on our site visit when we were we were going originally for tax verification as well.

And so when we um when we went, that's when we saw the um the walkway.

And so the applicant was not aware of the walkway.

Um well, I don't want to say being aware, I don't want to speak for them, but the applicant um did the uh landscaping or the walkway modification without receiving approval, although he had received approvals for the other modifications done to the primary structure.

So when we did the siding approval a year ago, we don't have pictures if there was a fish scale, was there?

Well, yeah, but I mean I don't want to have to pull it up, but we might have it or we'd have to look it up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so since the applicant is not here and it's on the agenda, I want to take action on this item.

Um since we don't have an applicant to ask any questions, do any commissioners need to make any comments or any discussion about this item?

I I do.

Go ahead, sir.

Uh Commissioner Mazuka.

And um to me, that sidewalk looks treacherous.

It looks like you would be unhealthy to walk on or inducing tripping.

So uh I would not vote for that kind of a sidewalk.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Chair, I'll do a motion.

Um I have a uh a comment um or a question for staff.

If you're planning to go, will you be going to the site to review the gable fish uh this fish scale gable finishes?

Um there are four gables that have that.

I actually look up uh slide 44 of our case file.

I found an old picture.

It's there.

And in addition, the uh COA does not cover replacement for those.

No, um, why don't we do this?

Um because that is an additional violation that would prevent them from receiving the incentive.

Um I would recommend a postponement to the next available hearing date so that we can include that as a request item and include the before and after photos.

Oh, so we wouldn't be able to reclude it in the motion as a stipulation.

My concern is we don't we don't have it listed as a request of the applicant.

Um we added the walkway as a request because we knew that that was one of the violations that needed to be remedied.

Um and so this is another one that came to our attention through the public input process, and so it was not on the agenda.

I'm just gonna say I think it's important, imperative to include the gables, all of the gables in future consideration.

I think having full set of photographs of the exterior as we usually require would have revealed that earlier.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fester.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I have a question.

Oh, I'm sorry, guys, sir.

Sorry, it's the delay.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Fencer.

Uh so uh as a as a um motion, we can't add things to it as we as we see would be suitable for uh certification, even if it's not listed on the request.

I mean, if we found other things that were needed to bring it into uh requirements for certification, we we can't add the fish game one moment, sir.

I'm gonna walk back what I said earlier, and we do think that if you just included a stipulation about all its outstanding uh violations being remedied prior to issuance of the verification, then we can work with that.

Gotcha.

All right, so before you go, Commissioner.

Um so um Commissioner Cervantes, so with um what Corey just said, are you good with that?

We're gonna most likely include those into the motion.

Are you good, sir?

Yes, that makes sense.

Yeah, that's why I was asking that.

That makes perfect sense.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Well, I'll motion to um deny item one.

And do I say deny item two, or just that just automatically removes item two?

Um you could say approval of item two with the stipulation that all outstanding violations be on the property be remedied.

Okay.

So approval item, uh sorry, the non item one, approval item two with the stipulation that um the walkway be, you know, the violation of the walkway be reinstalled as was, as well as all fishing scale and all four gables be restored to what they were originally.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and properly second further discussion.

Oh, Mr.

Chair, I would just like to add the fish scale pattern on that gable, on those gables, all of them, um, are just so indicative of a Victorian cottage.

I mean, that is one of the things that really um as you're driving down the street and you're looking at the details of these beautiful little houses, that really stands out.

It's really prominent.

And the fish scale shingle that was used previously was a little bit thicker, so it gave it that texture and that shadow line.

Something that cement board doesn't quite do.

So I am very happy with the motion.

I'll be supporting it.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino, aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Ms.

Hi.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Pet sir?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

And a note for staff when you do talk to this applicant.

Definitely show them photo number 44, which has a little bit more detail on that front gable.

Than just the fish scales.

Thank you.

Item number 12, please.

Agenda item number 12, HDRC case number 2025-210 2018 San Pedro Avenue.

The applicants requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to modify the existing front facade to include steco arch installation modifications to window openings and the installation of a front entry tower.

Staff does not recommend approval based on the findings.

Staff finds that the facade alterations should be simple in nature and reflective of the period of construction for this commercial structure.

The applicant, Faustino Mancha is here in person.

There's one letter for commission review.

Mr.

Faustino, if you would like to come up to the podium and introduce yourself and walk the commissioners through your request.

Good afternoon.

My name is Faustina Mancha.

Thank you, sir.

Please present your case.

Yes, we're uh trying to uh change the facade of the front of the site uh to make it look versus the way the the old uh South South's restaurant used to be.

And uh the owner wanted to add a tower so it could be more attractive at the front entrance.

If you could see where that peak is in the middle, that's where the the tower was gonna is gonna be located.

Have approved is that it sir?

Is that it?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Do we um we have no voicemails for this item?

So um any questions for this applicants yes, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, I have one for staff or the applicants.

Go ahead, sir.

Yeah, can you tell me what this building was before it was the previous restaurant?

It seems to me that that little awning out there is kind of it's reminiscent of a of uh of uh of a franchise uh uh building.

I'm wanting to say maybe it was a circle K or something else like that, but that little awning that he's trying to change.

Was that part of the original building or is that part of of uh that was added later?

Um so during staff's research on this property.

Um I'm not aware of any documentation of what this uh structure was prior to this Mexican restaurant.

Um additionally, the structure was I'm not hearing anything.

I don't have any audio, Edward.

If you're talking.

Can you hear me?

Commissioner.

Oh, weird.

We're gonna push the buttons and see if we can make it work.

This webinar other commissioners, can you hear us?

Looks like they're all frozen.

Uh so just a note for the recording that we're gonna restart the software on this machine, and then we'll hopefully be able to reconnect in a moment.

So do we just hold off until we get to them back?

Okay.

So have a seat for a moment, sir.

We'll we'll call you back up shortly.

Thank you.

He says that when I chair, we Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

May I recommend uh five-minute recess?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant, can you please step back up to the podium, please?

Commissioner Cervantes, we're gonna go back to you, sir, because we froze when you were asking your question.

So uh we'll resume with you, sir.

Yes, thank you.

My question was to either to staff or the applicant.

I'm trying to figure out what that building was when it was constructed.

It seems to me that that awning reminds me of a franchise uh uh type building.

I don't know if it belonged to a certain franchise or if it was put there after the fact.

Um and I'm just trying to get some historical perspective from that.

I you know, I kind of want to say either Napa Auto Parts or Circle K or something like that, but I don't remember.

I recognize that on it.

It could just be that it's common to a whole bunch of buildings, but I I thought it looked like a franchise angle there on the front.

Sure.

Thank you as uh thank you for the question and um our apologies for the wait.

So uh in staff's research, we didn't find anything um that indicated what business was there prior to the Mexican restaurant that was there previously.

Um this building, the earliest aerial photo we could find was 19, I believe 1966.

And so the uh the awning does appear to be there.

Um but I I guess all that to say is that it's um inconclusive.

Chair Commissioner Group to the applicant so you were talking about the tower but basically you're removing the awning you're creating the tower but you're also changing every window confinetration like you're making them arch correct smaller windows uh yes we're making changing them to smaller windows and we're not removing the awning we're just adding the tower the awning's gonna stay and you're using the awning to support the arches part of it no no not the arches are are stuck in the wall they're not out in the wall the arches that we're adding it's like a trim around the windows but the tower you see where it says existing awning that's staying we're just adding the tower in the front just to make it more attractive okay so I see it that way okay thank you other questions about the applicant yes I do I have um a question but I want to preface it just with a comment and that is I understand your desire and your goal to make this attractive and to make it nice to bring customers to the restaurant um you realize that almost all of the moves design moves that you're proposing are counter to the guidelines right yes um my question is well I think there's a lot to discuss here design wise and would you be open for a DRC site visit where we can meet you on site and talk about what it is you're trying what what it is that you're tasked to do.

Sure creating a nice uh a nice restaurant a better finish better frontage yes thank you other questions for the applicants I'll do a motion Mr Chair before you do that I want I do have one question though so um sir um my question when we're looking at this case um as um commissioner Sabino alluded to you're making changes um to the bill that's completely changing it and is counter to what the guidelines are now my question is the periods that this building was built in your changing or you're attempting to change that so are you aware of that or are you just you just think it looks nice so you want to make it look like this not it irrespective of what the guidelines are saying.

Yes well um we just thought what uh the owner was requiring for us to change the front to make it look more attractive and not trying to change I mean we we're not changing everything inside of the building or the side is just the front the facade right and that's that's what we're asking about because I mean what you do inside is it's not it's not we don't it's not our purpose not there but you're changing yes the periods of the building I mean what period at which it was built in so are you or your employer or boss aware of that yes okay thank you um commissioner group I'm gonna motion to uh move with staff's recommendations second and and just to clarify um commissioner seven I know you offered a DRC and DRCs are always open but I think at this point with this application whether request is on the table I think it is changing completely the front of the facade which is the important part of keeping history in that is the front right so we would probably be more flexible if something in the back on the sides but when you're changing the front and this is a very extensive change to the front that um you're you're proposing on behalf of the owner so you can always ask for a DRC to come up with other design ideas that means informally come and talk to commissioners about it but as the application stands here today I mean it would there's a clear you know mid-century flair to the building and you're you know the design that is proposed today is completely changing and removing all of those elements so that's why I did the motion stated today thank you for the discussion yes Mr.

Um uh to Commissioner Groove's comment uh exactly.

I I think that this is um design-wise aesthetically, it's way off what you're proposing from what it is and what it could be.

And rather than working against the style that exists if you if you and your designers work with the style, um you could utilize that mid-century modern 1950s 60s aesthetic and have a very beautiful building.

Do you consider uh coming back for a DRC before you bring back a final design?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

All right.

Seeing none may have a roll call, please.

Mammon.

Aye.

Savina?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 13, please.

Agenda item number 13, HTRC case number 2025-209-407 Donaldson Avenue.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct an approximately 484 square foot detached rear garage.

Staff recommends approval of the request based on findings A through H with the following stipulations.

One, that the applicant incorporate a double bay garage door opening on the proposed rear garage.

Two, that the applicant install lab siding with a reveal not to exceed five inches, and if fibers cement siding is used, features a smooth finish or installs board and battened siding that features boards that are 12 inches wide and battons that are one and a half inches wide.

Final garage door specifications must be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of certificate of appropriateness.

And four, that the applicant meets all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtained a variance from the Board of Adjustment if applicable.

Please note that the applicant has since confirmed to staff that they agree with all of staff stipulations for approval.

And if you would like uh uh Mr.

Chair, I can play the voicemail now.

Please agenda item 13, case 2025, 2094 Donaldson.

My name is Robin Foster, Monticello Park Neighborhood Association Architectural Review Committee, offering comments on behalf of Bianca Maldonado, President of MPNA and its board of directors.

PO box 100 315 78201.

We are supportive of staff or recommendations.

We respectfully request the inclusion of an additional stipulation that the siding be horizontal lap siding instead of vertical board and batten.

This request is in keeping with the architectural characteristics of the Monticello Park Historic District.

We also recommend that the applicant review the rear setback during permitting, as it has been our understanding that the alley may be used to reduce the rear setback to two and a half feet.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Thank you.

The applicant, you say this.

Yes, the uh the applicant is here.

Um if you would like they can give their presentation.

They do agree with staff stipulations.

Um they've informed us uh after the agenda was posted.

Thank you.

Um applicant, please step forward to the podium.

Thank you, sir.

Please state your name for the record.

Good afternoon, Paul Hunter.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

So we understand that you're accepting all staff stipulations for um for this item.

So um I vote you up here just in case any commissioners have any questions for you.

So do we have any questions for this applicant?

I do have a question.

Um Go ahead, Commissioners.

Um I need clarification on this first stipulation.

This is for staff.

Uh let's see.

Double bay garage door opening.

Double the width or two separate doors.

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

Um the the stipulation would have two separate doors with a separation in between.

Correct.

And you're good with that.

Um to the applicant, um, what are your uh thoughts about installing horizontal siding versus the board and batten?

Uh our our preference from a cost standpoint and uh meeting the budget of our customer is to do board and batten, but we certainly can accommodate the commission's request of the lap siding.

I think um because of the time period of the neighborhood, the board and batten being primarily a Victorian era siding.

I think probably the lap sliding is more appropriate for the era.

Understood.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

Yeah, can you pull slide 19?

And it might just be because it's a old drawing, but just want to make sure there's nothing else being built because it shows a shed and it shows some concrete.

That doesn't exist anymore, I'm assuming, or won't it's not part of the is not going to be added.

No.

It does not exist.

And the pictures should show that they do not exist.

So still, I just wanted to make sure that because you're showing it as the plan of where you're placing it, that you're not adding another shed, or just for clarification.

Sure, there's no existing shed.

And staff can offer some uh insight.

The the survey was done when there was a shed and uh the slab available, but the photo that's presented now um does show the current conditions of the backyard, and the applicant has noted that the only request item is the uh 22 by 22 um uh rear accessory.

Okay.

And then um maybe staff can clarify.

So all the accessory structures are actually in this picture you see one, two, three already there.

Are they uh horizontal or vertical siding?

And the other picture you had up on the screen.

I mean, uh I I'm sorry, just to clarify, are you are you meaning the uh structures that are behind the fence?

Neighboring structures.

Because um to Commissioner Savino's point, a certain era, but it's kind of difficult in this neighborhood because I feel like a lot of the houses are in from many different areas.

But um I do think the neighborhood does have a point on that.

I don't know if you can see that.

You see them trying to use that as a reference.

Yes, I I can see the one to the right having lap siding.

It's unclear on the ones on the left.

Okay.

And then I want to your material is metal on the specifications.

No?

What's the specs on that?

It was submitted as a uh is a uh vertical groove siding, uh, but now understanding the the commission's requirements, we can certainly and what was the material that was submitted?

Uh that's a wood product LP siding.

Wood, okay.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Any further questions for the applicants?

Seeing the may have I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

Yes, uh move for approval with staff stipulations and the clarification that the siding will be horizontal lap siding for the staff's recommendations.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly second.

Is there any further discussion?

All right, Carrie Now may have a roll call, please.

Maman.

Aye.

Seven.

Aye.

Galloway.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that, please?

Thank you.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 14, please.

Thank you.

Item number 14 on the historic design review commission agenda.

Case number 2025-048, 232 Lavaca Street.

The applicant is seeking conceptual approval to contract construct a two-story rear accessory structure featuring two exterior porches and an attached carport at the rear of the property.

Staff recommends conceptual approval with the following stipulations.

One that the overall height and footprint be reduced to conform to the guidelines as noted in findings E and H.

Detailed elevation drawings are required for final approval.

Two, that the setback from Refugio be verified to be greater or equal to the setback of the neighboring historic home located immediately to the west, as noted in finding D.

A detailed site plan showing setbacks, proposed fence location, proposed landscaping, and all flat work dimensions is required for final approval as noted in findings D, J, and L.

Three, that the stucco feature a traditional finish similar to that found historically within the district.

That a window product meeting state the standard specifications for windows and new construction is used and a standing seam metal roof that meets the standard specifications be installed as well as submitting all the material specifications to include stucco finish, wooden siding material, column specifications, roofing, window and exterior door specifications to staffer review prior to returning to the HDRC for final approval.

Four, that the applicant reduce the width of the provok proposed drive to measure no wider than 10 feet as noted in finding J.

And lastly, that the applicant meet all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtain a variance from the board of adjustment if applicable.

And there is one voicemail.

Thank you.

Mr.

Balou, can you um pronounce I'm sorry not pronounced, but mouse yourself and then present your case, please.

Hey there.

Um I'm Clint Balou at 232 Bavaka.

And um yeah, I appreciate you guys hearing me out today.

Um as far as the recommendations, I think um I was told I guess it was kind of brushed with the the long holiday, but I did send over um information and um and agree with what the staff is saying.

Um we were able to reduce the height.

I've been through a couple of the uh DRCs.

And um you know, try to obviously take in everything that was uh asked.

Um currently the height is one foot uh below the um the front uh house, I guess.

Um it is on a separate lot that being said, but um the the house uh we were able to get it uh one foot below what the um other houses and um I switched up some of the windows on the back as requested um by uh that way like separating it out and um yeah I think um every everything else I'm more than happy to comply with thank you, sir.

Um so as if I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

So other than the statements that you made, you're agreeing with all staff stipulations.

Um yes, it's it it is already um I guess been been adjusted.

So I don't think that you guys have all the paperwork.

Um you have some of it there, but it is um yes, it's been uh the the overall height is now lower.

And um the height of the front house, the front structure, it shows 22, although it's three foot um uh there's the three-foot foundation on that, which you can you can see that there where the height is.

So the the actual height is uh is actually twenty-five and um three inches.

All right.

Thank you very much, sir.

Appreciate it.

May I have the voicemail, please?

Good morning.

This is Melissa Stendhal representing the Lavaca Neighborhood Association calling with regards to item 14 on today's agenda, September 3rd, case uh 048 or address 232 Lavaca Street.

The Lavaca Neighborhood Association supports this design uh with all staff recommendation and encourages building in accordance with the UDC and without need for variance.

Thank you for your consideration.

All right, thank you.

Questions for the applicants.

I'll do a motion if there are no questions.

All right, I see no questions, so okay, please.

So this is conceptual and and you seem to agree to all the stipulations and and you know staff hasn't reviewed the final anything of the updated, I guess, or recommendations, and I don't see anything in our folder.

So I'll move to approve with uh conceptual approval with staff stipulations.

Second.

This has been moved and properly second.

Further discussion.

And then just to the applicant.

I mean, since it is conceptual and you seem to agree to all the stipulations, you would have to come back for final, right?

So just make sure you you really look into it.

I want to make sure that the the setback you understand that and the driveway width and all these stipulations, so you don't spend time on something that but I guess if you do comply with all those stipulations, you shouldn't you should be fine for the final.

It is um it's the same, it's actually a little bit uh further back than the house next to it as well.

So and then shrinking the driveway is is no problem.

I think it's one foot.

I think that shows 11, so I'll make sure all that's adjusted.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Yes.

Um to comment on this.

I I know um Mr.

Belou that you've been working on this with the DRC, and I appreciate the changes you have made.

I will say that I agree with one of the letters in our package, and that when we're looking at massing and height for new construction, we are comparing it, making it relative to the historic structures rather than new additions or new structures in the neighborhood.

So that being the case, I will say that um the height could use some additional work.

It's a little tall.

I don't think a foot will make will succeed in making that change that the neighborhood is looking for, that staff is looking for, and that I, as one commissioner, am looking for.

I think you're really gonna have to look at your plate height in a different way to bring the height down.

So the new construction is not more prominent than the historic house that's on the same lot.

Thank you.

Further discussion, further comments for this applicants.

All right, seeing none, may I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 14 was the last item on today's agenda.

So that is it for today.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.