I'd like to call to order the Historic and Design Review Commission for Wednesday, October 1st.

May have a roll call, please.

Ma'am and Seveno?

Here.

Velasquez.

Here.

Galloway.

Here.

Ms.

Uka?

Here.

Givata?

Here.

Group?

Here.

Cervantes?

Here.

Holland?

Here.

Petzer?

Here.

Gibbs.

We have a quorum.

The Historic and Design Review Commission is an advisory board appointed by the City Council.

I am acting chair Jeffrey 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 in the river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

In considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's unified development code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by City Council.

An appeal of a decision by an administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's unified development code.

If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to 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 of 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 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 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 Commission does not take the place of any type of permit.

Permits must be obtained for all work.

Certificates of appropriateness for work approved by the commission will be emailed to you within 10 days.

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

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Next we have any staff announcements?

No, but we do have a quick order of business.

So um Vice Chair Fetzer is presiding over the meeting today in the absence of Chair Gibbs.

And so we need to have a quick election for acting vice chair because I believe you do have a recusal.

So would you like to call for nominations for acting vice chair?

Yes.

Nominations for acting vice chair.

Mr.

I nominate uh Commissioner Sabino.

You have a second?

Second.

All in any other nominations.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item is uh approval meeting minutes from September 17th.

Mr.

Chair, I approve I move to approve the meeting minutes from September 17th, 2025.

Second.

First and second.

Um discussion.

Have a roll call, please.

Seveno.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Ms.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay.

And before we get into our consent items, uh, we do have one speaker signed in for general items, and so I'll call her up now.

Kathleen Trentard.

Kathleen, if you'd like to give your comments now, or do you want to wait until you signed up to speak at the top of the hearing, Kathleen?

Yeah.

So if you want to give your comments now, we'll you'll have two minutes to do that.

I like your hat.

Okay, so good afternoon, commissioners.

It's good to be with you again as our eyes focus on even more digital eyes cluttering our historic downtown today.

The debacle is being forced on us by city staff and councilmen, many of whom are no longer on the dais and good riddance.

All this is taking place on our watch.

Someday our children, our grandchildren, our visitors are gonna ask.

This used to be a charming downtown.

What happened?

Who is responsible for its demise?

And once these billboards are installed, they may never come down.

The Trojan horses may be grandfathered.

I respectfully request that every property owner who agrees to sacrifice their facade to a billboard should appear on a public list, so we can all see who is decreasing the value of their property as well as that of their neighbors and the entire downtown.

The 75% of responders who express negative feedback on the issue in the city's own online survey deserve answers.

As do the nearby property owners who prefer to preserve their building facades, and certainly the downtown residents.

Answers as they watch their neighborhood smattered with glaring, blinking advertising.

We all deserve answers.

For this nightmare was preventable.

Our eyeballs had been sold.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

Um, and now if you want to look at the screen, um, we have a consent agenda items one through eleven.

Um, item seven, just a note has been postponed by the applicant and will not be heard today.

Um we don't have any voicemails, but we do have a few in-person signups for item number two that'll call now.

The first is Alicia Garlock.

We have to do that.

Who's gonna help pass this stuff out?

Um yeah, if we'll have a member of staff come get those from you.

Uh yes.

It's three minutes because we assumed it was three minutes, like always.

But it'll just run.

Okay.

It's it's yeah.

First of all, the Brackenranch Park Conservancy does not represent the excuse me, would you introduce yourself, please?

Sorry, Alicia Garlock.

The Bracken Ranch Park Conservancy does not um represent the community as a whole.

And we know that um the city stakeholders committee do not also represent the community as a whole.

Ida has uh zip codes.

Um Brackerage is a historic landmark, National Register of Historic Places.

It is in disrepair.

Uh neglected, not maintained, and there's pictures up there.

And they want to do a um playscape, a water feature splash pad.

You can see here that people are in that space where they're at, mainly adults.

So the majority of people, they're not all children.

So you want to put this splash pad.

First off, who's gonna maintain the splash pad?

According to the EPA, or sorry, CDC, state regulations cover the splash pad.

It has to be uh disinfected daily, the reservoir that is underground holds water.

It has to be tested every day, every two to four hours while it's open.

And it's about up to $30,000 a year to maintain a splash pad.

We know San Antonio is a heat island, and um there's been cases of children dying from rainy amoeba from a splash pad.

That's what um it's on the video if he wants to share it with you at a for later viewing.

So you want to make a splash pad in a city that's a heat island.

And who's going to take care of it?

Because Chris Motri at one meeting said something about ultraviolet lights.

Well, you can't do that.

It has to be disinfected daily.

It has to be maintained, monitored every two to four hours.

So I have concerns for the well-being of our children that that thing is not going to be maintained.

Because look at the park.

You can see it on the video.

Sorry.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The next is Ellen Patterson.

She will receive four minutes.

Carol Patterson is also here and has yielded her time.

Carol, can you raise your hand?

I'd like to re give the two minutes to Carol because she's been preparing something to say in the time that we've been waiting.

So I'd like to re-yield the two minutes that she's given me.

But I'd like to take my two minutes.

So am I up?

Thank you, sir.

Um Good afternoon.

My name is Ellen Patterson, and I'm I am a practicing attorney here in San Antonio.

I've been going to Brackenridge Park for recreational purposes ever since I was a child.

One of the main features of the park that draws me and other members of the public to this natural area are the large shade-bearing heritage trees that line the San Antonio River.

Another is the great variety of friendly and pleasant waterfowl, the birds, the ducks, the geese that nest near the river, which provide educational opportunities to anyone interested in ornithology and a free zero cost opportunity to watch and interact with the birds.

We can feed the birds, um nuts and grains and things like that, and it's a it's a fun experience for children too.

I have seen the schematic of the proposed playscape that is being proposed, and I strongly oppose the construction of this project for the following reasons.

The project would result in roots being cut of heritage trees for the foundation of the sidewalk and other features of the playscape.

This would weaken the trees that have been here for hundreds of years and render them vulnerable to decay and pests.

Other trees would be st would be slated to be cut down completely if I am viewing the model correctly.

Why don't we devise a project that strengthens these trees and in doing so teach our children the value of these mighty shade trees, their beneficial presence in our parks and their interesting biological features?

The trees are thus an educational opportunity for all walks of life, just waiting to be discovered.

I suggest that the city or the conservancy hire an arborist that would tend to the tree's roots by mulching the soil around their roots to strengthen the trees' root systems, which would produce a hardier, healthier set of trees.

That way our city's residents and guests for generations to come could enjoy the cool shade and natural landscape near the river near the river banks of this section of the San Antonio River.

In addition, by assisting the root and vascular system of the trees, we could aid in holding the soil of the river banks in place, preventing erosion and dangerous runoff for downstream.

So rather than killing or weakening these natural sources of shade and erosion protection in order to build something artificial that would require a great deal of expense and maintenance and has limited usefulness.

We can preserve our trees.

The two other things I was going to say, and I understand my time is up, but instead of hiring people to um set up fireworks to send the birds away.

Why don't we just clean the sidewalks and twice a week?

And it's less expensive to do that.

And then the last thing is why don't we maintain the walls of the WPA, the historic WPA walls that are up there, the stone walls, and maintain those.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Carol Patterson.

Thank you very much.

My name is Carol Patterson.

I've been a resident of San Antonio since 1970.

And I'd like to address particularly the issue of migratory flyways.

In San Antonio, the central flyway is used by approximately 400 species of birds, including the whooping crane from their breeding ground in north uh northern Alberta to the Texas coast.

The central flyway is crucial to their support as they depend on it for sp for specific habitats along the way for resting, feeding, and water.

Egrets and cormorants have also just demonstrated their dependency on this area of Breckenridge Park.

They continue to return in spite of the fact that they are chased away almost daily with people clapping blocks together and setting off fireworks at them.

Um they have less and less place to go in 1970, 40 had four lanes.

Now it has 10 in many places.

And I would say that there are plenty of the areas, areas in the city that can be used for children's playground that would not destroy this crucial habitat.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Ida Ayala.

Good afternoon.

My name is Idayala.

I lit 5922 Pearl Pass in District 2.

I would like to begin by saying that the idea of a natural playscape is great for Brackenwich Park, although there's a lot of building happening to create this natural placescape.

That's citizens of San Antonio have been planning for generations.

I do have an issue with the way the City of San Antonio Bracker Park did not follow the protocol that was explained during public meetings regarding the reconciled plans for Brackenridge Park.

The Playscape Project is tagged as the first project that went through the guiding principles.

Yet they missed the first step, informing the public prior to contracting the deal.

At the reconciliation plan public meetings, we were told by Jay Louden, part of the reconciliation team, reconciliation team, author of the Master Plan, and a founder of the Brackenridge Park Conservancy.

He said, when we have an idea, we will bring it to the public first.

If there is a conflict, we will go back to the drawing board.

Yet at the first meeting in August of 2024, there were already story boards of designs and contractors hired for the project.

The second issue is whether anyone from this project spoke to the Easter campers to get their input or to all the others who spent time at the park.

I did.

Very uh many mixed feelings.

Some of course like the idea, but they don't want to lose their space.

At the end of the public meetings, there were still a lot of loose ends and missing pieces.

Unfunded structures such as restrooms and walkways, a driveway to the area, children will have to walk across a large field to get there.

Plants shouldn't interfere with the teams on the softball field either, who I also spoke to, and who are counting on still having their games on that field.

We don't want another, we're going to demolish the playground and build a better one.

Or there's another park to go to across the street, as so many families have been told in the last few years.

The biggest concern for everyone is the trees.

The biggest draw to our park.

At the December 2024 meeting, I asked whether any trees would be removed.

Rob, I don't know who he was, said no major trees will be taken down, just saplings.

Someone else said they were going to use the trees they tear down from phase one and two to build the playscape.

So please, Mr.

Montreal, don't forget what you promised at those marble meetings.

Not a single large heritage or significant tree would be cut.

We're holding you to it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So that was actually our last public speaker on items on consent.

So at this time you can take up the consent agenda.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any consent agenda items for discussion?

Commissioner Savino.

Yes, I would.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

I would like to poll.

And uh there's plenty for everybody.

Uh number one, item one, item two, item eight.

Item nine, ten, and eleven.

Any others.

Okay.

I have a motion for the balance of the consent agenda items.

Mr.

Chair, I move that the balance of the consent agenda items be approved.

Uh just confirmed that's three, four, five, and six.

Second.

With staff stipulations.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

Any discussion?

Have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

I.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 234 West Woodlawn, 123 Fur, 107 Magnolia, and 305 Dora.

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 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 next we'll pull up uh item number one.

And I will be recusing myself from item number one.

Let the record show that Commissioner Fetzer is leaving the room.

Um, Commissioners, we have DSD staff that can speak to the street name name change application and process, and we also have um Omar Gonzalez with the private development that is associated with the street name change.

Okay.

I have some questions about the name change.

Hi, good afternoon, y'all.

My name is Clayton Wallace.

I'm with development services.

Um happy to answer any questions that you have about.

I'll ask them some questions, and if other commissioners have questions also, we can do that as well.

Um one of the questions was the portion, the segment of Matagorda Street that you are requesting a rename for.

Um that from my understanding that the street previous to Chavez and Durango being put in place, that Matamoris or Matagorda Street also went northward into the neighborhood, what is now Hemisphere Plaza.

Is that true?

That is a great question for staff.

Yes.

So it as early as 1873 extended to that area.

So what was then Lafitte Street?

Okay.

Um the reason why I'm asking that is because it is a remnant of an earlier uh byway, passway, um roadway.

Um did you um did you all look at possibly naming it or identifying that segment of the street in a way that we've looked at in the past with other cases, and that they are they maintain the street name, but they have a way or some other designation attached to them.

So when considering these street name changes, development services role in this is to take the application from either city council or an applicant and then process it in accordance with the EDC.

So we don't actually pick the name.

Um that's something that the applicant comes up with.

So in this situation, it's tied to the existing development.

I don't know if you have the picture of their exhibit.

I have a printout.

Um that one, yes.

So looking at this map here, the where it shows the existing building, there's a this is tied to a development that's occurring there.

So the the portion of Matagorda showed in red is being closed essentially to the public.

So the that right-of-way is being vacated.

Um and then the applicant is wanting to rename that existing portion.

So in terms of selecting the name, I'd be happy to let I'm not sure if the applicant speak to why they selected that.

I know it it's tied to the development, but um go for it.

Yeah, happy to.

Hi.

How are y'all, Commissioners?

Uh Omar Gonzalez with Oxbow Development Group.

Um, and I think we've uh been here before on the on the concept, and so the the concept is called Southtown Aldea.

Aldea is a lesser used Spanish word for village.

And um, and it kind of reminded me that um Vieta Street, which was not Vietnam Street when it existed, but now uh is Vita Street is is also a way to sort of uh brand once you're kind of walking into a branded space.

Um so uh I think we can find it in several places in the city, like Pearl Parkway, um for instance.

Um and so the idea here is that because this just remains a segment, uh it is not the full street, so Matagorda Street will continue to run south of La Vaca Street.

Um but because we're purchasing that portion you can see in the red stripes, um, we would be able to rename that um because it will be a private drive.

So it would be weird to have a name, a name change, and then another name.

Uh and so I thought for continuity and for wayfinding, it actually makes sense um to uh name that portion of Matagorda Street from Cesar Chavez to La Vaca Street, the same name.

Okay, thank you for that explanation.

Any other questions?

I guess it's just my question was that so this is to wayfind from Caesar Travis, and there will not be a drive-thru to La Vaca, basically.

Correct.

It'll be it'll be dead-ended.

It will be dead-ended.

So Martagorda, original Matagorda Street will also dead end at La Vaca on the south part of it.

Correct.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions by the Commissioners?

I'll take a motion make a motion to approve as submitted.

Motions made.

Is there a question?

With staff stipulations.

Second.

There's a second.

Any conversation, discussion about this?

I'd like to just Commissioner.

Thank you, Chair.

It it's a it's quite a small segment of road, but we would look at the trade-off.

It doesn't seem that there's really a significant trade-off that the Matagorda is a really important part of the continuity of memory in the area.

There has been a significant amount of history lost in that area already.

With the hemisphere, even going back to 1960 or I I have a hard time qualifying the segment of that of that road.

And I know that like for instance, when you're going down Pressa, I think it is, or one of those streets where there's a train track and for whatever reasons they cut the road, but it's the same name on both sides.

Just like Alamo on the other side of the same piece of property.

It doesn't change names.

But I know that there's a break in the road.

But it just seems to be that Matagorda is actually a an asset.

So what I uh respect the maker of the motion's opinion.

Um my opinion uh or at least what I what I'll be supporting is more the continuity of Matagorda and not negating the potential uh of that asset to add to continue to add value, in which case it becomes a segmented street now, and um the bigger question is going to be hey, how come they change the name as opposed to you know where's Matagorda and why does it end here?

So to me to me, I I lean more over toward the just want for the record to record that I I lean closer to the maintenance of Matagorda.

Any uh any additional questions?

Yeah.

Commissioner Group, please.

Well, and and I to that point, right?

The continuity, the continuality of the street Matagorda is really important.

And because of that disruption, I want to say, because a portion of it will actually stop existing, that's why I think um that it's reasonable request.

I think it does not interfere with what I mean the whole, it's not the whole street, right?

It is really a section.

So that's why I was supporting the motion.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, I don't think I'll be supporting this.

I I I agree with Commissioner uh Vasquez here that um kind of naming something after the project itself is a little rich, and I'd like to keep the continuity of the street in the way it is and it lose less historical value to the uh the city.

It's lost enough already, I think.

So any other comments before we have a vote?

Oh, Commissioner Holland.

Just comment.

Just it my thought process here is that um you're gonna have a you know less than a hundred feet of street that is sort of cut off to everything, and you won't be able to get through.

So it um I I respect the the notion of historical significance and um it's it's not light to make that decision, but it seems simpler and and less confusing to the public.

Any further comments?

Actually that brings up uh another question.

Like actually, yeah, like Google.

So you want to you go if we keep it Matagorda and then you do Aldea in the middle, then people will think that they can drive through because it's got the same name.

Okay.

Yeah.

I would like to make a comment before we take a roll vote.

Um a historic standpoint, I think it would be a shame to lose that continuity, or at least that that remnant of the name.

I know it's not in the motion, but perhaps as a design team, you could look at a way in your landscaping, in your infrastructure, a way to identify the new a new name, should this pass, but also demarcate it also as Matagorda for historic purpose.

I know from navigation sense, I would be really disappointed to go down Chavez thinking I could go all the way down Matagorda and end up in a dead end.

So I can see you from a functional standpoint where it would be a conundrum.

But perhaps you could work with your design team, find a way to commemorate that continuity that we're losing bit by bit by bit in that hemisphere area.

Yeah, I'd I'd be happy to come or commemorate that name.

I mean, I I I I found the history of the street interesting because prior to what is it, 1873, it it had a different name.

And so it it it's not the history of that necessarily of that street.

I think Matagorda is our representation of continue south and eventually you get to the Matagorda Bay, right?

And obviously Matagorda Street dead ends later on.

Um but I I share with you the idea that we can still celebrate the history.

I I think to me, because it's a private street in between the public street, then that that's just going to cause a lot of confusion if it's Matagorda, then Aldea, then Matagorda again.

Um but yes, uh Commissioner Savina, we would be happy to find a way to um to show in a landscaping feature that this is a continuation of the old Matagorda Street.

Okay, thank you.

We're ready for a roll vote.

Velasquez.

Nay.

Galloway.

Nay.

Mazooka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

No.

Holland?

Aye.

And Zavino.

No.

Motion to fail split vote.

Commissioner Silver.

Like as a stipulation and not only a recommendation.

That would be helpful.

Yes.

We can take another motion.

We need a new motion, correct?

Let's take another motion.

Anybody?

No, my question, if I do that, will it still be the same motion?

It's motion to approve it's not different.

If it has a stipulation, then it's a different motion.

I'll do a motion then a motion to approve with staff stipulation and then add a stipulation that to give honor to the historic name of Matagorda Street along the way.

Sorry, the way the part that is being renamed.

Second.

Commissioner And let me add to that.

We're not going to design it for you anything, but putting it at stipulation.

Because there will be stilts and all that.

And I think I think we even did it at the provining the old name I don't remember Pear War Parkway or La Villita.

But you know, if you, Commissioner, if that's enough, or if you wanted to add something to it.

Well, is your intention to um require that appurtenance, that device on public land or private land?

Because we have a public right-of-way.

Well, and I don't know how much purview you actually have on that, so I'll leave it open.

But I think what I said with the stipulation is the part that is being renamed.

Okay.

Is that sufficient?

Any questions or comments during this time?

I think we're ready for a roll vote.

Velasquez?

Nay.

Galloway?

Nay.

Mazzuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

No.

Holland?

Aye.

And Savino.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So we'll pull up item number two now, and Commissioner Fesser is re-entering the room.

So with us, we have Chris Maitree, CEO of the Brackeners Park Conservancy, and then virtually I have Michael Coleen, who is the design architect, landscape architect for the project.

Go ahead, Chris.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Chris Matri.

I'm with Brackenridge Park Conservancy.

I'm the CEO of that organization.

Thank you for coming up here.

The question I had about the case is can you talk about, I'm most interested in the older trees, the larger trees?

The heritage trees.

Heritage trees that the public is commenting on.

And so to our to your tree removal plan.

Can you talk about what will happen for Tier 1 trees, tier two trees, and then the trees to be transplanted or relocated?

Absolutely.

Let me address to the trees that are being specific to the depth of intrusive actions and digging and excavating and how it relates to the root, the root wall or the root extent.

Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure I'll be able to answer that to that detail of an extent, but we have hired Scott Anderson with Urban Tree Company.

And Scott is obviously renowned San Antonio uh arborist who does a lot of work with S.A.

Arboretum and others.

Uh in terms of the trees that we are transplanting, we are relocating nine within the site because they are currently on the perimeter of the site, and they are currently not in an irrigation area within that two-acre site that is bound by those sidewalks.

We are relocating 11 others within the park as well.

We are not removing any, we are relocating 20 trees.

And to the tier one, tier two protection.

Sure.

I'll probably defer to Michael Coleen or Matthew from Hair Shout on that one.

Corey.

Hello.

Yes, we can hear you, Michael.

I see Michael Collie on that.

From the design team.

And yeah, we like Chris mentioned, we have had urban tree company on the team as an arborist doing evaluation of the existing heritage trees.

And they are acting as a resource for us to understand how we work around these existing trees and make sure they are maintained in the healthy way.

Um during construction.

The two different tiers of tree protection relate to the initial construction and the largest extent of preservation, which is shown in the magenta lines or the tier one.

The tier two is showing the areas of protection that would happen and construction would have to happen around those trees.

And so what we'll be getting from the arborist is means and methods of making sure that we're protecting the trees to the greatest extent possible.

And their existing read zones.

Outside of the tier one is mostly sidewalk areas, so less than twelve inches.

And there are a few locations where the water feature is located.

We have foundations up to 18 or 24 inches.

That would be for the drainage in the for the drainage of the site, correct?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Other commissioner questions.

Question?

Yes.

There's um obviously a severe um reduction in capping area.

What what what was done?

What have you all done to determine how you mitigate that camping environment?

Um in terms of it, obviously people having to relocate.

Um I mean, did y'all look into that at all?

Are you talking about the picnic nodes specifically?

Well, the the name the whole nature of the way that people use the area is changing.

Yeah.

Particularly the baseball people, because what they'll do is they'll camp and then they'll go, they'll have their games too.

Right?

Sorry, yeah, correct.

Uh we're not impacting the softball field in terms of playability.

So we're not gonna Right, but but but their holiday camping when they they camp and they have games.

Um this reduces that activity severely, right?

Because that's the smaller side of Breckenbridge Park.

We are there are nine picnic nodes within that site, and we are replacing all nine of those picnic nodes inside and adjacent to the nature playscape.

So it will not be a loss or reduction in picnic nodes.

There will be more play available for all the children that come to Brackenridge Park on those Easter weekend, that Easter weekend as well as every weekend that they come.

Right now, the only play area near that site has been closed for four years.

So we're not only adding a nature-inspired playground that's built out of reclaimed Texas species and wood.

This is not metal, this is not plastic.

These things are created and carved with natural wood.

So we're enhancing the area in that respect, and we're giving kids from throughout San Antonio.

We've seen the visitation logs and the Placer AI data.

We know people from throughout San Antonio come to Brackenridge Park to recreate.

And this is a destination play area for all those people.

The uh with with respect to the location of the bridge, I'm noting that that the um language that that is being used with uh the bullet points one through eleven, I'm noticing that in that area this the bridge is not mentioned.

And then further down in the recommendations by staff, they talk about um uh uh uh pending river authority, uh I guess up river authority agreement.

But of course, there's there's different uh places that a bridge could go.

Uh are you all making a commitment to the actual location of the bridge in this uh proposal?

We feel pretty confident that the existing bridge location minimizes the route impact or the overhead tree canopy impact.

And right now the bridge is an ad alternate.

It is not currently funded.

Well, see that that's that's what I'm one of the real important items here is that from what I'm looking at, the location of the bridge is very important because the bridge could go on the other side, in which case it would give access to an entirely different community.

We are actively fundraising for it, and that's what we believe.

We do believe we'll be able to fulfill that commitment to the bridge because it does link up to the 400 parking spaces that are in the garage along Avenue B that are a stone's throw from that edge of that perimeter.

Well, are are y'all willing to come back once you have the bridge commitment?

I feel pretty confident in talking to you today and presenting this to the commission that we will be able to fund that bridge.

Not not fund the bridge, but where the bridge would be exactly where you're indicating.

Yes.

Happy to.

If it's not in the documents, I just don't have the documents in front of me right now.

It's shown in the drawing as bridge, but it's not shown as a commitment.

And and and specifically because when when it gets to the language of uh pending approval from the river authority, then perhaps river authority says we'll approve a bridge, but we'll approve it on the other side.

Let me defer to Michael if he can add to if we have got the commitment from the San Antonio River Authority.

Well, and I'll just add the the design of the bridge is in the package.

It's on the screen right now.

And so it's on the package, Corey.

The only thing is that that there's not a commitment because if the River Authority doesn't doesn't allow the bridge to go where it's shown, then the bridge could go in a place that provides access to a different community.

This is where the bridge is shown, it's access to the general public community.

And that's a very important detail, particularly when we're talking about the entire park having access on Easter.

I guarantee you the majority of that public is gonna be coming from that other side of the bridge.

So it it's a very important detail unless everybody that goes to this little park is gonna get there through the baseball field.

And if there's a baseball game going on, then it seems that uh all things being fair, if it's specifically about serving the community, then access is key, and that access has to be where the general public, the people that are the cruisers, the people that uh traditionally picnic, that they're the ones that are gonna have priority to access to this splash pad.

Yeah, let me clarify maybe may have misunderstood your question.

Where where the bridge is placed, it's been reviewed by the San Antonio River group.

So they have definitely looked at it.

We have had them worked with them on ideal placement from making sure it doesn't impact the hundred-year flood mitigation plan or any of those other aspects related to the river flow.

So then it's uh I think I understand what you are saying.

Okay.

I have a question.

Uh regarding the splash pad and water feature.

Uh what are the plans for maintenance, monitoring, treatment, uh what happens when the uh we're in in drought or you can't run water.

Um would you describe all those?

Yeah, so I'll take my best and kind of cover all that.

So first off, uh Parks and Iraq is gonna be maintaining this.

We have embedded their team in this project to date to make sure that their team is capable of swapping out pumps and motors and have the engineering and understand the chlorination system.

We are going to be remotely monitoring the chlorination system.

We've got a commitment from their existing uh aquatic team to be able to maintain this.

Uh we do believe we'll have a really robust chlorination and sanitization system uh to be able to take care of this beta load.

And if it is time to shut down water feature play, we will do so accordingly as well.

Thank you.

Are there questions?

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

Yes, Commissioner Group.

Motion to approve a staff stipulations.

We have a second second.

Second discussion.

So one of the things is um just relating to the comment on the bridge.

Um this is a design that you're presenting us today.

We've never had to like wait and see if you get approval from other parties, like even on historic home, sometimes variants.

So we're approving the project as is.

If you were to not get approval from the River Authority on how to change bridge placement, you would have to come back anyway, right?

Your whole project as it is presented today will not be valid for permitting, so you would have to come back anyway.

Um I hate to whether we're used the word splash pad.

I think it's called the water feature, more than anything very similar to what we have approved before at a Hemisphere.

I I I do want to just make sure that you did listen to the community comments about the trees.

We've been through that and other parts of this park.

Um relocation is key.

You know, how you uproot.

There's a lot of comments from Michael online, you know, we're looking into it, we're we're gonna get specialists.

Make sure you get that, right?

Make sure you do that.

And also on the picnic notes, make sure that whatever you removing, replacing, or at least adding more.

I do appreciate uh more activity in the park, more openness to, you know, especially for that Easter that the kids do have, you know, an activity.

I I do appreciate that interaction with that it's actually beyond that Easter camping weekend.

I think this opens up to having actually an ability as a public to interact more with the park uh in other times, not just Easter.

So one thing I failed to address is what we're doing for the new canopy that's coming into the park.

We're installing 94 trees within this existing two-acre site.

So it's not just relocating or moving 20.

We're adding 94.

Forty-two of those will be shade trees, Texas species that will grow tall that will provide shade in the structure for those nine picnic nodes for all those kids that are playing in this playscape.

We're adding 52 ornamental trees.

726,000 for this project are going towards irrigation, ornamental, and shade trees.

So we are investing private money, conservancy time to make an amazing space for the people of San Antonio.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Well, Mr.

Chair.

I I want to just say I I'm not ready to uh I guess uh vote affirmative on on this.

There are questions to me that a solid commitment on on access seems to be key, particularly not normal access, but extra duty access.

Um it may maybe sound a little old-fashioned at the same time.

I question the you know, the wisdom of a of a splash pad where there's water feature, particularly having grown up in the area where we interacted with that very existing water feature that for water purposes doesn't seem to be um usable, which which is a weird thing to have to say.

So the children, you know, that their use of obviously a kid's gonna want to play on anything that that is appearing to be fun, but that could also be the river as it is, should the river be clean.

Um I don't think it quite gets to to where uh it enhances one of the precious uh nature places that it seems that the great amenity of Breckenridge Park is what it is, unless we look at it and it just doesn't seem to be adequate anymore.

And I I, as of yet, I I don't have the eye to see that Brecker Ridge Park is just not adequate anymore outside of the immense areas that are fenced and that are that are that are that are not taken care of as they are.

I'm not saying that this couldn't uh be a uh a potential amenity, but as I see it, it just doesn't seem to me to draw from the environment around it.

Uh those are my comments, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Galloway.

Yes, Chair.

Uh I'd like to ask a question about the community engagement plan uh for this.

Like I see that there was three meetings.

Can you talk a little bit about like how many folks came to those meetings?

Uh you know, what came out of them uh and you know uh like how'd you get deep community feedback?

Sure, absolutely.

I'll touch on it in three different ways.

The three community engagement meetings we had were just one of three items that we did.

First, we did the essay speak up online survey, and I think we had over 200, 250, I don't remember the exact amount at the top of my head.

Um but we had over 250 submissions that came through that portal through that uh survey system.

Then those three community engagement meetings where we brought the design team, hair shout to the public.

We hosted meetings at the YA, uh the Sims Y, we hosted it at the uh the Duce M.

We hosted it one other time in our park area.

Uh we had about 50 people at each time.

The first one was a progression.

We didn't really want to kids to look at or adults or families to look at so much our design, but we asked them do these things inspire you?

What do you like to see?

What do you want to see?

And so we had them vote on it and weigh the aspects that consider nature play, right?

And so we had took that information and then for meeting number two, we evolved it a little bit more.

We listened to the public.

For meeting number three, we presented all those findings that were held on meeting number one and number two for a consolidated plan that we heard, we listened.

Oh, that's right.

The third meeting was at the Adult Lions Center uh right there uh on Broadway.

Then I would say in the meantime, we the Conservancy also took our presentation on the road.

We went out to McAllister Park, we went out to two parks in the west, we went out to two parks in the south, and we made sure that we got in front of the public.

We went to an event called Grandparents Supporting Grandchildren.

It was held out on the west side.

The park's name escapes me right now.

We partnered with them to set up our display to show those folks that have a great park in their neighborhood what an amazing playscape feature could look like in Brackenridge.

So we had a lot of variety of support and community and public outreach.

Did that answer your question?

Yes, sir, it did.

Um I think my uh concern is the trees at the at the park.

Um did you hear from the community on the trees like uh the relocation?

Yeah, we certainly heard, I wouldn't say about the relocation because that didn't come up until after the public engagement portion, but we certainly heard from the public to the I think the comment that was made earlier about the concern about any removal of trees throughout the park as a whole.

And uh as the new CEO of the conservancy, I echo those sentiments.

And I've had many conversations with my friends uh that presented as post here about I'm listening, I hear them, I agree with them, but we really believe that it within this nature playscape area, we're not only preserving what's there now, but we're gonna enhance it.

Just during the July 4th floods that impacted the Hill community, we lost two heritage trees, one within that specific site for the playscape, another one by the adjacent restroom that is near that softball field.

And that's not because uh of anything that we could have done differently, but I also know that we're not protecting and preserving those trees like we should, and that's the Conservancy's commitment to continue to do that across any project that happens within Brackenridge Park Other comments?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I I um I do have some of the same concerns about the trees, but they've been spoken at the death here.

I'm not gonna beat that up anymore.

But overall, I do like the project.

I'll be supporting it.

I would bring my kids here, you know, get them off the screen, turn them loose for four or five hours here and let them run at it.

I mean, this is a good thing for the community, I think, and it brings people in.

You got the Witty Museum.

As long as that bridge goes right where you say it's gonna go, I don't have any problem with this other than what was already addressed.

There's no other comments or questions.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Nay.

The last guest?

Nay.

Galloway?

Nay.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Nay.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Agenda item number eight.

Commissioners, this is agenda item number eight, 106 South St.

Mary's.

The applicant Ashley Fairman is here in person.

Uh Commissioners, we also have an updated presentation.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

Ashley Fairman with Killing Griffin and Fairmon.

I'm here with Jack Radigan with Capital Outdoor.

We also have John Polis online if there are any specific questions about the signs.

So we were here a few weeks ago and then went to the DRC.

And based on the feedback we received, we have significantly modified what this sign would look like.

But with some suggestions from the DRC, which are actually really great suggestions.

Take in the sign, it's been reduced to 300 square feet and put it within this corner of the building.

So you're going to that.

Sorry.

Sorry.

So can you go back?

Okay.

So the sign was originally proposed to curve around this corner of the building.

But now it's been designed to be a vertical sign and fit and be flush with the two corners.

Can you just hit that to the sign?

Yeah.

Perfect.

So here's the new proposal.

It's 25 feet tall, um, 12 feet wide, and about 21 feet uh from the ground.

And again, it fits right within that corner.

Uh the bottom will be covered, it will be black.

So when you look up, you're not gonna see how the sign is actually mounted.

Um there it's it's a little difficult to see in that rendering, but I think the one on the right um does a better job of showing that.

Uh there were also some questions um at DRC about nighttime.

So we did um get some at least some pictures of the area at night.

We don't have it rendered, um, but the sign would go basically in front of uh the the street light here.

So it fit within that area.

Um with that, I'm sure there are questions, and we're we're happy to answer those.

Thank you.

Yes, questions from the commission, Commissioner Savino.

Uh yeah, I pulled this because um I had from the outset been concerned about its effect on the area.

So this is the one on the north side of the building.

You will not be doing one on the south side, is that correct?

No, there's only we we've only looked at one location and it's the southwest corner of the building.

So this is across the street.

Which building.

Oh, there we go.

So here's the the address.

So it's uh West Market in South Florida on that corner.

So we're sitting across the street from the Drury from the Homewood Homewood Suites, and then the um International Center, right?

And are those all landmarks staff?

All three of those are landmarks?

Okay.

I was initially concerned about the setting relative to the location of those historic resources, right?

Um and I know we talked about uh modifying the sign.

Uh frankly, I did not review your new sign, so I'm not going to comment on that.

But um I pulled it because I had not seen these.

So yeah, after we did DRC and Wednesday, so it took a few days to get the modified design together.

Sure, sure.

Yeah, I don't know how many folks had the ability to see it also.

But um I so therefore I don't have any direct questions, but that's why I pulled it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh I I have a a couple of questions that are kind of architectural.

Um, but but I I do want to tell you I appreciate uh you clearly um we're listening to the create creative side of it, right?

Um would y'all are y'all open to the detailing of how the sign addresses the connections?

Like for instance, uh Corey, are you able to zoom into one of those or Edward?

Are you able to zoom into one of the Coca-Cola signs here?

Which hopefully, you know, it's not a commercial thing.

But but if we look at the connection of the black line to the concrete line, right?

Or do you think that y'all have the ability to create reveals or uh spaces of a uh uh to articulate the the the joint that it's not just a something flat connected to the wall?

Did you follow me?

I'm having a sorry about that, guys.

Uh I'm having a hard time following you.

Well, look like like see say for instance there's a detail here.

It's called a reveal.

Right.

Right.

So so that there's some articulation that the sign is not part of the wall.

Yeah.

That it's separate, but that someone can see that thought went into how this thing is sitting.

If it was an old building and a new building, you wouldn't just connect them, they wouldn't let you.

You'd have to articulate how that connection occurs.

Absolutely.

And we I believe that was brought up in one of the meetings and we took that into account, and that's something that we're able to do.

Okay.

Uh that's the extended my question, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Group.

So I guess my question is how would this be installed?

Is it flush in the inside?

Sorry, because I understand that you guys need space for maintenance of the sign.

How is it working?

So the undercarriage is blocking seeing anything, but there will be a bracket system and arms, so that's why we have that so that you can't see it.

Um it will be flush on the sides and like how we just described, but on the back, it'll be kind of similar to how like a TV is mounted, just you know, with steel and so is the angle enough for you guys to do.

I mean, wouldn't you maybe just separate it a little bit out?

It would look flush like when you're looking at it from far, but there might be a separate thing.

It's going to look it's going to look flush, yeah.

Okay.

Um is there any architectural drawings on this new one?

Not yet.

Okay.

Not on the I understand.

Okay.

If there's no more questions, I'll do a motion.

I do have a question.

Um this drawing or the this rendering shows that those outer edges almost come to a point.

There's got to be some depth to your display and the frame and the surround.

How thick is your sign.

DMA, your uh sign.

Four inches.

It's the sign is four inches thick.

Four inches thick.

It's pretty thin.

Okay.

So based on what uh you answered to Commissioner Velasquez, you would be keeping it away from the actual corner of the stone, and then set it back a little bit, and then that four inch would be the minimum all the way across, and then you would have a screen on the underside.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question for staff.

Yes.

Edward, the the um the the newness of this pilot uh I think has given us uh some guidance that says that we we don't necessarily at this point need to know what is allowed or not allowed as as far as what we can ask, but that perhaps us asking helps us define what will be required as we move forward, right?

Yeah, I mean I think all of the applicants are motivated and are listening and to the feedback and have incorporated changes, and so um I think if there are if there is preference for certain design aspects, those could certainly be communicated.

Well well within within the context of that that that particularly if there's already a uh a will f uh for a motion uh that a motion could or should carry a requirement for profile submission of, I don't know if you would call them shop drawings, but a submission to the HDRC for profile considered design, not profile considered working drawings.

Prof profile considered uh that they would have to come back or that they would have to submit to you all, or do you all would have to get some kind of an approval for an uh an approved profile?

Well, I think if if if if you think I just have a quick answer and and Rachel, I don't know if you can immute an answer, but I believe that level of detail is what is required for the permit from DSD anyways, and so the city would be receiving that as part of the permit.

If there was a desire specifically for the HCRC to review that, then that would have to be a condition for that detail to return.

But otherwise it would be included for what the city permits.

Okay.

Okay, but but but but it's still allowable that it it it we could extend ourselves beyond uh uh guess that that would be the way that it would be, but to actually have it in the motion that profile is would be designed and that we would be able to get uh uh a picture of how the shadow lines are created or how the reveals are created as part of design, not just taken for granted that the thing hooks to the wall.

Yes, you could require it.

Okay, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Groove.

So my motion was actually going to be I would like to move this for conceptual approval.

And then I'll talk more.

Uh second.

Okay.

Okay.

And the reason is first I want to say thank you for listening.

It's a huge change from the first proposal to the second.

Good discussion.

I think that this is much more, even though I'm saying it's conceptual, it does because we have been asking for detailed um drawings, specific to how the installation is, what is the gap, the depth, all that.

We've asked that for the other applicants.

So that's the reason why I'm really pushing for conceptual, is just because the other applicants have then also being able to submit that.

Once once we see that and exactly those profile details, I think that will make me more comfortable.

But I think you're moving in 100% the right direction.

I would just ask for those additional drawings, specific to the brackets where they are, and and I think maybe when you also exploring that, you're gonna find out I probably need a little gap over here.

I probably need it, you know, where what is that exactly depth of that billboard exactly between on the on the sides on the corners?

I do have one last question on uh sheet 10, Edward.

Where it shows the elevation and the sign being 25 feet tall.

Does that height correspond with uh mortar joint, horizontal mortar joints on the facade of the building?

It does, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions or comments?

Commissioner.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, I I have a concern.

I'm looking on my phone Google.

But um this is a question for staff, perhaps.

If we can see this, I know we can see the building from the river walk.

I know that.

But if we can see the signage from the river walk, that's probably a no-go, isn't it?

Yeah, I looked at all of these just from Google, you can get a pretty good idea.

And then if it was close, we would look in person.

But there was really only one uh application.

I mean, this is from a ramp leading down to the river walk, but not the river walk itself.

I don't know where you would draw the line.

I would almost suggest a site visit for that one.

Because again, computer view and being there is very different.

We can see it.

Or not say it.

That's Rachel Parrish with DSD.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chuck.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Ms.

Paris, could you repeat that?

Yeah, I'm sorry I can remain in part then.

But we can make a fight as it in person and see if we can see it from the river walk level.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Parrish is with uh DSD uh uh administering the the program.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, I was kind of hesitant about this project, but I see the work you guys did just like my fellow commissioners have, and um if it's for conceptual, is that was that what the motion is for conceptual?

Yeah.

I think I can probably get behind conceptual, but I would like a line of sight, some graphic some sort of line of sight analysis done, particularly what we're just talking about.

If you're gonna do a site visit, then that's fine.

But definitely want to see that line of sight analysis on on that.

You don't want it to especially if it's gonna be illuminated at night.

You know, you're at the river walk and there you are, we're looking at this bright thing.

So yeah, thanks.

Commissioner Velasquez?

Well, I I just wanted to tell the applicant that that I think that that what we're faced with is looking at a cultural change downtown.

And there's an ordinance that's been made, so obviously we have to review and better that that the review is very thoughtful than that we take some idea that if we say no, that it's not gonna happen anyway, right?

I mean, just just being straightforward.

But the the language I think with y'all, because y'all are the first.

They think it's very important that you hear uh that that we appreciate that you listened, but that every detail of this thing should be approached in the spirit of what the pilot is, which is as a as a um as an art uh project, so to speak, that that any circumstance where it seems that this is a billboard project that that that is almost like a litmus test for, okay, maybe that one needs to move while we move on to the ones that are adhering to what the spirit of the project is.

This begins really to do that.

And um so as we move to the next uh projects that were held consistent to that standard that you may have the the you know the the interim standard, right?

Uh but thank you for uh doing that work because I can imagine bringing it from one orientation, you've only seen it one way, and that you're looking at it differently, that if you get others that this way we would hope that you would look at it.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

We have a roll call, please.

Savino?

No.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazzuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And thank you for listening to the Commission and uh public comments and uh OHP.

Agenda item number nine.

Commissioners bear with me.

I'm gonna use uh Chrome to open the PDF.

Adobe decided it wanted to update.

Um the applicant Ashley Ferramon is here in person.

Uh there's also an updated file for this one as well.

I'll pull that up now.

Ashley Fairman um again, thank you.

Um so this is the proposal on the stay bridge suites property.

Um this one also got continued and went to DR uh the DRC last week.

Um this uh stabridge suites is on the other side of the highway, so it's a different area.

And this sign actually faces um I-37 south.

Um so there's Stabridge Suites.

Um jump through.

So the location of the sign um on the again, the southwest corner of the building.

Uh we did went ahead and added some night renderings in case you guys wanted to see those as well.

Um and then here is if you are on the frontage road where you would see that sign as well.

Um so here's the signage that's proposed.

Um it is 22 feet wide and 25 feet tall.

Um it there is a textile limitation on height, so that is 60 feet as about where the top of this sign is located.

Um we we went to DRC.

There weren't as many comments on this one as some of the other signs uh signs that we brought forward.

Um but one of the requests was that we look at maybe a more vertically oriented sign, um, did explore that option and felt that um it it didn't look as good as this sign on the wall.

Um it was a bit narrow and seemed um uh more out of place, I would say.

I know some of you feel that all of them are out of place.

Um but it it didn't look right on the structure.

So we feel like this the 22 by 25 is better on this facade.

Um we can there you go.

This a little bit closer rendering.

Um just an idea of where that would sit on the building.

Uh we don't have the fully designed um drawings on this one either, um, but wouldn't hopefully request your support for this too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um just to confirm, you say approximately five and a half feet of space on either side of the sign.

Yes, Commissioner.

And that was a comment that we did receive um in DRC was to make sure that there was spacing on either side of the sign because it was proposed to go all the way to the boundaries.

Um and so we we pulled it in so that there would be some border around it.

Thank you.

Uh questions.

I don't have any questions.

I can move them.

I'm gonna do a motion.

Um I wondered if we couldn't uh entertain a motion to go into discussion that is separate of a motion.

Second, separate of a well, okay.

We have a motion to go into discussion, have a roll call, please.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Mr.

Chair, I I think this is a uh an example that really contrasts the difference between a a um a proposal that grafts itself into the architecture, that gives us the opportunity to say something here can happen.

It becomes the community of the environment, the community of the architecture.

In this circumstance, it it doesn't become that.

It remains a sign.

It has no way of addressing the building, or it hasn't been explored to to a to a distance that comes to the commission with something beyond the sign in and of itself to be considered.

It's an alien in a in a in a it's it's it's it's the introduction of an electronic horizontal thing in a in a on a on a stuck old horizontal thing.

It doesn't do anything.

Not necessarily to say no, but definitely not that way.

Um I'm interested in the opinions of my other fellow commissioners.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Savino.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um yes, this one presents a very different question of of context.

And I'm not convinced, as this is presented now, that this is really anything different than a billboard.

And how would we address a billboard request in this location?

This one happens to be, you know, it's not on a historic building, but it is the gateway to a historic district, St.

Paul's Square.

So when you look at the hotel, you easily see the other buildings, the other historic buildings beyond and surrounding it.

So there's, you know, that consideration that I'm wondering is, you know, how would we address a billboard?

I'm not convinced that even a billboard, much less a digital sign device is appropriate as presented like this.

It's it's not trying to integrate itself into the architecture, even though the architecture is new.

Mr.

That's those are my comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Well, actually, I think this one is where we actually look at this as the how the ordinance is uh the purpose of the ordinance.

And I think this is where we exactly don't need to, or we don't have other historic buildings around it or the rear walk to kind of you know where we want to play that interaction with the buildings, how does it affect the history?

So within our preview and with this digital ordinance, I would say this sign I would support it as presented today.

I'm gonna ask, keep asking the applicant to you know make sure that you do when you install, you know, make sure that it just follows the lines of the mortar mortar lines of the building.

I do like it that you thank you also for listening for reducing it.

It's got a little bit less evasive uh you know spot versus the top where it was previously, and you've sent it, you've played with the window heights, the mortar lines.

I appreciate that.

I think you've listening.

And I think within our our preview and and what we have we've since learned about you know the purpose of this ordinance and how it's working, I think this is uh more than something that I'll support as presented today.

Is that a motion, Commissioner Groove?

I would like to make a motion if there are no further questions.

We're still in a discussion.

We're in a discussion.

We're in discussion off of motion.

Commissioner Cervantes?

Discussion of the motion.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I think I agree with Commissioner Savino on this in that it just this shoe is not going to fit Cinderella Sisters, you know.

It's just it's just no matter what you do, I think you might be uh uh limited on how you can kind of make this work.

Actually, the building probably is uh is saying something else, the building you can probably get away with using that whole space, but that goes against the the guidelines or it goes against the uh the ordinance.

But yeah, I just don't see this one, you know, it's just it's a square, square on the side of a building that detracts from the rest of the building, even though it's not a historic building, it just kind of doesn't look like it fits well.

Other questions or comments?

I got one more comment, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Velasquez.

Um because these are the first um standard setters, right?

It it it seems that one opportunity or one obligation would be to push that bar as high as it can go.

I think we begin with the understanding that generally we would never do this.

That's where this that's where the bar should go.

So that there is an intentionality between between the grafting of this pilot that may have negative consequences two years down the line, that not only are we pulling that bar up very high, but we're also mitigating the potential for a negative outcome.

If you're traveling north, you're gonna pass the Alabama Dome's digital billboard.

And and before you can blink, you're gonna see this.

They're gonna give the mind the same impression, they're not gonna be different.

One's gonna only anticipate that just like the Alamo Dome one changes from this concert to that concert, that the one that changes next to it is gonna change, and if it catches it in the middle of commercial to commercial, then it it's just they're just billboards.

So this location, it it is that circumstance that gives us the opportunity to just say we we we want to do something meaningful.

This is not it.

And it I think it appeals to our our uh our uh the the parallel uh expectation from the Department of Arts and Culture, which would be investment in artistic excellence, and that would mean that whatever is hanging on this building would invoke that that feeling of satisfaction.

This is almost the opposite.

So I would I I I I will not be supporting it, but I would also hope that uh the best motion would be to send it back to the drawing board.

And I bet you, just like they did before, they could come back with a better solution.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Groove?

Okay.

So discussion, I'm gonna do my motion and then I'll talk about it.

Um move to conceptual approval.

Do we have a second?

I'll second a second, Commissioner Groove.

Thank you.

So I was gonna move for approval.

Um I want to make sure that uh there was a DRC.

You presented.

We you heard us, you have changed.

I don't know what to expect from a second DRC.

I'll let my other commissioners uh participate and give their opinion.

Um this is not about personal opinion of whether we like it.

We are not the arts commission.

Per the purview, I 100% support it as presented today.

I believe that you have found a better you know placement.

It I do also with the existing digital signage from the Alamo Dome, that is exactly how it does relate.

So that is the reason for this motion.

I would also suggest that you do come up with some detailed drawings for before final after that DRC.

Well, I said conceptual, but it it opens that will that you can do a DRC, like the other one.

Mr.

Whatever you want.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Mr.

Chair, I I um want to register you know the record that uh a conceptual approval.

I if they're typical to our conceptual approvals, we we've generally accepted the spirit of what is being proposed.

Uh in this circumstance, I I want to be clear that I I um uh in no way, shape, or form can find a conceptual uh approval for this this location or this this orientation.

Um I won't be supporting the motion, which doesn't mean that I'm not supporting a proposal somewhere in this location, but I want to be very sensitive to that we just recently passed an observation element that is uh uh Ferris wheel here, giant.

The area is in flux.

There's still a lot to be uh uh determined as to what the outcome of this environment is or how this may negatively uh affect that environment that's still has hasn't been constructed.

But that it conceptual would give the impression that an inch this way or a foot that way would fix this.

This is a uh in your face, it it seems to be a blatant billboard.

Um I won't be supporting the motion.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Questions?

Mr.

Fairman?

Yeah, thank you.

And thank thank you all for your comments.

I just wanted to point out that as part of this process, and maybe Rachel can comment to it.

We don't start working with the Arts Department until after we receive first approval from you all.

So it has to be actually issued the permit or approval to get the permit as part of the program to work with the arts department.

So this isn't what the final sign will look like.

It will have an art component to it that has to be incorporated as part of that project, but that is something that has worked with arts on, so we don't know what that will look like yet.

Okay, thank you.

Have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Nay.

Velasquez?

Nay.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

No.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

She carries.

Thank you very much.

Agenda item number 10.

Agenda item number 10, 451 Soledad.

The applicant Blake Custer is here in person.

Hi.

My name is Blake Kestner.

BC Results.

And the location is 451 Soledad.

It's a north face of a building and a south face of a building.

I did go to RC and incorporated and integrated their thought process in terms of rectilineal proportionality integration alignment.

Obviously, respect the conceptual profile concept in terms of this.

This is the south face of the building.

One of the comments here, we originally had a horizontal sign here, and basically the board asked that it be incorporated to pay attention to the gaps on the parking garage.

So we uh we the the horizontal, I'm sorry, the vertical columns are 22 feet on center.

Um Commissioner Velasquez was was talking about reveal.

This would be inset basically into the building in a very uh uh architectural way, so it it looks incorporated.

It's not it's not the the sign, it's the building first.

Um a couple things.

Uh the square footage on the building is about 11,716 square feet.

It's it's 116 feet high, 101 feet wide.

Um this sign would be 440 square feet.

The allowable size was that's 25 percent is 2929.

So sensitive to the overall building, so the sign was not encompassing the building.

This sits in the Rio District.

One thing you'll see on this, obviously there's artwork there, but there's a little frame around it.

Um there's a lot of signs I've seen across the United States that create a shroud, which is a frame.

Obviously, there's a sensitivity to the river walk and and the tiles that were created by the river walk.

Obviously, we do not want to duplicate that, but we want to create an ode to that and kind of create something that's a complement to that, so it it accents the building.

This is about a block and a half away from where the future missions missions baseball team will be playing.

This is the main parking lot, probably that will service that.

So this helps advertise for that.

It could be community benefit, all sorts of things.

So this is the south face going northbound on Soledad.

Um one thing on this specific sign.

Um initially I had it on the east face of the building, which is Martin Street one way.

I walked the river right at the bridge.

You can't see it, but a hundred yards to the north, there's a gap, and I could see the sign.

So we moved it around the corner.

So understand that.

I've been around San Antonio a long time, understand the the sensitivity and the cultural uh aspects of the city.

So wanted to try to make sure it works in that regard.

So any questions on this one?

Uh can you also speak to the one on the north side?

Yes.

Um this is uh 451 against Soledad.

Uh this is uh going southbound on Soledad, the two uh the two directions.

Uh this could be uh either you go main street or Soledad southbound.

Um this is a sign that's a 10636, again focused on the rectilineal uh aspect.

Um great input from the DRC where you wanted to center it between the two uh pillars.

Uh the pillar inside dimensions for the pillars were 40 feet.

This is 36 feet, so there'd be a two feet reveal on each side, try to uh capture and cover the two openings uh to the parking garage.

Um height of the sign is 60 feet.

This sign, as I stated before, is 378 square feet, which would be five percent of the total square footage of the face.

Um so uh and it it lays out perfectly within that kind of configuration that was laid there.

Um again, uh listen to the board and try to to accommodate what you guys had requested as a part of the the original meeting.

So um one last thing, it's about 300 feet away from Southwest School of Arts across um across to the east northeast.

So that was important.

Last but not least, I want you guys to understand understand this.

You guys have a set of rules.

Um the digital media arch program obviously is a new program that's allowing eight signs, and so to some degree it's a rush to get everything in because it's first come in.

Okay, it's not whoever gets their stuff in and meets the expectations, so it's kind of a rush.

So sometimes the applicants here myself, we're trying to do everything we can to meet those, but also on a speed basis to do that.

Um last point is all these signs also have to meet textile requirements.

All the roads downtown are text out roads.

So we there's two steps.

There's a city requirement for the uh digital media arch program, but there's also a state requirement uh for total square footage and all those types of things.

So remember we have to meet both both of those criteria.

So I just wanted to inform you if you didn't know that already.

So but thank you guys for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Savino, questions?

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The reason I pulled this is because I did want to pull all of the cases since they are sort of the topic, the ordinance discussion, and even the cases are sort of sliding in quietly without a lot of folks watching.

Um so thank you for coming and sticking around also.

But you brought up some points that I had thought of, and that was well, first of all, thank you for also the DRC that I can tell was productive.

You have relatively an easy um grid to work with, so it was easy to adjust.

Now, my question for staff is this is one short block depth from the river walk.

As Mr.

Custer mentioned, there are a couple of gaps where you can kind of see the building from different vantage points.

What if this commission provides an approval and then after the fact, within a month or two when the leaves drop from the trees, we find that that spot is visual uh visible from the river.

How is something like that going to be addressed?

I think it's up to you all at this point to make that interpretation.

And so, well, let me finish.

So there is another item where sorry.

There's another item where staff finds that it's clearly visible, and so we have made that recommendation.

I don't think that this is readily visible, but you're right.

Like if you're trying to find it, you might find it.

And so nothing that specific is in the ordinance.

And so we rely on case history and interpretation here at these boards and commissions to inform what the policy should be.

And so we are looking for your recommendation.

And if you feel like seeing it partially in some parts of the year, if you're really trying to find it, meets the intent of the ordinance, then we will follow your lead.

Yeah, that is a this is a very sensitive situation because it's illuminated by nature.

Chances are if one can see it from the river, you're going to see it day or night because of the way light works.

Um my concern came about by reading the ordinance and saying that no uh digital media devices are allowed on the river walk.

But then during our training session, we hear that visible from the river walk was the interpretation.

So as long as we're in that fluid area, I think if we're going to allow that stipulation or that condition to be as fluid, um, we need to know how to determine what that stipulation would be.

I don't it's really hard to nail down.

I have some questions, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Group.

So um let's start with the one that's fine before I before we move on.

Yes, Ms.

Parrish.

I'd like to jump a little bit on the um the visibility from the river walk.

The way I I I don't want to use Google Earth when it's closed.

I want uh to go out and look and see if they are within line of sight, and that would include taking the trees into account and whether or not the leaves are gonna be there, right?

I mean you can you will be able to tell if you can see it from the river walk without the tree leaves there.

I mean, we we will be able to do that analysis in person.

Is there an and Mr.

Chair after your next speaker?

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Parrish.

Well, uh Ms.

Parish, just really quick a question there.

Is that part of your permitting process as well?

So even if we add that as a stipulation, you would be reviewing that.

You don't need our review on top of that?

Yes, we're gonna review that regardless.

Okay.

Um would you yeah.

Um let's start with the sign that's on the screen.

Why did you not uh make it go all the way to each end to the pillars like you did on the other side?

Uh because the sign was uh 10636.

I could make it go 40.

I mean, the way that it would be set up, there would be a uh engineering wise, there would be a connection on the column, two connections on each side, so you needed to leave enough room for the stringer to go across to be attached to the building on the column.

It's a post-tension building, and so off the column you'd have to connect to the post-tention column.

So but on the other side you're able to do it, but not on this side?

On that side, there's a connection you can connect on the sides.

On the other one, it's like inserted.

Yes, ma'am.

Is that the difference?

Okay.

Um what's the width?

The width on the columns of the sign?

This width is 36 feet.

Okay.

So there's still three feet on the city.

I could, you know, I could expand that another foot another foot or so into to cover that reveal itself.

Well, it's just because kind of the the what you explained on the other side was that you kind of like inserted it and and made it look like you know it's like part of the building, and here it was just why is it not?

That was just I can make the change off the DS DRC meeting.

This was this was what was recommended, and so I basically did what they requested at that point.

If you if there's another change that's needed, it's not that big of a change.

I can make that change if you'd like.

I'm happy to do that.

I don't have any further questions.

Yes, Commissioner Cervantes.

Mr.

Chair, I wonder if uh I'd like to make a motion again that we go into discussion as a commission for this specific project.

I just have a question for staff.

Just for the record staff, so if we were talking about a paper in paint billboard this size, we wouldn't even make it through the door, right?

Any off-premise signage that is not otherwise allowed by some ordinance, it's not allowed.

Correct.

Second.

So do we have a second for the discussion?

Second.

Second.

Yes, sir.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Mr.

Chair, looking at the at the first one and the second one, this is almost like the first one and the second one together.

The the first presentation, if Edward, if you could go to that uh that the first A, let's say A part of this.

This is a that would that would be B.

The other one would be A.

Yeah.

That's a very sensitive, very thoughtful uh way of uh accomplishing this in the using the building as uh the the leader and in in the design process.

Particularly that you I was gonna ask whether or not that was a detail or whether or not that was the the video screen that they went to that level of articulating into saying, hey, this presents another opportunity.

We're moving in the direction of something that becomes added value, an enhancement.

Uh when we get to the other side of the building, it it seems to break all the say all the rules that were followed on this side.

And and it it also perhaps presents an opportunity to say a motion to approve A, and uh and there still needs to be design development in in B, right?

And particularly with respect to the fast track nature of this whole process.

There perhaps there's been enough time for this side to for A side to reveal itself.

And on the B side is more being a victim of the timeline.

Because clearly, looking at the other side, there are opportunities.

They may be uh not necessarily not not recognizable useful geometries.

But but letting that uh rest while it reveals itself.

Because this one seemed to reveal itself.

And then clearly jumped on the opportunity to make this thing look like if you designed that building, wouldn't that be a great idea?

For it to be native to the building.

So I I just wonder w uh how we have a building that has the opportunity to have this element, but there's also the opportunity for it to have two of these elements or three of these elements.

That it presents the opportunity for us to look at approving aspects, but at the same time, much like the one previously that in my opinion should have gone back to the drawing board, that perhaps the other side of this needs to go back to the drawing board as well, that it stays relevant, but but that for the most part it it tries its best to reach to this level of uh of design intent.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, I just piggyback off of that.

I mean, maybe not every building can have a digital sign.

I mean, as it's something that, you know, where maybe not every side can have that, or we look at a different building or something like that.

But yeah, I agree with Commissioner Roskins here.

It's it's uh the other one needs a little work.

Well I agree that the applicant has taken our comments into account.

He has improved uh the one on the south side.

And uh I think I agree that the one on the north side probably needs some work.

But if the detailing of the one on the north side in terms of the location and mounting to around the spandrel panels and the columns was the same on the north as the south, in y'all's opinion, would that be more acceptable?

Well, Mr.

Chair, I think I think that the question could also be if if the circumstance was the same.

And and I mean, even just looking at the continuity, say the building was originally designed this way.

You would probably address the north side if you had an environment that was similar to the south side, which there is an environment similar.

Now it's higher.

Does it provide greater access to visibility to the river walk?

Those are questions that would have to be determined.

But perhaps there is other opportunities where the connectivity is offered in a reveal as opposed to on top of something.

It could follow uh say, for instance, a motion, I would think could pass A or or could propose A with B to a design uh review or find uh design development review, whatever however we want to point it.

So that they have an opportunity to continue review, have aspects of with a proposal approved, not necessarily a no on the north, but continued discovery.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group?

Well, I I don't know.

Uh so um I'm gonna ask you, Commissioner Fetser, um, would you be okay if we just you know make sure that sign B kind of aligns with the same same design element, same design structures, uh sign A in a motion?

I would be more comfortable if the detailing of both signs were the same in in relation to the columns and the spandrel panels, which are the uh key architectural and structural details of the building.

And I agree.

So maybe to the applicant, just to really emphasize on that first question I had.

Will you a are you able to do that same like inserting the sign into the building for sign B than you that you did for sign A?

Yeah, we can encompass the horizontal boundary of the the vertical displays of the vertical columns to cover the edges, yes.

And you're like putting it inside the columns, is that an option?

There's a reveal of the column.

Yes.

I mean keep in one mind the the width of the the width of the sign is eight inches.

Okay.

So we can do that.

It will look set back.

One thing we are not doing, we're not putting catwalks on the back of the sign, so it would be flushed to the building, and so that it's more incorporated into the structure itself versus sitting out over the structure type of.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I have a quick uh comment.

Yes, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yes, so looking at what you have right here, and again, this may be where I go with to the the maybe it doesn't deserve a sign, right?

Because what are we looking at here?

What what are these two buildings right in front of it, Corey?

Are those are those landmarks?

One of them is.

One of them is.

So I'm looking at the visual flow of that entire picture right there, right?

What am I looking at?

Some old buildings, historic buildings, and then I see the sign.

Is it popping at me?

Probably is.

And then you look at the other side, go to the other side, please.

Go to the other side, please.

All right.

That doesn't have anything, there's no other features there except maybe the tree and the you know the frost sign there.

So that kind of speaks to the building itself a little bit to me at least in the layman's term, it speaks to speaks to the building.

Whereas the other side, you don't have that advantage of having almost a blank canvas there, you know, using the building.

That's just where I'm at on this again.

Uh just wanted to give you that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh Corey, uh, Edward, could we go to the other picture?

Uh this this uh orientation is uh which is why I think it should go to a uh further further uh design work.

There the this interrupts the the kind of the flow of the negative positive space, the rhythm of that vertical space.

There's there's uh a void up on the top right-hand corner, and then there's a flat panel that is almost an anomaly in the rhythm of this building.

Not to say that a panel can't go in that environment, but that this would present itself as almost breaking the rule of the other and really missing other opportunities.

So not to say that a sign couldn't be grafted into this environment, but that where how it's presented itself, it breaks the rules of that very uh um grace gracefully placed other assemblage.

So I I I would be one to support let's say A and B, the the square A, but I I would find it premature to support this uh B as a solution.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Just for the maker of the motion.

Commissioner Groove.

I'm gonna do a motion to approve uh item number one as presented today.

Uh conceptual approval item number B with staff stipulation, and I'll add for the formalities of stipulation that none of the signs should be visible from the reward level.

Do we have a second?

I'll second second.

Okay.

So the conceptual approval is to leave it open so that there can be a DRC and the Commissioners can uh come.

This is I feel like and out of respect of my commissioners for you to able, I think I think I would have gone with a stipulation if you can you know really follow what you did on A.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening and that DRC.

I think you've come to a really great solution on item A on sign A, we're going to call it, and then sign two.

Maybe yes, maybe there's another placement on the building.

I cannot have a personal opinion of whether I do like digital billboards or not.

We have a new ordinance.

We're trying to accommodate and understand, and I also understand the fast track process here.

So this is the reason for this motion.

I hope that my commissioners can also, you know, come to this design review committee and you know, but I do feel like I think at least for this design review committee, implementing, you know, expanded the sign out to the pillars on each side.

I think that really gives it and keeping that design frame around the signs, I think that was a great job.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I would just like to the applicant.

I really do appreciate that that one side, I'm saying that this side is an impossibility.

The the other side is I mean, it it looks like something that you would wonder why it wasn't done to begin with, right?

This side, I think it it it obviously presents itself with the opportunity.

I don't think that this is it.

But if if you begin with something here can happen, I I think it should add added value to the building.

I don't think this does that.

The other side it most definitely does.

On this side, I think it's it's it's it's how does it fit with the building, but also how does it how does it camouflage itself in the environment to create the same illusion that it was always there.

So a person that doesn't want to see a billboard would look at it and say, well, that's where the billboard is.

This is where it's been.

Fair enough.

Appreciate your opinion.

Commissioner Savino.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I do want to just address a couple of items.

Um again, appreciate your work on the on the south side.

That is conforming and and like the others say, it is integral and it looks like it almost belongs there.

The other side different.

Um I do want to um uh express my concern about all of these and something that was mentioned about the time frame and the time track.

This ordinance is very honestly half-baked.

A lot of the things are being left up to the Commission to determine.

And as you can tell, there's some very good discussion going on, including, you know, every case that comes up is a new lesson, a new case study, right?

The fact that we have to do that in this setting after the ordinance is in place seems a little counterintuitive and questionable.

I feel like these conversations would have been so much more useful and therefore more predictable for applicants when coming to request permission for these things, had these discussions occurred ahead of time, perhaps during the drafting, which didn't happen.

I think that's something we all expressed while we were in our training session.

Wow, I wish we, you know, we should have been talking about this much earlier.

So you guys are the byproduct, and you're sitting here as the byproduct of this ordinance process that is less than ideal, and I don't know if it's effective.

So but as it relates to this one, you are an instrument interesting case study.

I'm interested in seeing how this is viewed from the river walk.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question for staff.

Yes, sir.

I don't know if it would be Edward or Corey, but on this particular the B facade, is the the sculpture that is in the turn around.

Is that relevant to the decision or the viewscape in this I mean is that something that we're supposed to take into account?

I don't know what the city's policy is on its sculptures, like say, for instance, the Torch of Freedom or those things.

Oh, up on Maine and Soledad.

Yes.

Um, I mean there's nothing in the ordinance that uh speaks to views to or from public art.

Thank you.

Commissioner Civantes.

Yeah, I again I appreciate what you are doing.

Appreciate you you're having to jump through hoops.

I agree with Commissioner Stavino, the city has asked this ordinance, and as a result, we're having to do all this and you're having to jump through hoops with unclear guidance or unclear uh uh steps, you or rather uh uh uh design guidelines.

So you know, I hope you understand where I was coming from.

It's like you look at the visual, you look at the whole thing, and you think it just it doesn't kind of stand out from those two buildings there.

So um I do appreciate all the work you are doing.

And uh I thank you for that in making the changes.

And I would ask before you after you comment if they could restate the motion.

Yeah, first of all, no problem.

I'm I'm happy to this is about a process, and um obviously we learned through the process, and obviously there's changes that need to be made, and so no offense in any way to say we want the best process for us and we want the best process for you.

Um to answer your question regarding the river.

Um I walked the river.

I walked it both sides, looked at it.

That's why initially the sign was on the Martin Street side, and I saw it, and I was like, no, this isn't gonna work.

Because I right at the right at the Martin Street Bridge, you can't see it, but if you walk down, you can see it.

So that's why I moved it.

This specific location, I walked at two, and I walked all the river on that both sides and looked, and I didn't see it.

So now, did I see if every leaf has been falling?

No.

But you know, that's something that the city is going to recommend, and if that they do, then I understand the process.

So fair enough.

Thank you guys so much for your time today.

I appreciate it.

Yes.

Commissioner Group, can you restate the motion?

Yes.

Uh I move to approve item one as presented today.

Conceptually approve item number two, and add a stipulation to both items that the signs may not be visible from the row level.

You have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Nay.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazooka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

No.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And I would encourage you as you develop that conceptual design on that north side that uh you might want to request another DRC to get further feedback from the Commission.

We'll do so.

Thank you guys so much for the time today.

Yes.

Agenda item 11.

Commissioners, this is uh 421 West Market.

Um the applicant, uh Jason Profit is available.

Uh Commissioners, we also have updates for both uh both sides.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Jason Prophet with Outfront Media.

Um good afternoon, um Javier Gonzalez, uh principal and uh director of design GRG architecture.

Um I never want to miss an opportunity to do it to thank you guys for your hard earned uh reputation for for being thorough and difficult, you know, when you need to be, and certainly uh accommodating where you can be.

Uh I sat on that side, and so I know how how how hard it can be, so thank you for that.

Uh I wanted to uh give a little bit of a preamble.

Um we've been working on this project uh for just a little over three and a half years.

Uh it may seem to have been put together haphazard, and certainly that's that's the way things sometimes shake out.

But there has been considerable discussion and back and forth and thoughts and reports and studies of appropriateness, size, location, uh looking at tree canopy, looking at things you see from the river walk, looking at all these different things.

Uh so with that, we did have a DRC meeting last week, and uh there were some extremely uh pointed and astute comments, and we've responded to those.

I think you'll find it refreshing that you will see that Jason is prepar prepared and brought today detail drawings that speak to the thickness and the offsets and OSHA and all these good things, uh certainly with alignments and whatnot, uh belt courses and notwithstanding and all that good stuff.

Uh that being said, uh want to remind everyone.

I don't know if you if you had the the opportunity to see a presentation or hear a presentation on on this big idea.

Uh I've heard a lot of uh folks talk about this as a billboard.

These are not intended to be billboards, although that's uh the ordinance uh from TechSot that we kind of need to work through.

This is a digital media display that's based in arts.

There is advertising, but there is also 20 percent time for local programming uh and five percent remnant time, if I'm not mistaken.

And all that goes to the local community.

So there's arts districts, there's there's the last two minutes of the Spurs game.

There's all these things that uh as Commissioner Cervantes said a minute ago, uh to pull your eyes away from your screen like this and bring us together as a community.

You know, we uh this is in our downtown area where the pilot program is is located.

So it has the opportunity to broadcast simulcast, you know, at uh 2 30 or 5 30 at that on Tuesday or Friday and bring us all together as a community.

Uh we've seen great precedents uh for this in Denver and really across the world where uh great cities do great things and pull us together.

Uh now I will ask uh one favor uh of you all that when we're starting to talk about the architecture that you do not remove from our toolbox, uh essential uh uh uh tool.

You know, we've talked about proportion, scale, all these great things.

Juxtaposition, please do not take that away from us.

Yeah, we heard uh and and you guys are touching on it, you know, positive, negative, warm and cool, you know, all these wonderful things, old and new, all these wonderful things can really make something great.

Um Commissioner of Alaskis was saying a minute ago, you wouldn't design a building like this, or in the case of the last one, hey, this one looks like it could have been part of the original building.

These these buildings, which in our case happen to be garages, which tend to be uh more bulky and less elegant, uh, although I think there's some good compromises uh you know on the street fronts and the river and so forth that uh that that mitigate that somewhat.

But these are our are big dumb buildings, and so we're looking at our work as a piece of art as a juxtaposition to the building.

Uh there's uh intention to line up with belt courses and mortar joints and all that.

We're all for that, and you'll see that we've responded in kind uh to those comments.

Uh keep in mind that that these displays are modular, and so they can't work exactly to you know a cutoff point, for example.

Uh so we'll we'll get as close as we can and see what you guys think about that.

Uh there's also as you're looking at the the the rules of the building or or comporting to the the design of the building, uh we are definitely subordinate always, you know.

Certainly let the let don't let us you know, we're not trying to be the star.

We're trying to you know work within the building, let the building be the star.

But that being said, if you're talking about a punch window which is subtractive, these digital displays are additive.

We're adding to those or hanging out over the street 42 inches.

Uh let me correct that.

We've reduced that, didn't we?

Yes, we did.

Reduced it by 18 inches, still uh maintaining the uh industry standard OSHA requirement so that it's safe.

So we got guys up there servicing the back of these things, but it is pulled in, there is a mesh around it, there are all these great things.

I'm getting out of my element.

This is your part.

Please, by all means.

Thank you, Javier.

Um so to address uh the first location 421 West Market.

Yeah, I'll uh commissioners, I'll pull up the updated file or the new file for uh the east facade, and then uh we'll we'll work through that.

You can advance the slide up there on the audio.

So this is the architectural 3D blowout that you had requested.

Um we did reduce the width of the sign from 20 feet to 18 feet 10 inches to allow for a 15-inch reveal on both sides of the edge of the building on this.

And we also align the bottom of the sign with the bottom of the opening of the second floor and then the top of the opening at the fifth floor on the elevator shaft.

Excuse me, sir.

Can you uh pull the mic towards you?

Thank you.

My wife says I'm too loud at home, so I'm trying to be mindful.

And so here is our uh architectural rendering or our artistic rendering, and in here we did add an additive belt course at the top of the sign, if that is appealing and it helps frame the it wasn't my idea, but if you like it, by all means.

There's another rendering just like this without it.

So here here is it without or with and then we also did the more profile view so that you could see that it does uh it does stick out two feet and 11 inches from the uh elevator shaft.

And the overall height is 59 and a half feet above the roadway.

Let me take the opportunity to point out the the park sign, which if I recall when that came to the commission, uh you know, it it did you know kind of traverse the the belt course there, and because it's additive and different and juxtaposed that one was was deemed okay.

In our case, we're comporting with with the belt course being above it.

I think you heard Ashley uh Fairmont say earlier, there's a 60 foot max height to these sign, so we can't just move it up and keep the same proportion.

Now I I think it goes without saying that the size of the sign is important for the revenue side and so forth.

And bear in mind uh that's not something you always think about, but there is a at least a hundred thousand dollars for the signs that goes to local arts, which is don't forget that we're you know, the there'll be an R component for this that's gonna be good for the city.

Did I say that right?

So uh so that being said, you know, be mindful of those things, but but this is a good opportunity to just as a as a study, the park sign and then the digital sign right next to each other, and one's trying to you know obey with the rules that you guys are pointing us towards, the other one breaks those rules, but it's okay because it's juxtaposed.

So this is look this is location A, and it is east facing on Commerce Street.

And we do have the updated engineered drawing for this as well.

Um the attachment method is by brackets on the side, and those are uh epoxy embedded Hilti anchors, and there's going to be approximately 48 of those on this construction that will embed in the poured concrete facade.

And all of that will be painted to color match the existing stucco as well as the perforated mesh on the sides and bottom of the sign as well, will be painted to match the stucco.

That's uh little detail on the attachment there that you can see.

And all of the framework of the sign will be disguised by the perforated mesh on the exterior.

Do you want to jump to the other side now?

Yeah, if anyone has any questions or concerns on this particular location on the building, I can answer those now or I can move to the next.

No, let's get questions on this one first, Commissioner Group.

Thank you.

I think we discussed it in in the DRC.

But is there a reason why you're not putting it above the existing band?

That's the second band.

Yes, ma'am.

That is about eight feet of LED sign face, and that does then start to affect the amount of revenue that these signs can drive for the arts district and for you know us as well.

What's the sign what's the size right now?

Uh this one is 660 square feet.

The textile limitation is 672.

And and I could add if you look at the overall proportion of that vertical elevator shaft relative to the sign, it's about the same.

If we made it squattier, it would it would then get into the area like the last guy or two of them before, where it just didn't fit.

I know, but now you're covering up that band that we that kind of but that's the juxtaposition I told you about where if you look at the park sign, it it it traverses all that, but because it's held off and it's different, it's not heavy, it's light.

It plays by different rules, if you will.

Uh now that's one sensibility uh certainly would respect if you didn't agree, but I would uh explain it to me.

But okay, so um and then are you covering it up or would will we be able to see the band on the two sides of the sign?

Well, we we can do a couple of things because it's covered with mesh uh on the sides.

We can inset that and really set it off as a separate element like not unlike the the the park sign, uh, but still allow for ventilation in the back and to obscure and cover all the brackets and everything else with our perforated metal.

And then there's also the degree of perforation.

We can go to you know something denser or something more open if you want to see more of a lightness.

Well, um more look at it from the front.

Do we have a rendering of that?

I think we do.

Um is your do you have another one?

Um side of that.

For some reason it's not a little bit more.

Edward scrolling.

Try now.

Okay.

So like right there.

Okay.

So will we be able to see is it really fresh with the building, or will we be able to see the band that comes from that side of the building around?

And then on each side of the sign.

On each side here, yes, you will be able to see that band on the side.

On each side.

Okay, perfect.

So we're not losing that existing band.

I'm not so I I like the idea of adding one on the top.

I'm not just a fan because I think that's now we're talking about changing the building because of a sign that is not permanent.

So, like then, I don't even want to go there, right?

I don't even want to go there.

I don't think it's even a question today because it's not even in the application, right?

I love that you proposed it, but then now we're modifying how the building looks based on the I know.

I don't want to tell it a sign, but I want to call it billboard.

It's a digital art piece.

Um to my question at your C, so how much is now the death?

You went from 48 inches to We went from three foot 10 inches to 2 feet 11.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I don't have any further questions for this sign.

Any questions?

I have one.

Um drawing four.

Which is the engineering drawings.

Okay.

I don't know if I can scroll here.

There I can, yes.

Next one, the details.

Um next sheet.

Okay.

Detail three, LED support ledger.

Yes.

This is the structural detail of how the your digital display is going to be mounted.

But what about the architectural detail detailing the uh screen that you're putting around the frame?

Because right now the structural elements are longer than your LED displays.

Um what portion of the structural elements, sir, are longer on the well, the detail three.

Okay.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

So that's just uh a cutoff of of what it would be.

Um that will not be mounted at the bottom like that.

That's the LED panel should continue along with the upright.

The structural portion will not be taller or or longer to the ground than the LED sign face.

Okay.

So detail architectural details to follow.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I believe uh number four should have the you know the squiggle brake line.

Uh number three should have like number four.

Okay.

But but no, if it was chamfered like the like the elevation or like the like the elevation is it it it would do that, wouldn't it?

Uh chamfered where, sir.

Isn't the doesn't the in one of the images the video screens like this and then it's chamfered?

It it shouldn't be, it should be square and perpendicular to the ground.

So this is that's uh graphic designer's discretion.

Okay, other questions or comments about this sign.

There is another one on the building.

Yes, very quick, Corey.

Um on something like this, are they given a little bit of leeway if something doesn't get approved to come back again or are they treated like every other case?

This is a pilot program.

Do they give it more time if they're deferred or anything like that?

I mean, well, yes and yes, it is a request for a COA, so just like any request for a COA, um, if it's denied, they can come forward with a revised proposal and seek approval here.

They also have the right to appeal.

Thank you.

Okay, let's go to the one on the west.

I I do want to make a point uh relative to your comment, uh, Commissioner Savantis.

This is a competitive process, so there's only so many spots.

So if we get delayed, it it it it it could mean you know, uh that we miss our opportunity.

So I do want to add that gravity to the situation on our side so that you understand.

On our side, so that you understand.

So this is the southwest corner of the garage building, and this is west facing on Market Street.

And here is the up close uh sort of profile graphic designer rendering of the sign.

On this one, we did the same as far as proportionality and alignment.

We reduced the width of the sign from 20 feet to 18 foot 10 so that the sides align with the front facing uh trim piece of that stucco towards the top, and the bottom of the sign is aligned with the upper opening of the second floor, and the top of the sign is aligned with the mortar joint on the stucco paneling at the top.

Here is uh more of a front facing rendering and the architectural drawings.

Were there any questions regarding this location?

I have questions.

Yes, Commissioner Group.

I guess we talked about DRC, and I think it was your Commissioner Fetz's idea.

Did you explore the option of putting the sign in between the two pillars?

Let's go back to the um one slide over.

There.

Yes, ma'am.

The uh if we went all the way inside the two pillars, that would make it 13 feet wide, and then we're looking at more of a more.

If we went to the full uh 672, I'm not exactly sure, but it would be around 50 feet.

And um, applicants today that have gone 10 by 20, like they have really reduced the size.

So I think this sign um so it's more about size, not placement.

And then I think now going back to taking elements from the building, so on the other side of the building, you talked about so top of bottom of the third row, second row of windows, and then kind of the proging garage on that one side, but here did you cut off part of the garage?

What what's behind there?

The uh the top of that sign lands right in the basically right in the middle of the openings of the fifth floor and the fourth floor.

Okay.

Uh sorry, can you show a picture of this without the billboard?

On the bottom side, there's like a a bigger opening, right?

Because the window starts further up.

I think it's in actually in the original presentation.

Okay, right there.

Go on back.

So one.

It's the other facade.

I think you just had it.

No.

You had it earlier.

Okay, right there.

Okay.

So again, uh the band is kind of hidden.

We're not you're you're kind of is the bottom of your sign at the bottom of this one window.

You I don't think you have a pointer.

Maybe you can just show us exactly where the sign is now.

It's going to be at the top of the second opening.

So bottom opening being from a little bit.

I'll be flushing with it.

Okay.

And then maybe Edward, you could follow with the cursor.

Uh-huh.

You have to stay by the microphone, sir.

And then that stucco line that's right in the middle, but it's not really in the middle of the both windows, but it's an existing line.

And as I took your feedback and was out there on a site visit, I went with that mortar joint as the uh alignment for the top.

Okay.

I don't have any further questions.

Commissioner Velasquez.

I'd like to make a motion that we go into discussion with the commission.

Second.

Have a roll call, please.

If you need a pointer.

Savino?

I like the run out there.

Stepped away.

Velasquez.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Kivata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Chair, this is uh uh similar to the last uh project.

And it's like uh very very easily put in a commissioner between a rock and a hard place.

The there are two different facades, and they present totally different environments.

One is clearly an opportunity for a monumental uh comment.

Parking lot, full full expectation from the viewer that something there could possibly take their breath away.

And and and traditionally here we would probably say, oh, that's way too big.

But but looking at it from the perspective of what the environment offers and what is the value of the architecture that is going on.

And the other side is a is almost a petite environment that really is like the front yard of a hotel.

There's a welcoming, it's a bit maybe it's a little softer, but the but the assemblage, the the the uh proposed, they are the same.

So both sides are are treated the same way.

Uh I I would uh uh be more inclined to issue the challenge, the same challenge as the last one, is to say that on this side there's almost uh there's the side that's shown, there's almost the opportunity there to do it like in your face.

The other side is asking for something that says that I want to be treated intentionally different, because I'm different, because the two sides are different.

So I would think the other one has the opportunity to go back and and become a part of the building, whereas on this side you added the line and you you you asked the building to become a part of the display, which is very very sensitive.

Um is a easy sell, right?

So it's it doesn't it's not a Coca-Cola, right?

I imagine if you put a Coca-Cola there, it might uh uh cause a completely different reaction, at least for me.

But there is an opportunity that's been created for these things to occur.

I think this is the the the ball knocked out of the park for for this project.

Like if you look at all the opportunities that exist, this one presents itself as like, wow, you guys got a really neat opportunity here, particularly because of the scale that that is allowed.

But when we get to that other side, I would have a hard time saying that somehow they're equal.

Yet yet they're their treatment is equal.

Um you wrap up your comments, please?

Yes, sir.

So uh I would be more inclined to an approval on an A and uh uh continued development on the B side.

And uh Thank you.

I'll do a motion if there's one.

Actually, I'd like to Commissioner Sumantes.

Yeah, just kind of the uh reiterate what he was saying, and if you look at this side, yeah, it's a little more warm, a little more accepted.

You you covered up the band, that's an architectural feature.

Uh yeah, maybe added one on the top.

Okay.

Can you go to the other side, please?

This one seems a little more invasive.

You've got the you've got the windows or openings there, they're kind of set in uh in between those two columns.

And then you have, I think there's two bands that are covered, right?

Right above the P, there's a band.

I don't know if we have another angle of that.

But there's a band, yeah.

Let's see here.

Is that a band?

What do you call that?

A ledge?

I can't tell.

Molding a little band, and then you have the one that's above that that goes all the way.

I think it goes underneath the uh the sign as well.

So I it it it's kind and then it's kind of overpowering the opening there at the bottom, right?

Because it's kind of peeping into half of that or the quarter of that or however much of a percentage you're covering up there.

So that seems a little more intrusive.

Um I wonder what can be done about that.

You know, do you do you shrink it from a from a horizontal and vertical to kind of fit it in between those two columns?

Um then what do you do about the bands?

Again, these are all hypotheticals, right?

I'm just kind of looking at it, trying to make a comment on it.

But I think I'm kind of more leaning to potentially a being behind the other one as opposed to this one.

I'm still on the fence on it.

That's that's all I have.

Thank you.

I agree with my commissioners on this one.

That the uh commerce street sign, I think lends itself to something as large as you've shown.

Uh you're responding to what's the context, which is the the building and the the streetscape.

Uh on the market side.

Um the building faces are closer together.

The the net the street seems narrower.

And the little sliver of that parking garage is what you have to work with.

And I think the sign, excuse me, the digital media and arts element should respond to that uh more appropriately.

I think that the size of this is too large.

Uh I think there's other details on this uh part of the facade that need to be um addressed or at least responded to.

And so I could support uh some sort of approval on the other one and possibly a DRC on this one for further discussion.

Commissioner Savino.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh looking at these two, they both uh share some elements of design issues, as it were, proportionally, especially to the building.

I mean, this is what we've been talking about the whole time.

So my concern lies in us designing it for the applicant, which I don't think is appropriate, right?

Um giving too much design input um that should come already completed.

And if we miss that opportunity, you miss that opportunity of getting the proportions right, the inset right, above, below the bed coursing right, whatever.

The fact that this will be up uh indefinitely is where my concern lies.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Yeah, um, I would like to do a motion.

So um move to approve item one as presented today, and then I'm gonna move item number two to a DRC we have a second.

Oh second, second, second.

Okay, and this one I did a little bit different.

So item number one, thank you.

I think you you did work with a lot of what we talked about, and I think we talked more about this one than the other one.

We didn't get so much opportunity.

So I'm not adding a stipulation of adding a band or anything like that.

I think the only thing is um you know, make sure that on the east sides we still have that band visible somehow.

It if we look at Edward, the original uh package on page six and five.

I mean, that band goes through the whole building, even on the right side, you see it where the stairs and it gets interrupted, but then it continues again.

So kind of the same way, right?

We have a sign, but okay, we have stairs, but we continued it.

So somehow just make it visible.

Um I don't want to add anything to uh the building itself.

And then uh the reason for the DRC on the second one, and might have been that we didn't have enough time.

Um I do believe that this one again, I'm not either in an intent to design.

I also based on everybody else and the applicants, I think everybody's been kind of going back and then look at it if there's an option that you can I think take some of that recommendation that we used on the first one is really look at the architecture of that facade and and make and try to see implemented within what's existing.

Um so I appreciate her.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Commissioner Cervantes?

Yeah, I'm still on the fence on the other one, but uh I I will say that just because you can you have the square footage allocated, doesn't mean that that square footage should go on that building.

Right?

If you look at some of the other applicants, they cut theirs in half after they looked at what does the building merit.

Right.

So I I would ask if you're gonna look at something like this, don't just slap the biggest square footage or knock off a foot or two and say I knocked off a little, you know, a foot or two, or don't try and at least on from my perspective, try not to sell it to me and saying, oh, well, this is why it needs to be this big.

The building calls for certain type of uh uh uh artistic approach to it.

I I I would encourage you to do that.

Uh particularly with the with the one that's uh the one that I mentioned was a little more uh intrusive or uh uh invasive.

But uh I don't think I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Have a roll call, please.

Sabino?

Nay.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazooka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

No, I'm sorry, no.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Agenda item.

Where are we?

12.

There's also two updated packets for this one.

I'll pull both of those up now.

Actually, Commissioners, this one would you like me to read the request and recommendation into the record, or would you like to continue discussion as we've been doing today?

The only difference this one individual.

Your uh recommendations.

Okay.

All right.

Um agenda item number 12, HDRC case number 2025 245, 412 East Commerce.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to install two digital media and art this arts displays on the building at 412 East Commerce.

Uh there's a display measuring 16 by 42 at the northeast corner, and another one measuring that same size at the southwest corner.

Bear with me one second.

Staff does that staff recommends approval of the southwest corner installation only.

The northeast installation is visible from the river walk and should be relocated to meet the spirit of the DMA ordinance.

The applicants here and I will pull up the updated file if you would like to start there.

Uh just let me know.

Yes, sir.

Jason Profit outfront media.

And Javier Gonzales with Georgia Architecture.

So this is the location on the southwest corner of the building.

It is located on West Market Street as well.

It's more oriented in a southwest facing manner.

It also faces down Preza Street.

So that it would inset inside the vertical columns and that the vertical columns would be visible throughout continuously in a vertical manner.

And the in setting of the sign within the columns also helps us reduce the standout width by uh significant more amount.

It went from three foot ten standing out to two foot three inches now.

We do get a nine-inch inset into the uh parapet walls of the um garage ramp.

Uh we also took into account and aligned the top right corner of the sign with the top of the fifth ramp floor, and we tucked in the b le left corner with the bottom of the fourth ramp floor opening as well.

Okay, questions for the applicant.

I have a question.

Yes, Commissioner Groove.

Okay, so uh in the late documents on the additional documents.

Can you go to the next uh on sign eight?

Are we calling yeah, we're calling them eight.

So this one is B, ma'am.

Yes.

Okay, so on sign eight.

Well, I understand charges.

Yes.

So next.

So thank you for providing this.

I think RC I wanted to see how it would interfere with any of the historic signs.

So basically, would left be left of that pillar and Tommy, or slide between one or the other exactly where it will be.

Yes, ma'am.

This is also the northeast location that staff is not recognized.

Oh, this one would be the one that's visible.

This one is are you also not are you removing it from the application?

No.

You still want to talk about it today.

Yeah, if you could extend us the same courtesy to the past applicants where you'd review and approve uh based on everything else, and then if somehow uh well part of the is actually the rear walk.

So I think that one will actually well that's what I'm saying.

It it's unclear.

Uh yeah, I I was on the commission when the Leiden ordinance came through and the sign ordinance and on the riverwalk is very different from visible on the riverwalk.

Uh we heard of uh uh from the from the dias, they made this uh determination, I don't know who that is, but at some point someone's gonna figure that out.

And so if if we can get if we can get it considered on everything else, and if it gets approved, great.

And if we get it turns out that that's not something that's permissible, well then we're back to square one.

If it is, however, uh and I'll give you for instance visible from the riverwalk and on the riverwalk are two different things.

And I think Jeff Fetzer was on the commission uh with me as well when say signs on the riverwalk uh lit signs have to be ten feet inside of a building.

But if it's ten foot one inch, you you can have it.

So my signage or when you want to go there and start confusing anybody.

Yeah, yeah.

So we've we've talked about it, we've been you know going through some work and it's it's very new to everybody.

I agree.

I think the word street level, sorry, street level and roadwalk level are the ones that we're using, and visibility is something that we are using as part of our purview to make a recommendation.

So I'm I from the beginning actually also was more supportive of the other one.

So let's so to the other one.

What changes did you make?

So one of the things was the challenge of the curve of uh of the building.

So we thought can you take corners of the concrete?

Yes, ma'am.

I can't see that here very the bottom left of the sign as you're looking at it is tucked into the top of the parapet wall of the fourth level, and the top right corner is tucked into the uh bottom of the parapet opening on the fifth level.

Top right and bottom.

Yes, ma'am.

So it's tangent.

And the width again?

And the width was reduced by three feet.

Uh those are 18-inch columns, so we brought it in inside and we tucked it in in the depth.

So we did come from three foot ten standoff to uh two foot three-inch standoff.

Okay.

And now you're able to keep it within the pillars on both sides?

Yes, ma'am.

This is uh the render inside the the vertical pillars and/or columns.

On the le on the left side, on the right side as well?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

No more questions.

I have a question.

If you go to the uh next drawing, Caitlin.

The next one.

Maybe next one.

Yes, here again.

Uh the structural frame looks to be longer than the uh LED panels, both on the top and the bottom.

Yes, sir.

That is uh to speak to one of the comments earlier.

This is kind of a rush to get these engineered drawings updated.

So this is a permit packet.

So the intent is that the absolutely covered.

Uh all of the structural framing will be covered by the screen that y'all are proposing.

Yes, the face will be covered by the LED screen, and all the sides and bottom will be in c encased in a perforated mesh.

So the frame will not be exposed to the visible eye from street level.

Okay.

And um you'll be providing architectural details for that screen for OHP review?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um both of these signs.

Well, we'll talk about this one because the other one's unique.

Um is technically accessible from the walkway, correct?

Yes, sir.

They are technically, but uh on the back side in those openings, it will be cordoned off with uh security fencing.

Security fencing, what's that chain link?

It will be uh prefabricated rails, most likely with the standard handrail distance to keep people from accessing.

We do not want anybody inside these at all.

That's what my question is gonna be is keeping people's from reaching over and getting to the back of it.

Uh so I think that is a a critical detail that would need to be submitted for review by uh staff at least.

Absolutely.

Other questions?

Velasquez?

Well, motion to go into discussion with the commission.

Second.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka?

I.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Vlasquez.

Mr.

Chair, I want to submit to Commission that the conversation here, the the deliberation consideration.

As a matter of fact, the conversation to me at this point.

Is even hard to take take the conversation even beyond the what becomes possibly an irreversible negative attribute in the culture of that environment.

So as we it as we go into the center of downtown.

It's not an area necessarily of tourism.

There are the areas of parking and the areas of loading docks and the crevices.

This little building, it it starts walking into the last view shed of a historic downtown.

Now we know there's a new building going up across from Palacio the Rio and the Torch of Friendship and all of that.

And it almost asks us to look at that environment as you approach that environment as an environment that will never be the same again.

That it that it perhaps could look like a Broadway uh central central uh um the area of New York where all the lights are Times Square.

In which case now you can see San Antonio right there, a torch of friendship.

It's all exciting and there's LED signs everywhere.

And I would imagine that we would also have to have this massive European and and global tourism that wants to be the Alamo for some reason, while the Alamo is asking everything to go the other direction.

It it doesn't seem that that there's been any real commitment to the transformation of that environment that it's either everything is graduating its way to to the accepting of the digital environment uh case at a time.

And in this aspect that perhaps this says that there's a ring of no go, no fly, and no fly zone here.

To me, it it it like it's like hitting like and I hate to say it, but it's like getting hit over the head with a stick because I never felt like I cared that much about you know those kind of things.

So it's no reflection on the design team and the proposal it just is really asking for quite a commitment, at least from this commissioner, to envision this as something that is a negative attribute, a negative addition.

Um it's almost like scary and maybe I'm just backwards.

I don't want to be backwards, right?

But Mr.

Chairman?

I'd like to hear uh really the on the the cultural aspect to commission what fellow commissioners think about this region.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

So on item A, the one that staff is not recommending.

Do I have item B?

The one can you go to slide 12 of the big proposal?

So can you maybe explain to me?

I mean, even the aerial would show that it would be visible.

Um is it the aerial or staff you took that picture because you went down on the river level?

The picture of the blade signs, yes.

I I went down and took that picture.

Um full packaged up page 12.

We created that exhibit using Google image.

Okay.

And then you actually also have a picture from the river level in that package somewhere.

So go down.

It's in just keep going.

Well and uh uh you have it right there.

Uh yes, uh page four of eighty page four.

So just based on how we're interpreting how we decided or how we've been kind of been guided to look at it is visible from the roadwalk.

So if I'm looking at it right here, I mean there's no way of hiding, right?

So I mean, if somebody else wants to do a motion, but I would say I'm probably not gonna support the signage placement right there.

Um because of that reason.

I'll follow staff recommendation.

On the other sign, um thank you for making the changes.

I feel like we're coming to a much better solution.

You really also the other sign.

Listen to how to kind of just find a little bit of like a corner.

It's a difficult building.

I get it.

It's not a nice building.

But thank you for keeping it within the pillars on each side.

Thank you for taking in the corners and at least you know, combining a few of the corners.

So I mean, for our purview and no personal opinion of whether I like digital billboards or not, while accustoming it to it, I would uh you know uh support how it's made it today with additional architectural drawings, just making sure we're all on the same page.

Commissioner Savino.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This one at the at the um intersection uh or the let's say the Northeast one.

For me, based on the comments that Commissioner Valles had and other comments about view from the river, how it changes the spirit of that space.

I think the the scale of the buildings, the historic buildings, the scale of the signage even, even the parking blade, is very um uh very compatible with the kind of pedestrian traffic you get there.

Now in the Rio, we are tasked.

Sh we shall take into consideration these alterations on the historic resources nearby.

And I see the historic signs.

I see the historic buildings as the historic resource of that immediate area.

And notwithstanding the view from the the river, I mean that that's a no go also.

So I think the um that northeast signage billboard is a no go by me also for those reasons.

Commissioner Savantes.

Yeah, that's gonna get I can't get behind either one of them for the reasons that have already been stated.

Uh I think it just impacts the entire ambience of the zone and uh I can't get behind it.

Thank you.

Do a motion if there's no other.

Yes, Commissioner.

Is it all right if we could respond to maybe some of the thoughts before you make your motion?

Are you still in discussion?

Mr.

Chair, uh it's appropriate Chair feel compelled to uh hear the comments.

Or respond to some of these comments.

Uh I I certainly uh again thank you for your astute comments, very, very appropriate, uh very measured.

And I want to reiterate to everyone on the commission that this is has been a very measured process.

Uh this is a pilot program.

There are very limited number of signs, the density and so forth, uh uh as much as some would like to characterize this as Times Square.

Uh no, no, this is uh the the opposite of that.

And I I would I agree with with the thoughts uh mentioned by Commissioner Velasquez that there is a spirit of the space.

We have the Torch of Friendship, which is sixty feet tall.

We've got ten nine and ten story parking garages, and to your point, you can see you know the the the corner of the building from the river walk.

Anything would be an improvement, I would tend to think.

Anything that would animate things and bring people up to the to the street level and bring life to that.

Uh yeah, uh not I've known most of you and known not to be shy and certainly uh at times to be bold.

This is a time to be bold, and I would encourage you to do so with your with your approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

Uh thank you.

I do have another question.

And yeah, we like to think of Times Square.

This is very this is totally different.

I mean, Times Square, the project there took years to develop, right?

Took years.

In the early 90s, I even worked on it when I was up north.

So those things take years.

This happened, I thought this ordinance process happened pretty quickly, but you mentioned that you guys have been working on it for three years.

Tell us about that.

Three and a half years.

Yeah, we uh first uh started, we met with the Conservation Society.

We made we met with H Park, we met with uh up team uh groups, and uh please stand up uh Matt.

Uh this gentleman has been uh he's from Houston, but he's been in San Antonio so much, I think he may move here.

I don't know.

Uh we've met with all sorts of people and have really, as I say, we're this is very measured.

We have really scaled back and adjusted to s the sensibility of San Antonio's appropriateness.

Uh yeah, and it's interesting.

Uh San Antonio has had its own time square, so to speak.

Houston Street, uh as I'm sure staff uh will attest, used to be the retail neon light flashing you know, light thing, and there's just a couple of remnants of that left, a couple of vestiges of it used to be incredible.

If you look at the old photographs, we're nowhere near anything like that.

This is uh an addition.

It is a pilot, so uh if you're bold, we can say, yeah, that works, or and it was a great idea, or no, that doesn't work, let's not do any more of that, and so forth.

Uh one one of the things of you is that we have been we g we're given a presentation a few minutes ago that it said that at the end of two years this thing goes wherever it goes.

It could be anything.

And you you know I have a deep respect for for you as a professional and typically of the architects that come before here.

I hate uh second guessing architects and the decisions that they make.

I think but the there there's a truth to this circumstance here is that these buildings exist already.

They were planned very carefully to be who they are in the space that they take.

If someone came to us for six signs, I know this commission.

They would send them back and ask for a signage master plan.

They would ask them for a signage master plan.

And if we look at this from the perspective of a signage master plan, then perhaps one opportunity that we haven't had is to look at how these things interact with each other, how they graduate from height to street level, and to have an intentional experience for the person that is you know, where it signs is wayfinding, but if it's if it's art that perhaps this has been done from the perspective of a of a living gallery.

And and and you you I know you you know my background and and who my teacher was with respect to the placement of murals, right?

You couldn't get better.

The this circumstance puts us in a difficult situation because you see that there are projects that are controversial that have already gained uh approval of this commission today.

From my part.

As it walks up to the central element that becomes synonymous with history in downtown, where it's not just unfortunately we've invested in the Alamo that that's just the Alamo, but also the Quartel and La Villita and all of the interaction in the histories of Santa Ana and Jim Bowie.

This is this this becomes a a departure, as it becomes a departure.

And it perhaps the that the answer from a commission would not be no, but maybe that there hasn't been presented enough evidence to say that this has been addressed from a strategic standpoint, not from y'all's point, but from the point of the city of San Antonio.

Yeah.

Because they drop it on our lap.

So Mr.

Chair, point of view.

Yes, so specific to this application.

Yeah, that that's part of and and and Mr.

Chair, and I'll make this very short to you, Mr.

Chair.

That's the difficulty of having this dropped in our lap right now, is that we haven't had a chance to even talk about it.

But I appreciate the time that you've given me.

Thank you, sir.

May I may I say two two short things?

Yes.

This reminds me of the uh expat Mexicano turned Frenchman artist Xavier Richmond.

The main plaza conservancy said, let's have this incredible light show on San Fernando Cathedral.

And people shit themselves.

I hate to say it that way, but that's really what happened.

And now it brings people together from far and wide.

It's uh a point of pri uh pride uh for a city.

This is not unlike that.

I I and I I agree.

These are gonna be a lot brighter than what's on San Fernando.

Well, the the other thing is that the except for down the cathedral is ephemeral.

It's not invasive.

Yes.

This it's not what happens for two years in a guarantee from the Department of Arts in the City of San Antonio say we're gonna do this thing and then we're gonna take them down.

It's like, no, we're gonna do these things and then two years we'll revisit it.

That's what the real answer is.

And if the program goes away, these signs can stay.

The brightness and the the the hope is and and the gentleman behind me, they all want this to go forward and be successful.

So they're gonna do all they can do to make this work because they want to see more of it for their own reasons, but but certainly if it's a good thing after two years, we want more of it, or if it's not, we don't.

The brightness thing, that that's a tunable thing.

So uh I I don't know all the science on the nits and everything else.

But I know there's uh there's a science.

Lighting level regulations for Text Out and and in the ordinance as well.

So let's not get into that.

Mr.

Chair, can I do a motion?

Yes.

A motion to uh just want to make sure if you can pull up the items on the agenda.

Uh I think they were numbered wrong.

Because we have number three and four.

So I just want to make clear.

No.

No.

No.

On the PDF.

On the application.

Okay.

So I'm gonna call it item number three and number four.

Yes, please.

Okay.

So uh we'll know what you meant.

It will know what you meant.

Okay.

Or I'm gonna also uh so move to deny item number three, which is this northeast corner sign, move to approve item number four, which is the southwest corner um as presented today.

Do we have a second?

Oh second.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Yeah, I just want to talk about so the northeast corner as it is right now as presented today has is visible from the rear walk.

This gives you an option to if you want to go further and up the ranks and and discuss whether it's rear walk view or not per the discussion today per what was presented to us today, it is visible from the rear walk.

Um item number four, I think we went through it.

I think you've done numerous uh uh you know changes to it really relating to the building as it is right now with the ordinance.

Um this is why I was moving it to approve as submitted today with adjusting the architectural drawings just with the correction any other discussion questions?

I do have one question for staff.

And um technically on the city's website, this address is listed as a landmark.

Has that been researched?

Yes.

We have looked at it.

We believe it's an error.

We believe it's an error.

I know it's an error.

You know it's an error.

Okay.

This is sure of that before.

This is in the findings in the staff report as well.

Okay, thank you.

Have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Nay.

Velazquez?

Nay.

Galloway?

Aye.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

No.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

And just as a note that if all three of these on market are approved and built, that it'll be three of these signs within three or four blocks of each other.

And traffic on mark market is gonna get worse than it is.

That's a personal opinion.

Thank you.

Not a having to do with the commission.

Thank you guys.

Agenda item 13.

Okay.

Um agenda item number 13 on the historic and design review commission agenda.

Case number 2025-186, 850 East Magnolia Avenue.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to number one, remove rear deck and railing along with two non-historic windows and one historic window from the eastern facade in preparation of the new construction.

Number two, construct a 520 square foot side edition and a 286 square foot rear screen porch to existing primary structure.

And three, construct a 500 square foot, two and a half bay carport located at the northeast portion of the lot.

Recommendation number one, staff recommends approval to remove the existing rear deck and railing and to construct a rear screened in ports with the following stipulations that the applicant install a standing seam metal roof that meets standard uh specifications.

Um and that the project complies with all federal, state, and local laws rules, rules and regulations regarding archaeology as applicable applicable to staff does not recommend approval of the proposed site edition based on findings.

Staff finds that alternative locations and design should be explored, which result in a fully subordinate edition that is consistent with the guidelines.

Number three, staff does not recommend approval to construct a 500 square foot, two and a half bay carport at the northeast portion of the lot.

Staff finds the applicant should explore alternative parking locations in a configuration that does not introduce a non-conforming presence on the lot.

Um we have um the architect as well as the homeowners here with us today.

Good afternoon, Adriana Ziga with the Zega Architecture Studio.

So I'll try to keep it short.

Um I think just there's at first glance it looks like this is a very straightforward project, but once you start looking into it, there's several constraints in the site and how the house is laid out that we believe guarantee um appropriateness of a side edition.

Um this is in River Road.

It is a um it's two lots, the property is two lots.

As you can see on the image, the historic setback is pretty consistent through the block, except for this property, which is about 50, 60 feet from the street.

Um and just to give you an idea, the front of the house lines up with the back of the neighboring houses.

That's how far in it's set in.

Um if this is Can you go to the the one that shows the back edition.

No, that's the site plan.

Keep going.

Yes.

Um so as you can see on this drawing, we have house that's pretty um further into the the property.

We have an existing two-carport.

Um the bottom right of that property, that is an orchard.

They have about five or six.

Yeah.

Um five or six fruit trees that are established, um, which we're trying to preserve.

There's also several heritage trees on the front yard that we are trying to work around.

Um originally we explored a rear addition because the house is for so far back with the setbacks.

Our buildable footprint is very limited.

So on that drawing, you can see that hashed area.

Um that is approximately the size of what the addition would be if we kept um the same dimensions of the rooms that we um are using on the proposed edition.

Um the issue we have is if we because the backyard is so limited, if we build it a rear edition, we're gonna block the windows on that bedroom in the middle.

The house is about a thousand square feet, it's a two-bedroom, one bathroom.

We're trying to add a master suite.

And um with the rear edition, we would lose one of the bedrooms.

There wouldn't be any egress to it.

Um so to make a rear edition work, it would require pretty significant work to the layout of the house to connect to the addition, but also to make sure that all the three bedrooms have an exterior wall to provide um egress.

Um it is a lot more invasive and um costly than what the owners were planning to do, so that's why we decided that a side edition would be more appropriate given that very extensive front setback that we're dealing with.

We try to keep it as um as as far back from the front of the house as we could, um, match the roof line on the existing and the on the existing house, um, keep the same proportions on the windows, have a different siding so that it's clearly identified as an addition.

And then uh we also have we're proposing a rear port, a screened-in porch addition in the back just so that there's some usable outdoor covered area, which they don't have currently.

And then we are also proposing a original we had a three-car carport with a gable roof.

Uh we met with DRC, they recommended we switch it to a hip roof instead and reduce the footprint of it to a two and a half bay carport so that it's um so that the footprint is smaller, but also so that it's less invasive on the street.

Um three of the sites are screened so that it's screened in from the street.

Um the the location of the proposed cardboard is in front of the historic house, but it is because the house is so far back, it would still be behind the neighboring historic houses.

Which you can see on that um diagram.

Um I think that's I mean, that's it's that gives you an overview of what we're dealing with and how we arrived to the design that we have.

Um we think that it's appropriate because of the very specific and and and um individual um constraints of the site.

So we hope that you can agree with us that this is appropriate and approve it today.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We do have a public speaker for this one.

Okay, thank you.

Barbara would help.

Excuse me, this is now the homeowner.

Um we'll hear from Barbara.

Oh, I'm sorry, okay.

Hi.

Um Nigel Smith.

I'm uh one of the homeowners.

Uh I just wanted to make a couple of comments um to add what Adriana said.

Um I think there was one other DRC recommendation, which was to put foliage in front of the carport to uh make it uh less visible from the street, and we certainly uh are open to that and would want to do that as part of the the design.

Um Adriana mentioned about rearranging the interior of the house, and I know it really doesn't fall into the purview, but the interior of the house is a long leaf pine uh boarding, and we want to keep the interior as it is because we consider that historic in terms of it's part of the original 1950s, and longleaf pine um is obviously not available now, and it's uh it's a very unique interior.

Um that really then leads us.

We we're looking to build basically one more bedroom.

Uh we although it's a two-bedroom house at the moment, the bedrooms are very small, they're 11 by 11.

Um with uh we have elderly parents that we would like to be able to uh come and visit, and we have a disabled uh sister.

And when she comes, she sleeps on the sofa because basically we have a s we have our bedroom, and the other bedroom is basically our closet and office, and there's we it's not workable, it's a two-bedroom house.

So that's the uh the reason for the addition.

Um I think that's all I had.

Yeah, sorry.

Thank you.

I was wanting to hear about the uh properties.

Which we talked about on the DRC.

So somebody said I had a good group salary.

Thank you.

Ms.

How and uh my name is Barbara Whithall, River Road Historic District, uh 105 Magnolia Drive.

Um The River Road Historic Resources Committee met September 12th on site at the property, and the committee members know this property well.

Of course, we know all our properties well there, because of the lack of rear setback and the conditions that have historically restricted development to accommodate a family's need for space and development restrictions of the 100-year 1% FEMA floodplain.

During rain events, neighbors to the south that back up to this property report a swift rise and volume in the amount of water flowing east downhill to the San Antonio River between their properties and this property.

It's amazing uh what happens.

So uh the committee supports staff recommendation one to remove the existing rear deck and railing to construct a uh screened-in porch with stipulations.

Uh the committee supports applicant proposal to construct the two 520 square foot side addition to be located on the eastern side of the primary structure, and the committee also supports the construction of the 500 square foot carport at the northeast portion of the lot.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh questions from the commission.

Mr.

Chair, in the event that there are no questions, I'd I have questions.

Commissioner Savino.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I have a question for the applicant, Ms.

So the um the neighborhood talks about this um water uh runoff and the the need for some capacity of drainage along the south side of the property.

And is that the reason why you are one of the reasons why you don't want to build to the south on the back side?

Is it because of that water incident incident or the drainage?

Partially, yes.

The whole property is on the floodplain, so we would have to meet floodplain regulations regardless of where we put it on the site.

Okay.

Um but yes, ideally we'd like to avoid uh right, right.

It just becomes a another obstruction in the floodway.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Okay, so uh some questions.

You you talked about you explored several ideas about the side addition not being placed behind.

What about the carport?

Have you explored any other options for the carport?

The only other option would get would have to we would have to get rid of the orchard.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I mean the on the options.

And just again, can you clarify the orchards all the way at the bottom, right?

It would be like the orchard is way down there.

Yes.

Oh, the orchard is right next to the house.

What would be the house?

Yeah, we pushed it as far back as we could.

Okay.

To where the orchard.

And so some of the uh thank you.

The staff comments.

Um of the things was like the uh addition.

So tell me about because it looks like it's a little bit larger than the primary.

Have you addressed any of the stipulations?

Is kind of my question.

Oh, any of the things that comment the staff comments.

We have you changed anything in your presentation.

Um we may change this after the DRC comments, but we didn't make changes based on the staff recommendation because staff is not recommending approval.

Okay.

So it was talking about the um well, I mean, we're gonna go to discussion.

I don't have any further questions things to the applicant, but I can do a motion.

Any other questions?

Oh, yes, Chair.

I'm supposed to make a motion.

Okay.

Um with removing rear deck ready to construct a rear screened porch to construct a 520 square foot side edition located on the eastern side of the primary structure, and to construct a 500 square foot carport at the northeast portion of the lot with all staff stipulations that do not contradict the uh elements of the motion I just made.

Second.

Second.

Yes, discussion.

Can I add some one stipulation to the carport?

Okay, so uh would you be open if you want to come up to the carport because it's facing the street?

I understand this is a difficult lot.

I also I would say I support the motion because of the comments from the neighborhood.

Uh this is a very specific neighborhood, and it's always very appreciative if the neighborhood is actually behind something that's beyond the guidelines.

So that was very thank you.

Uh on the south or east elevation, which one is facing the street?

Um south or north uh must be the north.

Can you add some windows, some finestration or some design?

Is it just a plane wall?

What is there?

On the carport.

It's a lattice.

Yeah, I mean, but that's it.

I mean, you're gonna see the side of the cars.

Is there a way that we can make it a little bit?

I know you're saying it's not going to be visible from the street because there's trees or there's growth.

I mean, um, can anything grow on the lattice?

Can we make it?

How do we make it so that it's not too visible and then actually becomes an issue later?

So I would say I'm not gonna ask you the solution.

Can that be added as a stipulation?

Yes, yes, ma'am.

Adding the stipulation that the elevation facing the street, i.e.

the north elevation, receive greater screening treatment than lattice alone.

Second stance.

So um right now there's bleeding hard vine that grows all over the chain link fence to the orchard and grows up the side of the house.

So I would recommend that we could plant the the lattice.

The stipulation is there, you decide what you want to do.

So if if we do plant the bleeding heart, it would do what you say, which is completely cover that side so the cars wouldn't be seen, and it'd be consistent with what is seen from the street right now.

That help?

Uh uh motion stipulation to include growth of uh vines.

Second stance.

And can I just ask one question?

Also, is the stipulation to the item one is the standing semi roof stipulation.

You're good with those?

Yes.

You did add that stipulation.

Well, there's only two.

Any other comments or questions?

I would like to thank the owners and the applicant uh for listening to OHP and the uh DRC and uh using the hip roof on the carport, I think uh really reduces the impact along the the street front.

Thank you very much.

May have a roll call, please.

Savino?

I Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka?

I Givata?

I Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

uh really reduces the impact along the the street front thank you very much may have a roll call please civina aye the last guest aye galloway izuka aye group aye servantes yes holland hi and fatzer aye motion carries thank you very much and kill for your patience agenda item fourteen agenda item number four agenda item number fourteen ht or c case number twenty twenty five two four nine nine oh one north alamo street the applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one modify the existing window openings on site two replace wholesale existing windows on site with a one over one vinyl window product three replace lapped fiber cement siding featuring a smooth finish and a five inch reveal and four replace an existing chain link fence with a 12 foot tall chain link fence um item one staff recommends approval of the request to modify the existing window openings on site based on findings A through D and with the following stipulation one that the applicant reopen the existing window openings to their historic sizes or maintain the previously existing window opening item two staff recommends approval of the request to hold replace wholesale the existing windows on site based on the findings A through C and E and F with the following stipulation that the applicant installs a fully wood or aluminum clad wood window that meets staff standard stipulations as follows item three staff recommends approval of the request to install fiber cement lap siding based on finding A through C and G with the stipulation that a reveal of 4.5 to five inches be maintained a woodlap siding or historic wood siding profile would also be eligible for administrative approval and item four staff recommends approval of the request to install 12 foot tall chain link fence based on finding H with the following stipulation one that the fence be limited to the previously approved pickleball course perimeter and features a five foot setback from North Alamo Street per UDC requirements and two um that the project shall comply with all federal state and local laws rules and regulations regarding archaeology as applicable.

The applicant is here virtually before we begin staff would like to note as per findings E and F that the previously installed windows were not original to the property and had not reached historic significance.

The applicant has noted the previously installed windows had been installed within the last 20 years and after the posting of the agenda the applicant informed staff of their willingness to install additional window trim or I'm sorry additional trim to the new windows to create additional depth and paint the white portions of the windows to better try to um adhere to staff stipulations you'll have uh 15 minutes to present your case to the commission um and I'll go ahead and go through the um documents provided everyone hello yes we can hear you okay everyone being here I'll just start off giving a little history about uh I bought this property on May 2722 we've been working on this about three years a lot of it has to do with uh planning and budget uh but before thousand twenty two wait one moment wait do you have um are you watching the the hearing are you what I mean do you have your can you lower your volume on your laptop or however your your whatever speakers you're using or do you have headphones in can you hear me better?

Yes that sounds better okay I'm sorry uh so we started this project about three years ago but before that but before that we um we bought this uh property from uh lick cut we bought this uh uh in 2018 from the closing document is what I understood was uh he wanted to develop a brewery here and uh in 2022 we sold it from what I understand is that the economic cost of this project was a lot uh I think for me uh when I bought this I didn't understand the gravity of of what it takes uh as you can see some on some of the next few slides that we went nine revisions with the city um a lot of it has to do with going back and forth what historical wants and what does the IC code want and what is the fire code uh allows us to do you know this previously is a house um and a hundred years later we're trying to convert that to a commercial property and with that you know design is probably first and foremost important and so with that design we have to uh design with the the integrity uh per square foot a thousand pounds per square foot so the engineers um have to work with the architects so that we can design it in a clean way to present it to to to to historical and keep uh uh the looks um uh sorry um I hope that you can see that the whole vision for this project is not just to stick with the precedent by you guys

And so with that design, we have to uh design it with the with the integrity of uh per square foot, a thousand pounds per square foot.

So the engineers um have to work with the architects so that we can design it in an acidic cleaning way to present to historical and keep uh uh the looks.

Um sorry, I'm getting a little nervous.

Um I hope that you can see that the whole vision for this project is not just to stick with the president, but you guys accepting my work um as something like oh no, um you know, we can't we if we approve this, then we would have to uh approve it for everyone.

My case is different.

Uh it's been a learning process, it's been a lot of uh work.

Um this this house is basically falling apart, you know, one size three inches.

Um to address uh uh to address one of the items, the reason why we um uh the reason why we uh decide to do lap sliding is because of the cost.

Uh as you know, but anything, whatever the material cost is, is usually double that as the labor or as much as as uh uh uh I'm sorry, with uh is the amount of labor so for example, something cost 10,000, the labor would cost 10,000, sometime 15, 20,000 just for the labor.

So you've seen how the cost is.

I think for one of the item, um uh the lap siding, we got a quote for the lap siding, which is about 10,000, uh, which doesn't include the trim.

Um we got a quote uh back from the uh bridle that this exact profile with a five inch review has to be custom made.

And so for us, you know, it doesn't make economic sense.

This is just material.

I I did not even get a quote for um just the installation, but I did get a quote for the everything for the wind for the doors and siding, and then finished out some of the trends that was 52,000, and I just got that as of yesterday.

Uh that I did not present to uh Mr.

Brian.

And I hope that you can see that these costs get uh very uh uh uh costly.

My my second thing is the window.

So uh Brian did put a stop order on this, which I I have to respect, and and I I'm glad he did before my further.

We did purchase the windows that was economical, and the reason why we purchased it because the existing windows was three feet by seven feet, and the only one that we're replacing is the three feet by seven feet, and we want to take it down to three feet, six feet.

One, it's readily available, current sales, we can find that.

Two, uh I don't agree with the that it must be aluminum.

Um so so may I say this without uh offending anyone, I just it's it it doesn't it has that high latency of heat than uh uh then than vinyl.

Um if if I were to say this is energy efficient, I'd say you know, use something that has a thermal break.

Um we're not changing anything other than the size, and we're we're bringing up this property, and if you look at the windows, um the original windows, a lot of it is really off miss off place.

I don't know if that's the design criteria for historical that it's you know it looks like grandma's house.

And by the way, this is gonna be a bar.

And the name of this bar is Yaya's house.

And so we're trying to make it fun.

We're trying to make it where everybody comes there and have good time.

And I don't think the customers are gonna be like, oh, that window's off.

But what I do know from operating the bar in the last seven years is that bar tends to uh have higher breakage.

Uh there's three windows at the top we decided to keep, um, which is window uh 208, 209, and 210.

They're at the ground level.

And uh Brian, if you can show one of the pictures from the inside, see in a bar business, people are gonna kick it, they're gonna break it.

Uh the best analogy uh that I can give you that go with that slide right there, Brian.

You passed it.

Um is if this was the animal, and I'm not sure if this is if you treat it like the animal, you definitely for sure what and then if we have thousands customers per weekend, that window's gonna get broken.

So it becomes very uh uh costly for me as an owner.

So one thing that I always do is I always put XP glass on everything, but uh, but I'm not doing that.

What I did to those windows lift it off at least 12 inches off the ground, and that's what I'm proposing in what I'm doing.

We are reusing those historical windows, but the other that are three by seven, we're actually to get them replaced.

All of them sit anywhere from 12 inches to to uh well they sit 12 inches above the ground, and it's then seven feet, and then we have clearance of about four feet.

Um so what I'm doing is I'm moving the windows up by two feet, um and then we add six feet for the window, so it sits right at eight feet, uh which is the same, uh which is basically the same height as all the windows.

And so if you can see the comparison from uh what was uh approved, it would can we show the slide uh that it was approved, uh which is a 501.

Yeah, so this is what was approved originally, and if we can fast forward to the application, these are the new windows.

If stand from far, I don't see a difference.

Um might argue, and if you get a lot of people, they may argue, but I do have other uh structural problem in which we have to circumvent, which is the venting.

Um, this is a bar.

We don't know where other to place the bar that is not on the window.

So every side of this house has a rebuild.

Um, the one place that we want to put the bar uh is on the southern side, the southeast side, which is uh view three and view well, it's practically view three, and at the top of the house, which is window two or six and two oh seven, we went ahead and raised that up to 48 inches, and then that window right there is still your uh three by six.

We still maintain the uh instead of three by seven, we went ahead and maintained three by six.

And the reason why we have to go four feet is that the vent, all your stacking of the vents has to go up that we could just do four to turn.

Um it would be very counter-intuitive for us to go around the windows and then uh uh connect at the top.

And I wish I had a picture of the inside.

These wood are very hard to drill through.

There uh most of them are not uh most of them are 12 inch on center, eight inch on the center, 60 inch on the center, 24 inch center.

Everything that we use is uh it's it's it's just it's not feasible to really drill through, and as you can see, all those woods, it's just taken a lot, and so we're trying to work as best as we can to uh to put this all together, meanwhile, um you know, complying with historical.

Um just one second.

I did get also on another note.

Uh uh, we we got really good lucky.

Um I had a chance to meet Bill, was the owner of Eastprints who used to own this property.

He walked through this property with me, and he said, Oh, look at that.

That's where my grandma uh you know, this is the very room she was born in.

Um, you guys done a really great job of doing this.

I had no idea you were gonna do this, and you know, I say that because it gives me inspiration.

This has been a long project.

Um, you know, I do everything by myself.

Uh I've been working on this with five other guys.

Uh my plumber has been with me for a very long time.

It's not like I'm at GC to where I could just you know delegate this and have a high budget.

I have been working in this and saving as much as I can, and I hope that you can uh uh help me to approve this.

Um I've been working since April of this year.

In the last uh probably six weeks, we've been going to seven days a week to meet our October 31st deadline in the bar.

This is Halloween is our biggest day.

Uh I've waited about a couple weeks for this review in hopes that to walk away with an answer.

Uh if it is a denial, and if you uh a denial, I would like to have a solution, and I think one of the solutions put the exact window in or otherwise approve it to help me out.

Um, you have to also understand that I have to put these windows in before I can fire cough it because all these walls are are fire rated.

Um, and I have to seal it properly, give that inspection.

And then I can't build the siding from top down.

These sidings are special, um, and the profile that they have is from James Hardy, the exact one, five-inch reel, six and quarter with a one-and-quarter black.

And the reason why James Hardy makes this is they understand across the nation there are historical houses.

And instead of putting wood, which will rot, and I have pictures of uh the significance of the damage, not you guys having uh Brian.

Can you show some damage uh damages that were um in the uh it's in the folder?

So those are pictures of what we're dealing with.

Uh every time I get a bid for this, it's it's just outrageous.

And uh they don't want to do this work, and I've gotten this far.

And I'm to the point to where I want to get this done, but also meanwhile, do in an appropriate way.

Um there's more pictures of what we're dealing with around the windows.

We have to replace them with uh two by four, which is one and a half by three and a half.

So everything we do, we have to offset it, and we have to add on another half inch layer on the inside.

Uh meanwhile, being able to put the fire rated insulation with the fire rate she wrong.

And so back to my point is if you guys would approve the window uh uh that I already bought, and I know that um and I know it's it's found upon that that we've already did it.

We have stop order.

I'm not doing it um on purpose, it's I didn't refer this uh uh action.

Um so yeah.

Uh moving on.

Um sorry, I'm just looking at my notes.

Yeah, Mr.

Wynn, this is uh Commissioner Fetzer.

Uh staff's recommendations.

They recommend approval of the cement fiberboard siding with the uh lap siding.

Uh either that or a woodlap siding.

So you're good with that stipulation, correct?

Um yeah, and and I I hope you guys excuse unpreparedness as we're also rushing in to get these done for you guys, and so that you can see this.

Um item number three.

But as you can see on the plans, uh I think you have our speakers turned down, Wade.

Wade, can you hear us?

Right now we're just in the final stretch.

We're just trying to close in and um get the outside duck.

Uh we're complying with all the windows restriction as far as the setback of two inch and the trims.

The only uh difference is that um it's you know original windows is vinyl.

Uh it has grill, which didn't meet the historical.

Um, so we we it any owner that wants to uh you know copy it, but would normally just copy it and say, hey, you know, and we would think that this is appropriate.

Uh unfortunately it's not appropriate by historical, but I like I said I'm asking for exception.

Um as far as Ron, is there anything else I need to address?

As far as this right here.

I'm sorry.

Um I'm I'm I'm unsure um speakers.

Can you hear okay?

Can you hear me?

Oh, sorry.

Um as far as the fencing, um we did get approved for the 12-inch fencing uh because it is appropriate for the wickleball court that we're having, and so we're okay with that.

Um can you hear us?

Wade, can you hear us?

Turn your screen us back up.

Wade, can you hear us?

Can you show me closer?

I'm sorry.

Can you hear us?

Your speaker on the screen.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, yes, I'll get the greenhouse.

Okay, you can hear us now.

Thank you.

So of the four stipulations, item three and four you're okay with, which is uh staff's recommending approval of the cement fiberboard siding, lap siding uh with the uh stipulated reveal, or if you decide to go woodlap siding, that would also be uh approved, and then uh stipulations for the chain link fence.

You're good with those two uh recommendations, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So the two issues that are still on the on the table are the size and locations of the existing or the historic openings, the windows and doors, and then the type of wood window itself, correct?

Uh yes, the existing window that's fine up.

Okay.

Uh we'll now go to questions by the commission.

I have just a so are we correct on item three, Brian?

Because I feel like there was some stucco removal that was not.

The stucco wasn't original, and um really the only thing that is left that we don't also think is original is about a five-inch lap siding.

And so we are saying that a smooth finish hardy that can basically replicate that appearance would be appropriate.

But that is what he also wants.

So we're good.

Yes, we got there on that one.

Okay, so four and five.

So correct.

Okay, Commissioner Fed sir.

And are any of the original windows still on property?

Um I I can answer that.

So uh there was no historic windows located on this primary footprint of the historic structure at some point within the last 20 years, they had been replaced with vinyl.

And so the applicants retained uh the previously installed windows, however, they're in various stages of so no none of the historic windows were even before he purchased it.

Correct.

And so what staff's recommending is is that um So basically is the openings the the openings, but also to um staff's been pretty consistent about recommending um that windows return window openings return to their historic penetration pattern as well as the installation of windows that meet that.

So let's use that example of that.

So you would recommend there a wholesale replacement, but you want the divided lights go back to that picture?

Or just the right, they don't they don't have to match these, but we are trying to get to a window product that is more appropriate for but on that window, for example, that's up there on the right, it doesn't need to have the full divided lights.

We can do a one over one.

Correct.