Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is now 301.

I'd like to call to order this on Historic Design Review Commissioner meeting to order for Wednesday October 15th, 2025.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'aman.

Present.

Garcia.

Here.

Velasquez.

Galloway.

Mazouka.

Givata.

Here.

Groob.

Cervantes.

Here.

Holland.

Here.

Fetzer.

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please?

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Las personas que necesiten escuchar esta junta in espanhol.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

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

I am J.

Maurice Gibbs, Chairman and the Vice Chair is 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 and historic districts for landmarks on city property in the river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

And considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's Unified Development Code and design guidelines 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 sheets.

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 attained for all work.

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

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

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

We're going to be screening Coco in honor of Dio de Los Muertos.

Um but if you come early, there's a scavenger hunt, there's an offrenda, um, and we will also have the city's consultant for the uh cemetery's master plan there.

If you haven't participated in that process, you'll be able to do that.

Um so this activation of the cemetery is part of our ongoing cemetery stewardship program where we train volunteers on um maintenance and um stewardship of our our historic resources in the cemeteries and headstones.

Um and so if you want to learn more about that program, this is also a good great way to get involved.

And so you can find this at SA Speak Up.

Um if you just search the picnic and movie title or go on Facebook, you'll be able to find it there as well.

Um next we can do approval meeting minutes from October 1st.

Mr.

Chair, uh I move for approval of the meeting minutes for October first, 2025.

Second, thank you.

It's been moved in property second.

Is there any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'aman.

Aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Okay, next, if you want to draw your attention to the screen, we have twelve items on today's consent agenda.

Um we don't have any in-person speakers, but we do have voicemails that we'll play at this time, beginning with item number one.

Hello, this is Valerie on behalf of the Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee regarding case number 2025-273, located at 310 Chestnut Street.

We do not agree with OHP's recommendation to allow these two buildings to be demolished.

These buildings are within the Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood boundaries, and according to OHP's guidelines, anything older than 25 years gains its historical designation and protection against demolition when it sits within a historic district.

Examples of commercial buildings that have been saved from demolition and restored are the Merchant Ice House and Velocity Campus Buildings located at Cherry Street and East Houston Street.

The Hackberry Market Building, located at 1602 East Houston Street.

These buildings are in a position to be renovated and retrofitted, much like the Merchant Ice House was to make it viable for today's design requirements.

The developer has the opportunity to be creative and incorporate the existing structures into a new design that doesn't look like every other brown box that is being built, but honors the commercial aspect of these buildings.

It would be amazing to renovate and promote the historical value of these buildings to future tenants.

Thank you.

Yes, this is Valerie calling on behalf of Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee regarding case number 2025-223 located at 1231 East Commerce.

We do have questions and concerns about the material the applicant is proposing to use and the height of the buildings.

This project sits just east of St.

Paul Square and on the border of the Dignity Historical District.

Can the materials and design of the building be more reflective of what is found on the buildings located at St.

Paul Square to complement both of these historical areas?

The majority of the buildings in St.

Paul Square are all brick with beautiful windows that are not white.

There are so many different materials being used for the exterior of the building.

It's becoming cluttered and chaotic.

And it looks like all of the other new apartment and condo buildings that have been recently built.

Additional concerns are it is too tall.

It overwhelms all of the other buildings in the area to include the building directly to the west of it and the condos and storage building to the east of it on North Cherry.

The entrance and exit off of East Cherry is going to be and cause major traffic flow issues, especially whenever there are events at the Alamo Dome.

Thank you.

I live at 126 Lavaca.

Um, and I'm calling to speak in favor of item number five, Southtown Aldea.

We are looking forward to seeing the property developed into something wonderful.

It'll be right across the street from us, and we are definitely in favor.

Hello, this is Lionel Sosa.

Just to say that uh my wife, Kathy and I are all for uh item five.

Uh to really have Oxford do the job that it has done so beautifully over at Park at Pearl and uh make uh our thing more beautiful.

We are at 126 Slovaka, right across the street from the project.

And we are all for it.

Thank you so much.

Hello, this is Valerie on behalf of the Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee regarding case number 2025-267, located at 821 Dawson.

We agree with OHP's recommendation for the ramp approval, but we are concerned about the fact that this ramp will take over the entire front yard.

We understand the need for the gradual decline and incline of the ramp, but we were wondering if there was a better design that would eliminate the number of turns and the taking over of the entire front yard.

Thank you.

My name is Marlene Carter Lawson, and I live at 505 Belknap Place, but my family homestead is a historic landmark Maverick Carter House, now an educational nonprofit for the arts across McTobin Center at 108 Auditorium Circle.

This is about item number seven at 105 auditorium circle.

Houston does not have these digital billboards in their downtown.

They opted for interactive people scale digital kiosks.

Dallas has both.

Austin does not have billboards, but is planning to get kiosk.

The two-year pilot program in San Antonio will surely be permanent.

The lack of human scale of these billboards is impossible for people walking to read.

On the ATT building, they propose a 50 by 25 billboard on Martin Street, which is quiet and slow.

So the photo the applicant had to show was taken if one were to drive north on Navarro and quickly look up before crossing Pacan, which is one street over from its location on Martin.

It can't be seen on Martin, and it can only be seen briefly at Navarro and Pacan.

The location of the sign is on the historic ATT building edition, which is very plain, and that is why City Council approved it.

Unique above all other cities in Texas.

We are part of the four most unique cities in America.

Why would we cheapen our downtown skyline with LA and New York booking decor?

We are unique because of our special heritage from the past, and we protect and carry that into the future.

I can talk about legal on-premise, off-premise, facial challenge, strict scrutiny, first amendment, etc.

I can use adjectives such as gaudy, trashy, tasteless, and cheap looking.

But I want to leave my conversation with one word.

Beauty.

It is the only word needed to make my case.

Is this beautiful?

No.

Because our city is beautiful, and beauty is above all else.

The Ohio Company, Orange Barrel Media's website has signs in LA, New York, DC, etc.

They state their value as for their advertisers and municipal clients only.

The applicant for these signs is a local law firm who represents developers' businesses and city ordinances with our city council.

There is case law from Austin to the Supreme Court, and I'm not going to talk about legal matters, but the applicant certainly will do that based on their client, who's not the people of San Antonio.

However, in the landmark case, Hill versus Colorado, Justice Stevens said, people have the right to be let alone.

So please stop the bombardment.

Thank you.

Commissioners, that concludes voicemails for the consent agenda.

Please note that there are uh letters from uh various individuals in your packets or on your desktop.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any items from the consent agenda?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to pull 12, 10, and 11.

And I don't know if it's possible to look at them in that order.

Well, there's there's this is a pilot program.

There's something in number 12 that actually highlights uh a design perspective that uh you know the willingness to to work around some of the parameters that we've been talking about in the DRCs, but we don't have to.

It's okay.

Okay, I'll consider that.

Thank you.

Um any other commissioners with supporting items.

I'd like to pull number 10, please.

Item number 10, thank you.

Yes.

Any other items?

Hearing none may have a motion for the um before we do that.

Um Commissioner Fetcher is recusing on item number five.

Let the record reflect that Commissioner Fesser has left the room.

Can I have a motion on the balance of the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I move that the balance of the consent agenda be approved with staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing none may have a roll call, please.

I Garcia.

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazouka.

Pardon.

Givada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda, and your address is 310 Chestnut, 240 Castroville, 1231 East Commerce, 849 East Commerce, 611 Matagorda, 501 Wix, 758 East Woodlawn, 120 East Aguarita, 821 Dawson.

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

If you have any questions, please contact your case manager or member of staff.

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

Thank you.

For um simplicity purposes, uh, we're going to go in order.

So let's just go with um item 10 first.

This is item number 10, 105 auditorium circle, and the applicant Ashley Ferrimon is here in person.

Thank you.

There you go.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Ashley Fairmont, Gillen Griffin, and Fairmont.

Um thank you for having me here today.

I'm here on behalf of Capitol Outdoor, who is proposing the sign on the ATT Annex building.

I have a short presentation.

I know a lot of you have already seen it.

We have been to DRC twice on this.

We did come to commission the first day that the signs came and were referred to DRC.

So here is the structure as staff mentioned.

This is on the annex portion of the building.

The original Southwestern Bill Bell Building was built in 1930.

This portion of the building, which is actually a separate building, was built in 1983.

Sorry.

Okay, perfect.

So just to now that I can control it, here's the location of the proposed sign.

It's at the southwestern corner of the annex building.

It's East Martin and Navarro Street.

And just to highlight what's around this building, um because it has come up in other discussions on these signs, there's no historic structures at this intersection.

Um office building on two corners and a surface parking lot on the other.

So here's the proposed sign after a couple of reviews at DRC.

Um this is is what we're proposing to mount the sign onto the glass uh 25 by 18 is uh are the sign dimensions.

That's 450 square feet.

Um so we have reduced it a few times.

Um and the idea is that it would be mounted on the the windows um in line with the mullions and then would be about 44 and a half feet tall.

Um so it's it's slower in height as well for that visibility.

Also, we think that being set back behind the concrete panels.

Um if there are concerns that you can see it from the Southwestern Bell Building, it is actually set back.

So the people who are seeing this sign are people who are actually at this intersection or maybe um to the southwest of the building, but not on the other side of the building.

Um so we we'd like to request that your approval today, um at least conceptual uh to move forward with this sign location.

We do think that it's appropriate on this annex uh portion of the structure.

Uh city staff is recommending approval because they believe that this structure, as do we, is not contributing to the historic nature of this property.

Uh I do also want to introduce JD Salinas.

JD is here on behalf of ATT.

So if there are any specific questions for the property owner, uh they'd be happy to answer that.

Um also at DRC, I did forget to mention there was questions about what's behind this, what's behind these windows, uh, and it's nothing.

So there won't be any offices there.

There's nobody who is actually you know having any view blocked.

Um, and so we think that this sign is appropriate at this location.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes, I'll lean to you, sir.

Uh yeah, I just kind of wanted to pull this just so everyone can kind of get it on the record here.

I know that there's some opposition to it from uh some of the community, and I totally understand that.

Um I do want to highlight that the applicant has worked with us at a couple of DRCs and shifted things around, while in general I'm not in favor of the signage going up.

Uh I I think that the applicant has worked with uh with the DRC in in an effort to try and get it to fit from a design perspective on to the uh onto the building without being too obtrusive.

Um but I just wanted her to present that and point that out.

Thank you, sir.

Vice Chair Fetzer.

Yes.

Um I want to thank the applicant um for working with the DRC and listening to review comments.

I think uh this is a large improvement to what was initially approved or even uh an interim uh uh version and it fits uh with in the detailing of the building.

Uh there's not much detailing in the building, but that's part of its uh design aesthetic.

Um I am still concerned about that this property is designated a historic landmark without discounting the 83 edition.

So um I will be opposed to any um motion that that moves this forward uh simply on that account.

But um I didn't want to say that um for other uh DMA applicants, uh I think this was a thoughtful uh design modification, uh taking into account what exists on the building.

But um, that's a laugh.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead, Commissioner Group.

Do keep protocol if there's no questions.

I'll like to do a motion.

Um I do have one question.

Um I'll lean to you for a motion.

So um you mentioned in your presentation when it comes to the building itself, and and Commissioner Fetzer um alluded to this.

So um the 1983 addition, so it's an annex portion of the building.

So um, and and forgive me if I missed this when you when you were talking.

Are you saying that um because this was in the addition to the historic building that this has no historical reference to the building, or are did you mention that or it was a little bit more?

Is that a question for Corey?

Yeah, I mean I'll read staff's finding in the report and then I'll explain further if needed.

But so it says while the proposed installation is located on a property that is zoned historic, so the entire parcel has a historic overlay.

Um it is not located on a historic portion of the building or at a location that is and is at a location that is clearly detached from the historic tower.

Um so this designation goes back to 1988.

That 1988 ordinance had a little over a thousand properties as part of a single uh designation case.

And the properties that informed that designation were part of a survey that was conducted between 1983 and 1987 or so.

Um we actually did pull um the survey records from the 1983 to 1987 survey, and it does use the phrase original building.

Um they just didn't designate things the same way that we do today.

So this was really just kind of a list in a city ordinance.

Today we work with properties and GIS and we apply the overlays that way.

So at some point somebody took the address and said, okay, this property meets this address, we're gonna make this historic, and that's how the overlay was applied.

Um having said that, yes, this building is located on a historic property, uh, but part of the staff finding we don't believe that it's considered historic.

And and the DMA ordinance itself speaks to historic buildings.

Thanks for that clarification, and thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate it.

Uh if there are no more questions, I'm gonna lean to Chris Commissioner Group for a motion.

A motion to approve with staff stipulations.

No, I just want to uh thank the applicant for um coming back and back.

And I think I do believe I'm agree with Commissioner Cervantes.

This is uh an example of um how you work with us, and thank you for working with us and coming down with a good solution.

So appreciate it.

Thank you.

No other uh may I have a roll call, please?

Ma'aman?

Aye.

Garcia?

Nay.

Galloway?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

No.

Holland?

I.

Fetzer.

No.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

May can we be excused?

Thank you.

Thanks again.

On behalf of ATT, I want to thank uh the committee for for helping us.

I'm JD selling us for the record.

Vice President External Affairs and I house out of that building.

So by the way, we did spend 11 million dollars renovating that building in the 1932 side.

So thanks again for your consideration.

Thank you, sir.

Have a good day.

Item number 11, please.

Item 11, 421 West Market.

Uh the applicant Jason Prophet is here in person, and Commissioners all note that there is uh an updated presentation.

He'll present it this time.

Jason DBS.

Okay.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

First, I want to thank you on my behalf and outfront media for your time.

Uh we also have been part of two DRCs and one hearing, and we Sir, I'm gonna interrupt you for a second.

Um right here.

Um please introduce yourself for record, sir.

Uh Jason Profit, Outfront Media.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Here's your pointer.

I think you can handle the keyboard.

Um I got it.

Okay, thank you again for uh for having us here today, and thank you for your feedback.

Um we are happy to partner with San Antonio and the arts district.

I personally hold arts history and architecture with the highest regard.

And I am also very aware that architecture does help tell the story of San Antonio, and I greatly appreciate that, and we want to be as respectful to that as possible.

Uh we did receive the feedback from the commissioners, um, especially Commissioner Civantes, Velasquez, uh Savino Groove and Fetzer.

And we are happy to report that we were able to work with our engineers and design team to address your concerns regarding the upper belt course and the uh the view of the cornice turning into the building.

So as you can see, uh we have well first I'll go to the architectural detail.

We did take a measurement, you know, we already had these measurements, but we went out and field verified one more time.

Uh the thickness of that cornice that sticks out from the fascia is six inches, and so we did reduce the width of the side cladding to allow that to show a reveal of the cornice right there turning into the building.

Here is our detail, and as you can see, the cladding does have a reveal and roughly a you know 30 degree angle from the roadway, so that you will see that turning in.

Am I able to zoom, Edward at all?

Just a little bit.

So again, you can see here the cladding does show a reveal right there on the cornice edge and allows it to show it turning into the building.

And on the lower belt course, we will be angling the side cladding so that it wraps around that particular belt course there.

We can zoom back out, please.

So with that being said, we do hope that uh we can gain your support today in our uh partnership to help bring awareness and add value to the arts in San Antonio.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Cervantes, sir.

Yes, the quick question.

And I know this was discussed at the DRC, but I want to ask just for the record.

Uh is there a reason why you cannot reduce the size of the sign so that it fits above that primary belt there, that lower belt, so that it sits recessed in there and only obstructs the belt that actually contours with the window facade there.

Yes, sir.

The we we do want the best readable face and one that we are able to use for the arts and the advertisers, and if it were to go above that, we would lose uh significant size over half of the display size.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I can do a motion if you like, or if you're one moment, please.

Vice Chair Petcher.

Yes.

At the last thank you for uh listening to our comments and coming to several DRCs.

At the last DRC, there was a request for y'all to study whether the width of your cabinet could align with the um vertical um panels on the lowest part of the of the garage below the the larger belt course.

To align with the openings, sir or to align with the vertical on the on the interior, yes, sir.

Um at the upper portion above that first belt course, the width and the openings, uh there needs to the beams that attach to the actual ledger of the structure.

They need to be able to be at a certain width uh around 10 foot eight is where they need to land in order to attach.

The uh those vertical uh joints on that say at the sign's lower edge, what is the distance between those vertical uh panels?

That I'm not sure of at this particular time, but uh it's going to be less than eleven foot eight and and greater than ten foot eight, I would believe.

Okay.

Because again, looking at the uh elements on the building, I think are important in terms of locating and sizing the these DMAs to uh work with those uh existing elements.

And uh I would think that uh making your cabinet or your sign no wider than those uh vertical joints in that lower part of the garage would be important.

Mr.

Chair have some questions?

Go ahead, Commissioner Group.

Okay, so let's go back to that question because I don't think it's clear for anybody.

Um if we can go to slide six of the late combined file.

Yeah.

So we talked about so, or if you go to the architectural drawing, so you know how the building wraps around, right?

So it wraps around, and that's basically your insert is the one that you have at 11 feet and eight inches, but then your sign is actually larger than that.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Almost a foot.

So let's go back to the picture.

So it can't align with the bottom lines of the bottom part, right?

Which is what we I thought we had agreed on.

It was gonna align with the lines either on the insert on the top part of the building or the lines of the windows below.

Yes, ma'am.

Um I took the feedback as bringing it inside the the return of the cornice on the second boat.

Okay, but you're not really doing that because if we look again to the architectural drawing, you're only doing that with what's holding the panel, but your panel is actually going out of according to this drawing.

Yes, ma'am, it does extend by uh five inches on each side, and that will still allow for an angle that that reveals that cornice as it reads for the.

I know, but it's not it's an angle of really an angle, right?

And we had talked about and I think every other applicant has worked with us is actually you can see that from the front, you can see it from a corner.

That you it you took a building element.

I don't have to go to a specific angle.

If if you're able to work with that, I'll put it as a stipulation and move forward.

I don't want you to lose time either, but I think we were all on the agreement that that was possible.

Yes, ma'am.

We could reduce the face to 11 foot three.

That's the next size down that we could go to with uh the pain.

So from 12.6 you have to go to 11.3.

Yes, ma'am.

That's that's the jump because every time that's how it is.

Yes, because of the size of the panels and how they the modular configuration of those.

Okay.

I don't know what that means.

Okay, I can do it.

Are there any other questions from the commissioners?

No.

Okay.

I'll answer Nicole sir.

Yeah, I move uh to disapprove as presented.

Um and I if I get a second, I can explain why.

Stare a second.

Second.

Spen moved in properly, second discussion, please.

Okay, I think Commissioner Groot and Commissioner Defense are both hit on this, but when I look, can you go back to the uh photo where it's draped over the the actual finished there you go?

I think that the way it's draped over right now, it appears it appears haphazardly.

I know you don't want to shrink the size, but I've mentioned this before in the DRC, and I think I mentioned it here in public.

You know, the building wants what the building wants, and I think that takes away from some of the character design character of that building, particularly that big large uh um molding that goes all the way around it, uh it looks like it's just draped over.

Um what I was looking for is something inserted.

I know other applicants in this pilot program have lost square footage on their signage so that it fits within the building design and it doesn't look like it's popped up there uh as a la as an afterthought.

So um I I I I kind of want to see I don't I don't think this is a solution.

I know Commissioner Groot has some potential uh uh uh engineering solutions where you can kind of set it in a little, but I think the fact that it's covering that uh that band there, the both bands.

I can live with the one that's inset, but the one that's protrudes from the building, I think that's kind of a for me that's a that's a deal breaker.

And and I think the sign should either be smaller, you can't split it in the two, I don't think, but I think it should either be smaller or smaller and placed on either top or the bottom uh of that band.

So Commissioner Savatis, can I ask your question?

So if we go with the solution that I think that we're wanting to go with the eleven feet three, which would be inserted, taking and really revealing those mullions on the top part.

Would you accept that?

Well, I think the the m the the mollium on the side there is what I'm looking at.

I think that's what gives it that haphazard appearance is that it's covering that up and it looks like it's just draped over, you know, kind of hanging out a window is what it looks like.

Um it doesn't look like it was kind of set into the building or or put in uh with a lot of thought from a design from from a view design perspective when I'm looking at it.

Um I don't know what your proposal would look like.

I'm trying to picture it.

But I'm and I don't know if you're done if I can say some comments.

Commissioner Group, where you go?

Um I'm actually have a seat.

Well I'll call you back up if we need you.

Chairman uh Gibbs uh we would like a chance to speak to the concerns raised by the Commissioner g at the given uh appropriate time.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

So um I don't think the application deserves uh a total denial.

I think that we should work through a solution.

Um so I mean if the motion as is, I will not support it.

So basically what I'm trying, we have gone through the DRCs.

This is the second time they're coming here.

Um it is a hard building, but I think my concern is more like the mullion and the in the um and the up the upper part, we're gonna call it the upper part and then the upper section of the building.

I feel like those are more of the historic elements that we need to be able to still see.

So I think the solution if they're able to, you know, make it less wide.

Um we have gone back and forth about making it smaller.

We've gotten clear not going advancing there, so that's not an option.

So I feel like even doing that stipulation will not make them move forward with their application.

The mullion that um Commissioner Cervantes is mentioning is the the wider one.

The building actually kind of goes like wide and then goes in, right?

If we go back to the architectural drawing, I feel like the solution with the 11.3, I think you'll be able to see a lot more.

The bottom part of the building is really just um they're not really windows, right?

Um they're openings to a parking garage.

So I don't have much concern with the size, and I think we've we've extended all options and and discussed it enough in length in D or C.

Um, but I do believe that uh being able to see those architectural elements on the top part is important.

So I would if I don't know, I would do an amended motion, not right now, but I would do an amended motion to 11.3 as uh as the width of the panel.

Um so I have a question.

So you mentioned um an amended motion, um, but then also Commissioner Savantis, when you were talking about your motion, you mentioned that she would probably have another one.

So I'm gonna give an option and we can do a minimum.

So you could withdraw your motion and then we can have a motion from Commissioner Groove.

So what is your pleasure, sir?

Yeah, I was hoping that we can kind of get through this.

I I don't know if yeah, I don't I'd like to see what her proposals are graphically.

I mean, I think she's got some pretty good ideas.

I just would like to see them.

The thing that kind of stands out to me is the fact that it's covering up that that middle moon, that that one band there where it kind of looks like it's just hanging out the window.

Um but uh I could withdraw the motion and let someone else do another motion.

But I know that it's not a force one you got to do.

No, no, I got I got I got it.

I don't I don't want the I don't want the client to to go back and just kind of get kicked to the curb.

I want to work with them.

But again, going back to the size issue, other other commission or other uh applicants have lost uh probably over half of their size to make it fit to the building, and that's not what's happening here, which is why I said it's gonna be a heavy-handed motion.

Um maybe Commissioner Groot, if you want to do an amended motion, and then we can vote on that.

And then we can come back to this.

I mean that's that that is an option, right?

Yeah, it is an option, but I'm I'm just trying to make this clean because you know instead of it having it too.

I mean, because you you seem kind of you know open to that.

So I'm saying that if you do withdraw your motion, then we have Commissioner Groove doing that.

That's true, right?

That's true, so it it would die.

And again, I would really formalize the motion.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um again, going back to what she's gonna propose.

I would definitely like to see that before we we approve something.

Um just this is a sensitive topic for the city, and I you know it's before that motion is put the floor.

Would any other commissioners um say anything?

We're in discussion.

Um we are in discussion.

Yes.

Commissioner Fesser.

Yes, I would motion modified.

Uh I think seeing uh a true um elevation drawing with dimensions uh of these cornices, the widths of the vertical panels uh that I had uh requested earlier uh so that we can see what a head-on view of this sign uh would how it would impact this elevation.

Thank you.

Other comments.

None?

Okay, um I'll go with your amendment motion, Commissioner Group, please.

Okay.

Um just I'll go with the motion to amend the motion to see approve with uh stipulation that the uh lead panel not be wider than 11 feet and three inches, if I'm correct.

11 foot four inches.

11 foot four inches was corrected.

Eleven feet four inches and same height as presented today.

Is there a second second?

It's been moved in properly second.

Um hold on, let me just there are two Commissioner Fetz's point, and I agree, right?

I mean, I'm some of this like the visuals.

I think the visuals today was not reality either.

So it's really hard to get those images or photoshop, whatever you want to call it.

I guess they're really hard.

It is kind of also a corner.

If we can go to slide um 13 of the packets that would yeah, that one.

I mean, I think this might give us a little bit of a better idea.

Um if I understand right, this is what was kind of where we were looking at the lines.

So I mean, if we visualize that we're gonna stay within those upper mullions, I feel like we are following and we're kind of just barely, you know, covering up those um, I want to say holes and the bottom part that just go to the parking garage.

We're not really there's nothing gonna be sticking out.

So I think that I don't want to have the applicant have to come back because of um photoshop kind of presentation that we have to kind of understand, and I think it's already hard enough to present to us even on the past one.

Thank you.

I'm gonna invite the applicants back up.

You wanted to comment, please please do this time.

Uh my name is Javier Gonzalez.

I'm the uh principal and director of design of GRG architecture here in San Antonio.

Uh wanna thank the commissioners for all their hard work and discussion back and forth.

Uh you know, this we've been through two DRCs, and this is our second uh commission meeting.

Uh certainly want to thank you for the extra efforts and discussion and back and forth.

Uh would like to uh highlight the fact that that we we did listen, we have made all the every effort we can.

We have reduced the size of the sign uh appreciably.

Yeah, there is a a maximum size of sign uh allowed by the state, which we adhered to at the beginning, not everyone did.

Uh we reduced the there's actually a maximum height to the sign as well, so we've reduced it from taking that bottom up, if I'm not mistaken.

And so there's been quite uh quite a bit of effort and in our minds, the 12 foot six width was ideal uh and really at the threshold of pain for something that's marketable and uh and and appropriate for industry standard.

We're now at 11 foot four inches.

That's the that's the next module down.

So essentially uh at 11 foot four, we're we're giving you exactly what you asked that we align with those verticals.

Uh we need to put a tape on it to make sure.

Ideally, we'd like uh to to Commissioners Grooves uh sensibility.

Yeah, maybe that could be part of the motion that we uh submit a elevation or orthogonal drawing that's measured and so forth to staff and not have to come back to HTRC and and waste your time to verify things.

But uh in general, we we have uh tried to we've listened, we've tried to respond uh uh in the in a meaningful way, and certainly uh appreciate the the the direction this is going.

And we're we're we're doing our best to satisfy the the requirements that you guys have.

And we think it's a better project for it.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Um any other discussion from any other commissioners.

All right.

Can I get a restatement of the motion?

Sure.

Um, Commissioner Group.

So it's moved to approve um with a height presented today and then with the width of 11 foot four inches as a max width for the panel.

Yeah, for the LED part of the panel, max.

You good, sir?

Perfect.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please, on the amended motion.

Ma'aman.

Aye.

Garcia?

Galloway.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

No.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Item number 12, please.

Good afternoon, sir.

Please introduce yourself.

Hi, Blake Custer, BC Results, uh, 8023, Sibolo Valley, Ferrox Ranch.

Thank you.

I invite you to say anything you want to before we have a commissioners ask questions.

Yes.

I didn't quite so just real quick.

I've been to this DRC twice.

This will be the second time at HTRC.

Thank you all for your great input.

Um I think we've come up to uh a great solution.

There are two examples.

This is option A, and then maybe if you could show option B.

And uh this reason why I'm showing these is so that you all can see the same presentation that took place at DRC.

Um the original drawing that's I'm sorry, Edward.

Um the original drawing that's I'm sorry, Edward, if you could go back to the original drawing, which was there, which was which was 14 feet by 40 feet.

We tried to integrate the sign into the building.

Um obviously sign heights here was 60 feet.

It's uh 400 and approximately 40 feet.

And the original sign that was presented to you was a horizontal sign that was closer to the river.

We moved the sign further to the west.

And in the DRC meeting, this one, you know, obviously was one of the proposals.

Then if you could go to B.

And then this one.

Obviously, from the DRC's uh suggests suggestions.

Option B was the one that I would recommend at this point.

Um it fits within the uh vertical um rectangle closest to Main Street.

Um if you've ever heard of a blade sign, we can basically connect through the engineer.

Uh there would be some connections inside on the back to the left side and then to the back.

Um there's a cylindrical shaft that goes uh uh vertical within the building.

And so this sign would be 10 feet by 21 feet.

Um the opening is 15 feet by 21 and a half feet.

Any additional space around that sign would be a sh there would be a shroud, which would be some type of frame around the sign to cover the make sure that that is uh all the all the negative part of it would be would be um blended into the building.

So I think this is uh is a good good representation of a resolution, and I think it's a little lower and it's a little better within there, and so it moves it's moved further away from the river.

So um thank you for your time.

Um any questions?

I'm here for you.

Thank you, sir.

Um Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, I just have a motion.

I don't have any questions, but I have a motion.

Yeah.

Yep.

Uh move to approve with option B.

So uh we're approving it with staff stipulations.

Staff stipulations on option B, correct.

Okay.

And it's been second on further discussion.

Yes, just real quick.

I wanted to highlight here uh what the customers have done here is is they've lost square footage, they've made it fit into the into that little uh post-stamp area where it was horizontally, the lines of the building clash with it, it just didn't look right.

But this looks much better.

And I want to thank the the applicant for working uh uh through the design aspect here of DRC and whatnot to get this to look right and not look like it's just kind of an afterthought.

Um that's it.

Thank you.

Um any other discussion or comments from Commission.

All right, hearing none may have a roll call, please.

Garcia?

Name Galloway.

Ivara.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland?

I.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

I motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

I just want to say thank you all for your time and and your input.

Much appreciated.

Thank you, sir.

Enjoy your day.

Um item number 13, please.

This is HDRC case 2025-257.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval too.

Reduce the size of the existing front porch by removing two feet from the eastern edge, and two construct an approximately 370 square foot rear addition that includes a rear porch and 62 square feet of conditioned space.

Staff does not recommend approval to reduce the size of the existing front porch by removing two feet from the eastern edge based on finding C.

And then two, staff recommends approval to construct an approximate 370 uh square foot rear addition that includes a rear porch and 62 square foot of conditioned space based on findings D through G with the following stipulations.

That the applicant install a standing seam metal roof featuring panels that are 18 to 21 inches wide, seams that are one to two inches high, a crimped ridge seam and match the current finish or a standard galvaloom finish.

Panels should be smooth without striation or corrugation.

Ridges are to feature a double munch or crimped ridge configuration.

No vented ridge caps or end caps are allowed.

All chimney flue and related existing roof details must be preserved.

An inspection must be scheduled with OHB staff prior to the start of work to verify the roofing material matches the approved specifications.

Next uh stipulation that the applicant submit additional specifications to include window door siding specifications as well as column details, and that the applicant add finestration to the rear facade and salvage and reuse the existing historic windows in the proposed editions.

There is one letter in your packet, and there is one voicemail, which we'll play right now.

We'll play it after the presentation.

The applicant Wendy is online.

Wendy, if you'd like to unmute yourself, you'll have 50 minutes to speak.

I'm sorry, that's me.

Wendy, you should be able to unmute at this point and um give us your comments.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you so much.

Um my name is Wendy Cannotelle.

Um basically I am submitting an application for uh certificate of approprieness.

Um just to kind of cut two feet from my porch.

Um, I just bought the house.

It's basically gonna be a total rehab.

I did submit uh my plans that were already done with the architect.

I am planning on keeping the structure and continuing the flow of how the house is, and I'm just basically gonna just bring it back to what it used to be.

Um there is an old I guess certificate on appropriateness back from 2021 from the previous owner where they had requested the same thing to reduce the length of the porch for actually like two and a half feet, and it was approved.

Um, the reason why I am requesting as well, it's because there is a big encroachment on my driveway.

Um basically my uh neighbor's property, so I really can't art and not only that, but that is the driveway to go all the way to the back when later on I would like to actually, if possible, get a garage or just for parking space.

And unfortunately, because of the porch, the cars don't fit.

They're not able to go through to the driveway.

So either my vehicle is gonna run into my porch or I'm gonna run into the neighbor's fence.

So that's why we're just requesting to do the two feet, just to kind of um be able to have that space to be able to park a vehicle there.

Um, I am planning on keeping the structure as it is.

We're just gonna kind of slide it to the left.

Uh, but I'm not planning on making any different changes to what the house looks like right now.

Yeah, well, I heard Wendy.

Does that conclude your presentation?

I guess uh as far as just the the back, uh the addition.

I I did submit a blueprint on basically how it's going to look.

Um it's gonna just keep a flow of the whole entire house.

The whole roof is gonna extend all the way to the back, and my roofer already submitted for the certificate of appropriateness.

We're gonna do uh the metal roof that is within guidelines, and the whole house is just gonna have the same um again uh siding and the same pane.

So there shouldn't be any any differences on everything should blend together.

Um one question that I did have.

Um on the back, um, as y'all can see, there's gonna be um we're gonna remove two windows because we're adding the the door, the back door.

Um, am I able to do a sliding door, or does it have to be like a French door?

I I wasn't sure on that.

Um, and then those two windows that we are removing, we will be using to re um for material to rehab all the other 21 windows that we're gonna be repairing.

So we are trying to save as much of the material as possible.

And that was it.

Thank you, Wendy.

Um, we'll move on to the we'll move on to the voicemail, and then after that, we'll open it to questions.

Thank you.

My name is Frederica Kushner, 405 East Marvel Street, Helvin Hill.

And I'm speaking for the Toven Hill Community Association about item number 13.

Case number 2025, 257.

The address is 615 East Evergreen Street.

There's a request for approval of a rear edition port construction and front porch modification.

We have not met with the present owner of the house at 615 East Evergreen Street, but have been involved with the case since 2021.

One of the major problems seems to be the lack of space for a proper driveway on the east side of the house.

We believe that the plan to shorten the front porch by two feet is a thoughtful solution to the problem.

The owner has worked to keep the integrity of the buildings designed while providing the space that they need.

It's a good solution to a foreign problem.

We agree with staff's recommendations for construction of a rear edition and rear porch with staff stipulation.

We are confident that with the guidance of the Office of Historic Preservation Staff, this project can be carried through to the satisfaction of all parties.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um now that we're on individual consent.

Um I'm gonna give every commissioner opportunity to speak, and if you don't have anything to say or have any questions or whatever, then you can simply pass on.

So I'm gonna start at the end, um, Commissioner Bada.

Do you have anything, sir?

Any questions?

No, sir, no, no questions.

We'll just keep going down on Commissioner Group.

I did have a couple questions.

Um stipulation two for staff when you're saying add finestrations.

So they do have currently two windows, and um she's adding one picture window and a glass lighting door.

So I guess what you're meaning by that is you want more.

I mean, really, she's replacing the same amount of pictures there or the sorry, the windows, finestrations that there is, it's just maybe because of the type.

Or what's that stipulation for the yeah?

So generally um speaking, uh staff has been consistent in recommending additional finestration at rear um you know four editions uh for this case.

Um Adrian, can you go to the rear elevation drawing?

Um staff's recommendation here would just be the inclusion of uh potentially one or two uh traditionally sized windows at the rear.

Um and that would be our recommendation.

Yeah, so it's not about adding more finestration, you want a traditional uh yeah.

Can you find the re-elevation?

Yeah, so this is you want more traditional finestration rather than adding more.

Is that the correct uh correct, yes?

Okay, so I guess I wanted to ask the applicant, are you okay with the other stipulations?

Which is you know, window specifications, you know, the type of windows that you're gonna be adding, and um the roof relation.

I think you said you were, but I just want to make sure.

So basically on the rear elevation, uh there's that back door.

Um that was my only question.

If it can be a sliding door or if it has to be a certain type of door, like a French door, and then for the small side window, I have no problem on eliminating it since that's gonna be a closet.

Uh, and just kind of keep it blank.

Um it's it's perfectly fine because that that's gonna be a profit, so it's gonna be a closed space.

Well, I guess staff is asking if you can put a traditional window sized window there.

Would you be willing to do that?

So that's gonna be a closet.

So yes or no?

No, I I wouldn't be able to.

It's it's a closet, so I wouldn't be able to put a window in a closet.

Okay, I don't have further questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yes, real quick.

If you could go to the site plan staff.

So my understanding that the driveway as it sits now goes into your neighbor's property line.

Yeah, if you see on the survey, basically like on uh walk towards the sidewalk, all that red lining half of it is basically my neighbor's property.

So all that big square, half of that is their property.

So there's an encroachment.

Um and my vehicle basically sits there, and then I can move forward because my porch is taking way too much out, so I can't even drive into my driveway past the porch.

Okay.

Um and can someone tell me how high that roof line is or from the bottom part of the roof, not actually the top part, but is there a shot of that, the picture?

You just had it.

So the bottom of that uh seventeen feet.

Okay.

No, no, it's eight or four four.

Slide seven feet.

Um, so you can't really use that.

You can't really drive back that way without encroaching on your neighbor's property.

Um then two feet is what you need to try to get off.

Would you be willing to leave the roof line there if you took off would a car fit underneath there if you if you if you go back to the picture if we show in the driveway there staff yeah, zoom in on that.

I don't know if this is possible, and maybe it might need a DRC, I'm not too sure, but is it possible to remove those pylons, lose that bottom portion but still keep the still keep the roof line there?

Um I mean I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I just don't know if it affects more the look of the house than just lighting the whole thing two feet to the left.

I was just trying not to alter so much the look of the house.

I thought that was gonna be more of a uh disconnect because now the bottom would be a little cut two feet to the left and the roof still looks the same.

So I felt like that altered the image of the house more than to just light the whole thing two feet to the left.

Yeah, that seems to make sense.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

No how no questions, Commissioner Petser?

Yes.

Um this is not so much a question, it's the clarification of the case that was here in 2021.

Uh we did have a side visit.

We looked at the conditions, the the driveway which is encroaching on the neighbor, neighbor's yard, uh, the width between the existing porch and the fence, and at the time we did feel that uh moving the uh end of the uh porch to the left was a reasonable uh compromise in order to maintain the character of the house as well as provide enough width for the uh property owner to potentially drive to the back of the property with a uh like she says hopefully someday she might get a garage back there.

Um and so uh that was a clarification of 2021.

Thank you, Commissioner Garcia.

Um my question had been about the windows on the rear facade, and they've been answered.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Galloway?

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Mahmin.

My question was about 2021 without a thank you.

Um I'll do a motion.

Please I move to approve item one as presented today, and approve item number two with stipulations one and two.

And I'm gonna rephrase stipulation three, um, that the applicant adds one traditional sized finestration where the closet is and reuse and salvage the existing historic windows in the proposed edition.

Thank you.

Is there a second second?

It's been moved and property second discussion, please.

So this is basically what I did was um if we can go back to the so like the front porch can be, I think everybody here was um I think it's valid reason to really reduce that front porch, so I don't have uh uh just as presented today, and then um keeping the roof stipulations, and then if you can go back to the rear facade elevation, yeah, exactly right there.

And then um keeping the roof stipulations, and then if you can go back to the rear facade elevation, yeah, exactly right there.

So to the applicant, and I think I um the today was presented was a sliding door.

I think once you um come up with the specifications and you hand those to staff, I don't think they'll determine if they follow the speci window specification if that's correct.

That I don't see a problem whether they're French doors or sliding doors.

Number two is um we are asking you for a traditional sized window finestration right there instead of that um vertical that kind of aligns with what we've always approved.

And what most people do um to you, Mrs.

Pimentel, is that we um you can just cover it up with sheet rock from the inside.

I mean the window doesn't have to be active, but from the outside, we would like to see a window similar to what was uh originally there.

Okay, absolutely.

I can do that.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Vice Chair Fester?

Yes.

Um friendly amendment, uh, Commissioner Group.

If in the reconfiguration of the front porch, could that center column be relocated to the new center width of the porch?

That is not what's presented today, and I think what the applicant is trying is not to uh mess with so much with the roof.

So I mean, I guess the applicant could do, but I'm um my motion right now is presented as is today.

So it would be not altering um what's originally like it's gonna be nine feet, and then you know of course it's gonna look a little odd with the seven feet, but the roof is gonna be the original length.

Remember, she's not removing any parts of the roof, right?

No, she's cutting the roof back as well.

Okay.

Yes, everything is getting cut two feet.

Um but it's just getting cut two feet.

So if you want to start start moving a column that's also holding the roof.

I don't know if it's something that I want to put that on the applicant because that's probably rebuilding the whole thing and might even be holding some other sections.

Well, I think the that center column uh structurally should just be holding up the the porch roof.

And uh possibly ask the applicant to explore relocating that to the to the new width between the columns.

Okay.

So here is the I would amend it to that recommend the applicant to center the center column, right, to the new width if possible.

Is that okay?

And then staff maybe you can review those options once maybe staff can get some pictures when she starts cutting and figuring that out.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does the second agree?

Yes.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

All right, may I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Galloway?

I.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Wendy.

Your case manager will reach out to you.

Thank you so much, guys.

Have a good day.

Thank you, ma'am.

Have a great day.

Item number 14.

So item number 14, HDRC case number 2025-259.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of pro of appropriateness to construct an approximately 75 square foot addition within the existing site porch along the northern facade, requiring the removal of one historic window.

Staff does not recommend the approval based on the findings.

And the applicant is here in person.

You'll have 15 minutes to speak.

Awesome.

Hi, my name is Daniel Cruz.

I'm with Design Coop and I'm representing our client 504 King William.

First off, I want to start off by saying we knew we'd be here due to the guidelines.

We are we are proposing something that does interact with the guidelines, but we do have a pretty appropriate design in my opinion.

And uh I do want to talk a little bit before we dive into uh key features and how we we we went about the design.

I want to talk a little bit about this project and who we are.

Um we're a full service, you know, design build for uh company.

And we've been working in this neighborhood for quite some time now.

Um 95% of our work is residential remodel restorations.

This project in particular is actually kind of kind of a really cool one where we spent over over four years working on taking it from the bones and restoring it and making it into the this masterful project that it is.

The back structures were lifted up, uh rebuilt from the ground up, and you pass by this property and you see what this structure was over a hundred years ago.

Um our clients have spent tons and tons of money on this project because they value and they appreciate all that it is and what it has been able to become for their family.

Um so that's just one important statement I wanted to make very clear early on.

Our design intentions um were very uh we we were very specific on how we took we approached this.

Um the findings that historic uh or um OHP staff is is referring to is uh findings uh B and C, which are relations to location, massing, and scale.

Um thing to know is we are located within the footprint of the existing side porch.

We are not increasing the building overall massing or footing.

Uh we are not obstructing or altering any of significant features architecturally.

Our new addition is set back from the existing columns that are in place.

The original porch floor is to remain.

The original, uh the additional porch uh the the porch floor above is not to be touched.

Um we really want to emphasize reversibility here.

We are not designing this.

Uh this has the the capabilities to be reversed at any time at any moment.

The window that was uh noted in finding D to be removed is not to be removed.

Nothing on this property is to be removed.

I want to make sure that's clear.

I did send an email out uh to make sure that was uh documented appropriately.

Um the window the window is to stay intact, all the doorways are to stay intact, the porch floor is to stay intact, columns are not to be touched.

Uh we are simply replicating the architecture of an addition that was built.

I don't have the exact date.

Um we're replicating that architecture that is uh as you can see on the left side of the proposed edition and setting it back to really kind of not uh obstruct or mess with the massing and scaling of the the original um structure.

Um another key key uh key point is uh the visibility from the right-of-way.

Um there is an extensive amount of landscaping that was brought into this property.

Um some of the photos do show that.

Um we did submit some alternate photos originally from Street View that look like we're swapped from this application with Google Earth images.

What's currently there?

Things have grown um significantly more, so there is less of a street visibility and presence.

Um but I just want to make sure that's clear and documented.

Um in conclusion, you know, we were really trying to minimize the impact of the historic structure.

Um we do feel like we align with all the attempts of the guidelines, and uh we feel like it's an appropriate and compatible compatible addition to the to the structure.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um start from um my left for questions.

Commissioner Delado.

No questions right now.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Group.

Yes, I do have some questions.

So do you have a picture looking at this right now, this slide uh slide seven.

Do you have a picture of the current porch?

Because you're saying you're gonna replicate what's existing, right?

We have a picture of it.

I mean, I can see it from the side here, but we don't have a picture.

Um I don't have a photo here.

I'm in elevation.

Uh, maybe if you scroll down one more photo, I don't know if the other photo that was provided, no.

Um I do not have a photo on me at the moment.

Um but that is the part that would be that was gonna be lead my to the second part.

This is the part that's gonna be visible, right?

So if you go to the next picture.

Um next so from the street now will be that's kind of what I'm trying to visualize.

Right?

That's what we're gonna be seeing is what's on the left currently that we can't see on this picture.

You can give it to the and then um so it go back to slide seven.

It kind of inserts and there's a door, so that door will be eliminated.

That door will be replicated and brought forward uh in the exact same architecture that is shown there.

So it's kind of like okay, so that's really bad.

Oh I mean, so it's kind of like yeah, like three windows, and then it goes inserted and then it will come out again and you kind of replicate it there again.

Okay.

Um has there been a DRC for this?

There has not, no.

Okay.

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes?

Yes, this is for staff.

What city and state designations does this building have?

This house.

City, it's a local landmark and within the historic district.

Um and then not state, but it is uh King William is on the National Register of Historic Places.

So King William is in the National Register.

Okay, got it.

But there's no plaque on this house like there are on its neighbors.

Um from the state?

No.

I mean, and any sort of state designation wouldn't impact this review.

Okay.

And then for the applicant, have you talked to the King William Historic Association?

What is what are their thoughts on this?

I did want to point out, Commissioner Sorry, that there is one letter in your packet as well.

Thank you.

You go to Commissioner Cervantes?

Well, I wonder if the Have I talked to them?

No, but in regards to what their statement is, um they did leave a letter saying they agree with OHP staff, which is pretty much the findings, which are the guidelines statements.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Fesser.

Just want to clarify you did say that this is completely reversible.

Correct.

That you're not um what sort of attachments are you doing to the uh historic part of the house for to hold it up?

So it's non-load bearing the walls that we will erect, um, however, they need to be stable.

Um so we will be making some penetrations into the existing decking.

Uh we do have uh disc decking uh um in our possession, so if we need to replace or leave on site for future future uh time to replace it, we can.

And then on the roof uh on the ceiling component, uh we know where all the blocking and we actually erected that entire we built that entire second level porch, um which it actually wasn't there when the client purchased it, but we brought it back from that was um something we presented a few years ago.

But uh we know where all the framing is, so we will just attach to the that and replace the B board and or patch uh after or if ever removed from the structure.

Okay, the building wall itself, is that a stucco finish or is it stone?

It's a solid limestone wall, 20 inches thick with a plaster finish on it, and we will not be doing anything to that facade.

You won't be anchoring to that in any way.

Uh minimum minimally, maybe some tapcons of three inch tap cons with for the two by four walls that sit there, but other than that, not really.

And that can be patched, and that's probably just gonna hit the stucco uh membrane if anything.

Thank you.

Commissioner Garcia.

Um I'm not seeing this in here, so I'm just gonna ask the question.

Is this conditioned space?

Um since we are uh yes, I guess so.

Um we're not really adding a unit to the space.

Um maybe a some a supplied could be modified or um there are there is a trans there, I believe, um, where we can open it in that doorway, but uh it's something I have to look into.

But I don't we're not adding any sort of unit to to the space if that answers your question.

Thank you.

Commissioner Galloway?

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammoth.

No questions.

Thank you.

Um I'll do a motion.

Um move to deny with uh just uh staff got it right as I got a right to move to the deni.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and properly second further discussion.

Yeah, I can appreciate what they're trying to do.

Um, but I know that as a commission, I think we've we've denied houses that are less significant and newer than this one for lesser modifications.

So I I think it's uh beautiful home, and I think uh adding to it or alternate in any way just takes away from the historic des or historic uh design and and you're looking at the uh the King William uh historic district is in concurrence with staff stipulations or staff uh determination, so that's where I'm at.

Thank you, sir.

I have one my my actual motion was gonna be the complete opposite.

Um I was gonna really focus on the reversibility, and then I was gonna say kind of like maybe move forward DRC and a site visit to see how much was actually visible from the street, and I understand that there's a lot of vegetation.

Um not removing any historic elements and the reversibility is where I see this was able to maybe happen and maybe even making it more transparent, right?

I mean, you we're when we saw the picture that the uh owner was presenting.

I mean, there's curtains, right?

So I mean, like maybe could you nobody's telling you have to cover your windows every day, but like if you presented more transparent, where you can actually kind of also even see that historic window, that's what I was uh gonna go for.

So um not support the motion as it is just because of that.

To make sure I understand you're open to um, but as did the DRC first, I'll let this motion um vote and then we can discuss.

Thank you.

Um did you want to offer a substitute motion?

No, because I think my comments also leave the applicants an option to come back with a different design.

Further discussion.

All right.

Hearing none, may I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Galloway?

Nay.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Maybe.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 15, please.

Agenda item number 15, HDRC case number 2025-250 932 Burnett.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct an approximately 1,642 square foot two-story rear accessory structure featuring a three-bay garage and second floor living space.

Staff does not recommend approval to construct the uh approximately 1,642 square foot two-story rear accessory structure featuring a three-bay garage and second floor living space.

The applicant should significantly reduce the scale and massing of the design, including elimination of a garage bay for future consideration.

The applicant's here virtually, and there's one letter and one voicemail for commission review.

And uh Mr.

McIntosh, if um whenever you're ready, you can present your case to the commission.

You'll have 15 minutes.

Are you there?

You're unmuted, but we can't hear you.

No, we still can't hear you.

Yes.

I'll we'll proceed to the next case and we'll come back to item 15.

Item 16, please.

Just one second.

Agenda item number sixteen, HDRC case number 2025-260214 Adams Street.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one construct a two-story rear addition, and two replace an existing composition shingle roof with the standing sea metal roof.

Item one item one, staff recommends conceptual approval, the two-story rear addition construction based on findings A through N with the following stipulations.

One that the applicant set the proposed two-story rear edition further back in the lot to preserve more of the original footprint to become clearly subordinate to the original massing.

Two, that the applicant provide an updated line of sight study using the average height of an adult person.

Three, that the applicant reuse historic windows on site that were removed that will be removed as a result of the addition construction for that the applicant stall a fully wood or aluminum cladwood window that meets staff standard stipulations as follows.

And five, that the applicant provide window and door specifications for review prior to returning for final review.

Item two, staff recommends approval of the composition shingle roof replacement with the standing sea metal roof based on finding O with the following stipulation.

One that the applicant install a steaming sea metal roof featuring panels that are 18 to 21 inches wide and follow staff standard stipulations as described.

The applicant is here in person.

There is one letter for commission review.

Mr.

Inez, if you want to come up and uh present your case to the commission, you'll have 15 minutes.

Okay, sorry about that.

You can go ahead.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Jaime Jimenez with the idea studio, and I'm representing the owner for this property.

I know um take for everyone for just work on this project.

It's been a while since we're starting the design process.

And just adding it to the side on the rear that it was added at a later point to the original house.

So as you can see in on those elevations, um is about from the from the front of the house to the addition is about 15-20 feet.

So I know that one is one of the stipulation is push the second the second floor addition to the towards the back.

Um so I guess wondering how far do we need to go for the second floor addition?

If you see the right side of the I don't have my glasses, detail zero three, does the side elevation, everything on the right, the lower part that the original house the way it is?

The the plate height there is 11 feet, so it's a lot taller than where we're proposing to put this the addition on the second floor.

But yes, by doing the the addition on on the existing footprint that uh we're leaving it the way it is, we're not adding any more square footage to the footprint or adding anything to the back of the property for the windows, yeah.

I mean, we're not removing any windows on the first floor.

I know that was one of the stipulations as well.

We're trying to replace and I mean fix all the windows that need to be fixed, but we're not replacing any or removing any windows on the first floor.

Thank you.

Um questions from the commission starting to my left, sir.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Yeah, sorry, always gonna be a question.

Um to staff on the stipulation on item one, stipulation two.

Um so that the applicant has provided a line of sight with a four feet eight.

That's even shorter than me.

So the taller the person, the less visible it would be.

What is it that you're asking for?

I guess what the applicant is trying to show is if you're shorter than 4.8 is where you would be visible, anything taller it wouldn't, right?

Uh not necessarily.

So staff's recommendation um to the to the HDRC would just be that the line of sight have an average height to show what it would appear to um the average San Antonian as they're walking down the sidewalk.

Um from the diagram here, um there is a point to where over this ridge line there is some visible, and if you're looking here, then there's not, but um staff would staff would feel that it would be more uh informative to have something closer to maybe potentially five foot four, five foot six, five foot eight, something that's a little bit more um traditional.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

And then um if you on the other stipulations, I guess to the applicant.

Um would you would you be willing to accept the conceptual approval and just continue to work?

Yeah, a little bit more.

I just want to know like how far from the street or from the front of the house we need to start the second floor admission.

And then um to Commissioner was that DRC.

Uh there was a DRC, but I don't know if anybody wants to say anything.

That's all.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Sebastias.

No, no questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Fetzer.

Um, would you be willing to come back to a DRC for a further discussion, more in-depth discussion rather than trying to uh further design in this forum?

Yeah.

And have you explored uh dropping the plate height of the second floor?

Um I saw in your building elevations at the second floor plate height is a nine feet.

Uh true, the first floor has eleven feet, but uh exploring dropping that even further for the second floor for bedrooms.

Uh I think might be appropriate.

So if you'd consider doing that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Garcia.

No questions.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um, Commissioner Galloway?

No questions.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Mammon?

No questions.

Thank you.

Can you have a motion, please?

Mr.

Chair, I'll do a motion.

Approve item uh one conceptually with staff stipulations and item two with staff stipulations.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

It's been moved in properly, second discussion.

And and this is a motion that gives you the option to come back for a DRC, and I think is just working with um I I do believe the visibility from the front is the most important, right?

So show us as much as you can, even take a picture or take that picture and show us how much we actually will be able to see from the sidewalk.

You want to draw it, you know, present as much that to us as I think whatever.

I think those are the two things that are missing before time.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon?

Aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Kivata?

Aye.

Group?

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Item number 15.

Okay, Mr.

Chair, would you would you like me to reread the case in into the record?

No need.

If the applicant is ready, we're ready for that.

Are you there?

Um, Commissioners, I do think the issue is on our end.

Um, so we're just trying to make sure we've got the right settings.

Sounds good.

We'll give a few minutes and we'll decide at that point.

Thank you.

That's not the issue.

WebX can hear it now.

We can't hear WebX.

All the settings up here are I wouldn't know what they were.

Can you try again, please?

Dondo, can you please unmute and try again?

Jess, can you hear us?

Okay, Mr.

Mackintosh, are you there?

You'll need to unmute and try again.

Uh hello, can you folks hear me?

Yes, we can.

Oh, wonderful.

We're back in line, so we're the applicant here.

So um go ahead and present your case, sir.

Uh well, yes.

Uh so I'm the homeowner of nine thirty-two Burnett.

I'm my properties uh zoned uh for uh to be able to put four units on the property.

And that's that's really my main goal is to um um put some units on my property.

I added the parking just because I didn't I don't know if you know uh folks would come back and say there's there's you know you're building this with no parking.

Um so that's the purpose of the parking spaces, but also um just in terms of the um the percentage um of the property, how much you can build.

My property is a rather large size property, and so the stipulation of sizing, it it kind of conflicts with the size of the property.

So the whole back section of my property is vacant and you know nothing's happening back there.

And uh this is this is my second time trying to uh uh come to you guys and have something approved that I could uh uh put two to two apartments there.

Um that that's that's basically what I'm I'm trying to get get to, and I don't really know how to do that.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Um going from my do we have voicemails here?

Here's yeah, one voicemail.

Hello, this is Valerie on behalf of Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee regarding case number twenty twenty-five dash two five zero located at nine thirty-two Burnett Street.

We agree with OHP's recommendations to not approve the addition of a one thousand six hundred and forty-two foot detached structure, uh including the garage bay.

The applicant should follow HDRC guidelines and reduce the size so that it is not larger than forty percent of the principal historic structure.

In addition, the design does not meet the following requirements.

The City of San Antonio minimum setback standards, the required standing seam metal roof, the driveway is uh way too wide at forty-four feet.

These are all the justifications for not recommending approval of this entire design.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

All right, so going for my left, um, Commissioner Guevana.

No questions, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Group.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, so um to the applicant have you willing to do a design review committee?

Uh uh what is that?

Well, you said that you've tried to get this approved before.

And maybe that's let's go back.

What's the what?

I I I it wasn't this design.

The property, the building was all the way at the back of the property.

Um, and the previous design.

This is a different design.

Okay.

Did you ever do a design review committee where you come in for uh like discussion and we like kind of come up with suggestions and we kind of make you explain?

I did that on the last one.

I just didn't do it on this one.

Okay, so you know what okay.

And then do you I think if you heard the neighbors' comments and the staff stipulations, do you understand those specifics?

I don't understand, but my driveway has been present since I bought the place, and it's been that big since that time.

So, you know, that's uh very uh can staff relate to that, or can you comment to that?

Is that it is a driveway, or is it just can we clarify that?

Based on the aerial photo, there there does appear to be some type of um wide um area back there, but um any time that there is going to be uh request for new construction, we would review the request for the driveway um against guidelines.

So do you have a curb cut, Mr.

McIntosh?

Like or what do you say when you say you have a driveway?

There's no there's no curb cut anywhere in that neighborhood.

Is there a sidewalk?

Okay.

While they pull up Google Drive, do you also understand the stipulation about the size about the 40 percent less than the primary house?

I understand that, but that's one of the key things that is is affects my design.

I have a big lot and I can't do anything with it.

And I guess my last question is is this uh one plat?

Have you considered splitting it up?

You know, it's a corner lot, so that's why it's also maybe a little bit more difficult.

I I I thought about splitting it.

Um I don't even know where to go to start that.

That would have to be done by a surveyor, and then the guidelines for um for exterior then would apply um, you know, as an individual house unit.

But I mean that's something I would do if I knew how to do it, you know.

But Mr.

McIntosh, do you see the screen right now?

Uh I'm looking at my phone.

Let me let me let me look at the screen.

I see like a so like that's a sliding gate.

Is that what it is?

Uh it's uh it's uh swinging gate.

Okay, so that's basically the 44 feet, or you're expanding on on that?

No, that's that's what's there.

So we're talking about 26.

You still want to do a 44.

That's not changing.

But you're adding to it.

The driveway.

I have no idea.

No, I'm asking I'm not adding to any element of the gate or the driveway.

It's just I need to put a building behind that driveway or in that space.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Savantes.

Yeah, just real quick.

I want I kind of got on the sidetrack this listening to that last part.

Um you wanted to put two uh rental properties up there?

I need to just uh it it it I need two units.

That's that's all I need.

Two units.

It doesn't matter how they look or what they look like.

So I I would be willing to work with you guys as long as I could get you know a a decent sized two units that somebody would want to live in rent.

Okay, and the staff.

And that 40 percent is I think one of the biggest stipulations there that is affecting the design.

Okay.

Staff, did you work with this?

Did you work with them on the 40 percent, the footprint, the curb cut, the driveway, all these things that we're asking about?

Is he made aware of all of this?

Yeah.

Uh so Caitlin was the case manager.

Um she's out today, so Brian's just covering, and so I don't know that he can answer that.

But yeah, staff's recommendation is always communicated to the applicant so they can understand um prior to the hearing.

Um I think one of the main things here, and we we do have an individual finding for this, it's just the nature of a three-car garage itself.

Um that is not really consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood.

And so nobody is saying you can't achieve two units.

What we're saying is we need to find ways to incorporate massing and parking solutions that comply with the with the guidelines.

Okay.

I I I have no problem with getting rid of the garage.

Um the problem is with the 40% of the historic structure.

So and that's a guideline.

And so uh and you do have a large lot, and so you're able to propose something that may or may not meet that specific guideline, uh, but they're gonna be looking for overall kind of responsive design um based on you know, adjacent properties, the space you have available on the lot, consider additional setbacks if you're doing additional size.

Maybe it's not two stories, maybe it's one and a half, and maybe it's not one big building, maybe it's two buildings.

I don't know.

Um but we have reviewed what you submitted and we've made a recommendation based on the guidelines.

Commissioner Swans, you have to comment questions?

Yeah, I do have one more question for staff.

Staff, if something like this goes up, does he need a rezone?

Um it would absolutely be worth a call to development services zoning team to confirm.

I've done all the zoning stuff.

That stuff is easy.

I just rezoned this place at least 10 or 15 years ago.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Holly.

Uh question for the applicant.

Have you met with the Dignoty Hill neighborhood association?

Uh not really.

I can I recommend that you do that.

Yeah, I'm off-site, so I uh I don't know how to do that.

Um, you know.

Um I'm just trying to get this done um with the little time that I do have, um, and with the with the funds that I could muster up.

No, of course.

Okay.

Um Mr.

McIntosh, so what I'm hearing here is that you know, suggestions that we're making things to nature, you know, it's basically you're trying to get you know something done so you can I guess rent it out, thanks to nature.

My question for you is um it it appears that the things that we're telling you as far as the guidelines are concerned and and what you can build in things to nature that you're not sort of aware of it or kind of aloof to that.

So are are you familiar with what the guidelines are as I mean say that you can't go over 40 um percent?

We're just we're we're interpreting the guidelines.

What would what is your understanding of that, sir?

Okay.

No, that was a question, sir.

I I don't know what I didn't hear.

I don't know, I don't know whether I'm aware of the guidelines?

Yes, sir.

The guidelines there are for your property here.

So I mean that's why you're here before HDRC, because we're the historic design review commission.

So we're talking about a historic structure in a historic neighborhood.

So you're when you want to add something there, it can't exceed 40 percent.

So it it seems like you are not clear on that.

So I'm just asking you, have you reviewed the guidelines in the I'm I'm clear on that, sir.

Yes, sir.

I'm clear on that.

Okay.

But if if someone is on a lot that's an acre big, or you know, I'm not saying mine is, I'm just using that as an example as an exaggeration.

If somebody is on a huge lot and their house is 2,000 square feet, they can't build anything except uh you know 40 percent of 2,000 square feet.

You know, I I mean at some point in time I'm bringing it to the Commission to say, okay, that is a guideline, but we will waive or go based on you know the size of the lot or something of that nature.

I mean, I understand the guidelines, but if you're just um you know, checking the box on what uh the city staff has um as a pro uh has said approved, then you know the commitment we could just deal with them and as opposed to you know sitting through uh uh uh a meeting of this nature.

Okay.

So um I I I would encourage you.

Well, we'll get into the discussion on that.

Um Vice Chair Fetcher.

Yes.

I don't know if this is for uh you, Mr.

Macintosh, or for staff.

What is the uh percentage comparison between the proposed building and the existing?

Yes.

So um let's see.

In finding D, it outlines this.

Uh so the existing primary structure features a building footprint of approximately 2,277 square feet.

Um so the proposed structure would be 72 percent um of of the primary structure's total footprint.

Okay, thank you.

And then um to the applicant, and we may want to just go ahead and send this to a DRC, but um getting two rental units back there.

Have you considered a one-bedroom units or studio units so that this the massing and size of this uh structure is uh reduced?

I would consider anything that is practical and that makes sense.

Thank you.

Commissioner Garcia.

Next question.

Thank you, ma'am, Commissioner Galloway.

No questions.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Mammon.

Uh no question, a bit of a comment or question in the comment is uh before you do it.

I mean we're in question move right now.

So well, the question I guess is so that I get a sense.

I've I've done a uh satellite view, and it looks like the swinging gates are not aligned with where the structure is being built.

It's being built at the at the end of the lot.

Um so I I just wanted to confirm that is is that it's the placement is not really I told the architect because he had it a bit.

I don't know if they got the update, but there was a drawing where it was further down, and I told them no align it with the uh the uh driveway and I sent that over.

I don't know if you have that.

Let me look at what you were looking at.

Hold on, let me know.

Yeah, what what we're looking at right now is not aligned with the driveway.

So what that that is not that is not on the proposed site plan.

That's not where it's at in the in the other drawings.

I have one more question, Mr.

Chair.

Um Commissioner Mammon, will you?

That's all I have.

Thank you.

There is Sir Commissioner Swantis.

Yes, Mr.

Macintosh, does your architect have the guidelines?

Did he use the guidelines or guidelines to draft these uh product for you?

Uh he probably didn't, because if he did, we wouldn't be going through all of this, right?

That's probably what you want to do.

You probably want to give him the guidelines and tell him to stay within these limits.

And then if something comes out of the limits, well then that's what you would kind of address the single single issue.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll Mr.

Chairman, I would make a motion if there's no other questions.

Please, sir.

Yes, I move to send this to a design review committee.

Second.

Thank you, Spring Root.

Um moving a property second.

Further discussion.

Yes.

I think there's uh enough here to warrant uh further in-depth discussion.

Um obviously the site plan that was submitted is not what the applicant is describing.

I think that needs to be clarified.

Also uh exploring the uh square footage percentages uh to be more in line with the guidelines.

Thank you, sir.

Other discussion?

Yeah, Mr.

McIntosh, if you could bring your architect to this, it'd be good.

That would be great.

I can't afford that.

I can't afford to hire an architect to come to this stuff.

I have to go back to him and say, hey man, look, this is what's up.

You need to try to fix it.

But I can't afford to I'm just a guy with the house.

That's it.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

McIntosh, before we take this to a vote, um I I would encourage you.

Um is our our what we're here for is to interpret the guidelines into um to help applicants, you know, get the things that they want or desire to do, but that fall within the guidelines.

Um it appears, it appears that you're not quite clear on what you want.

You just want something, and but we're we're not here to design for you.

You know, we're here to assist.

Sir, sir, please, please.

I've I've given you plenty of leeway to speak.

Um I'm speaking now.

So once we um go to this DRC, I would really encourage you to one, you know, brush up on you know what you are allowed to do.

I understand what you're saying.

You can't afford to bring the architects to it, but something has to give in order for us to try to help you to get what you want.

Um, you know, that of course it stays within the guidelines.

So that's just my encouragement for you, sir.

You um you can take it you know any way you choose, but I I think that that would be extremely helpful and then um definitely we're cut down on the frustration for you as we try to move um move you through this process.

There are no other discussions.

I I I would also add that the architect could watch the recording of this uh in and if he can't come to the meeting, he can at least see the clip in the discussion here.

Thank you.

Great point.

Uh um I'll I'll get with the staff and see what out of uh thank you.

Great point, Commissioner Mammoth.

Um, may I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Garcia?

Aye.

Galloway?

I.

Givana?

Aye.

Group?

All right.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

I.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

I motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you, everyone.

Um, that was the last case on the agenda.

We are adjourned.

Appreciate all your work today.

Thank you.

Thank you all.