Good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission for Wednesday, November 19, 2025.

May I have a roll call, please.

Ma'am and Civino.

Here.

Velazquez, Galloway, Mazuka, Guevada, Vasquez.

Here.

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 ke prefer escuchar esta audiencia de Spaniol.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

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

I am J.

Maurice Gibbs Chairman and the Vice Chair is Jeffrey Fetzer.

It is a 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 a river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

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

And the pill of a decision by 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 a public comment sheet.

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

You will be called 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 Historic Preservation.

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Item number two, HDR case number 2025-25.

The Conservation Society of San Antonio opposes the placement of the digital sign, which projects above the parapet of the building at 101 Bowie Street.

Unlike the other digital signs, we have a view that proposed design fails to achieve integration with the building and to which it is being attached.

Since it is not part of the digital sign.

Respectfully submitted Louis the Veterans President Conservation Society.

Thank you.

Okay, and we have in-person speakers for item number eight.

Um the first is Pam Carpenter.

Ms.

Carp or it's just Pam Carpenter.

Um she'll receive six minutes.

Bianca Maldonado and Tom Sparks are also here and have yielded their time.

My name is Pam Carpenter, offering comments on behalf of Bianca Maldonado, President of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, and the 10 member MPA Board of Directors, Post Office Box 100 315, 78201.

We appreciate the homeowners' recent efforts to stabilize the property at 462 Mary Louise Drive.

Um to address the properties, to stabilize this property, address the deferred maintenance, and to bring the property into compliance with the vacant building standards.

At the same time, we must acknowledge the long history with this site where some of the work was done without required certificate of appropriateness, and some work has stagnated and some work is trying to proceed.

On May 29th, 2007, the current owner received a City of San Antonio permit, AP number 137-5960 for in-kind replacement of faulty stucco on the garage, same color, same material.

Notably, no garage exists today.

Some historic sales records from 2006 show that a garage was present, and Sanborne maps confirm that an original accessory structure once stood on the property.

As an original contributing resource, its demolition would have required both a permit and a certificate of appropriateness.

It remains unclear when and why the garage disappeared during the current ownership.

Original garages should not simply vanish.

This gap in the record is significant, especially now today that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the missing structure.

We support staff's recommendation for approval of the new garage with the stipulation that the garage doors and the pedestrian entry be constructed of wood and be historic in character.

We respectfully request that historic detailing be incorporated, specifically carriage style doors with windows, and appropriate finestration be added to the west elevation.

The doors on the submitted elevations for the garage look rather plain and modern, and the garage doors will be visible from the right-of-way.

Regarding the drive lane to the garage, this submission does not include dimensions of the drive aisle or that driveway apron.

This should be in keeping with the historic homes nearby.

We also note that some of the sidewalk adjacent to the driveway that's in the public right-of-way adjacent to it has been partially missing for more than a decade.

This washout impedes pedestrian access and presents a trip hazard.

I've personally struggled with it, especially after dark.

We respectfully request that OHP staff and HDRC address the driveway dimensions and coordinate the replacement of this piece of the sidewalk and the drive apron as part of this case.

We must also raise concerns about inconsistencies among applications submitted over time.

In 2007, an application described repairs to an existing garage as we just mentioned.

Today's application proposes an entirely new structure.

Also in June 2025, the property received administrative approval for a new pool, yet the pool is not reflected in this current site plan.

And in April of 2025, the HDRC approved a second floor addition to the main house.

Our architectural review committee is concerned about the piecemeal manner in which these requests have been presented to Office of Historic Preservation and HDRC throughout this construction campaign.

Execution and coordination of these improvements are critical to the quality of life on this block.

This home has been uninhabitable for more than eight years.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and your ongoing support in helping the community bring this property back into compliance and back into productive use.

We ask that you include our stipulations as well for sidewalk reconstruction, driveway apron reconstruction, and some historic character to the garage.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any items?

Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to pull agenda items.

28 and 11.

28 and 11.

Thank you.

Any others?

11 will be heard individually already.

Sorry.

All right, hearing no others.

Can I have a motion to put a balance of the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to accept items one, three.

I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry.

One, four, five, six, seven, and nine, all of staff stipulations.

Second.

Spear moved in properly second and is there any further discussion?

All right, hearing them may have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Vasquez.

Hi.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Hi.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 114 Camp Street, 901 Novolitos, 1431 East Commerce, 110 West Low Wood, 1829, North New Braunfels, and 1511 West Linwood.

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.

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

Commissioners, that brings us to item number two, 101 buoy.

The applicant Nick Powell is here with us virtually as well as you missedicki.

Commissioners, I will uh pull up the most recent um rendering of this, and then uh commissioners, this was reviewed by the uh HDRC subcommittee uh a couple of weeks ago, and so if uh commissioner who was present would like to give an overview or a summary of that meeting, that would be a good start.

Yes, um.

I was on that VRC and we discussed the um is this the latest proposal, Edward?

Uh I believe so.

Uh Nick, uh, if you want to jump on and just confirm that this is the most recent, but uh yes, sir, I believe this is advance at one page.

Yes, this is the one that we reviewed where it's above the belt course uh near the parapet.

Um questions that were asked, and uh I think they were the applicant was gonna go back and check on them was uh whether the south end of the sign uh aligns with the south edge of the parapet and not extend the out to the width of the belt course, and also whether the uh north end of the sign is uh aligns with a vertical uh panel joint of the the facade below and there was some question about the uh the added small sign below with the sign company's name, whether that is uh actually required, and uh that may be a question for staff uh on that signage, and uh we can get to that uh a little shortly thank you, Commissioner Vasquez.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh one of my questions was why is the signage not integrated into the building's architecture like other signage?

Is there someone that can answer that?

Was that just that?

I can absolutely answer that.

Um my name's Yumna.

I'm I'm the architect at Orange Barrel.

Um, if you could advance this or turn it back to page four.

I'm sorry.

Um is the market analysis page.

You you uh one more.

There you go.

So we um all of our projects we study placement in kind of you know digital model to understand the visibility, and the issue uh here is this bank of trees.

So if we lower it to be um, you know, every site has its own view shed, and for this site, um if we were to lower it to be uh you know fully within the building face, you can see those trees would block most of the visibility.

So to be commercially viable, we had to lift it.

But we did um we did address the alignment issues that were raised.

Um at HDC uh a few a few weeks ago.

Um so the south end is aligned with the building mass.

Um and uh the north end does align with the building um reveals, and then we have wrapped the whole thing in a in a sheet metal uh trim that matches the building.

So we did we did um yes, we did work to to remedy some of those issues because it is not part of the building, but we we made it aligned with the building, and if you go one more page.

So we we sort of aligned with the building organization, right?

That was the way we integrated it.

So you can see the edge of the of the sign on the south end aligns with the building, not the belt course, but the building mass, the right side aligns with some of the reveals, and then the height of it feels similar to the banding that is there on the building.

And ma'am, the main reason was the trees?

The sign is covered by the trees upon approach.

Yes, the commercial value is driven by the vehicular visibility and the and the approach, the trees block it, right?

So if we look at it in the in the drive, um the trees block it until you get right here, until you get just past the clump of trees.

And um for a sign to be commercially viable, it it has to have a longer what we call advertising a read.

It has to have a longer uh duration of visibility.

And you didn't think by lowering it, it'd still be very visible.

Um while it's still commercially viable and um not so disruptive as it is well, that's correct.

If we lowered it, the trees would block the visibility for most of the vehicular path, and you would only see it when you got right up to it, which is not really um, you know, which is not really optimal for um like we don't like the signs to jump out at you.

We like them to feel like part of the larger context.

Well, it's jumping out as it is, or as the way you're proposing.

Um I would think integrating it further down uh would be a more uh more natural, but then the second question was uh about the sign below the sign.

Um I'm not sure what was concluded at the DRC, but what was the answer on that?

Well, I can say um would I can say that this is for us.

I I hope you're not getting the echo I'm getting.

Um for us, this is just industry standard.

Uh all advertisers, all media companies do this.

Should anything go wrong with the sign, the general public knows who to who to contact, right?

Um so what we did, we heard the comments at HRC initially, and we pared down the design of it, right?

So we've made it more elegant, we've made it these channel letters instead of a sign box.

Um but that was our response.

This is uh Rachel Parrish.

I'm over the sign team right now.

Um so to have the separate sign, it would be a separate permit.

Um that sign would need to be integrated, but it is part of the review that we would do with the actual sign permit.

So the way that it stands right now, it needs to be incorporated inside the sign to count as one sign.

Mr.

Chair Have Thank you.

That that helps answer the question, but do the other signs the other digital billboards around town have the same kind of uh second signage.

Sorry, I'm I don't have another microphone over there.

So um, yes, uh the other signs around town do not have a separate sign um for their company, it's integrated within the sign as well.

So you will make or your office will make sure that it's integrated.

Yes, it's part of the permitting requirements, otherwise it's considered a separate sign.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, just to follow up uh kind of help uh answer uh the question.

The first question was for first DRC that we had this the sign was presented there where you were actually recommending it, and it didn't look good at all because it didn't it impeded the uh the color of the squares that were there.

Um it looks a little better now, but it doesn't still doesn't look as good.

But uh so yeah, that was discussed that was brought up and it was renderings of it down there at the bottom in the DRC, we we looked at it and said it's not gonna work there.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh sorry to bring you back up here, Ms.

Parish.

Uh okay.

Um these digital billboards required to have the company name on them.

Um not for our code, um, but I think there may be some additional requirements, state level, federal level.

I'm not sure on that part.

On ours, we don't require them to necessarily have the logo on there, but it is standard that they have the company name on there on the signage for exactly the reasons that they said it is standard practice, if not required.

Okay, so all the ones that we've reviewed so far, this is the only one that has shown the company name on associated with the uh digital sign.

External to the sign.

Um yeah, I think this is the only one that they've explicitly shown where it's going to be.

Um I haven't looked at all of them within the permit itself, but my guess is they're going to be included somewhere on that sign.

But they would be within the correct, it needs to be within that sign.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Chair, I'm sorry.

Can I one more?

Uh would it is there any precedent for sticking that second sign behind it?

So whoever is uh concerned about it needing repair or whatever they need to do with it, can note to call this company from the sign and back of it instead of it being in the front.

I haven't seen anything like that because the way that this one is set up is a little unique in that you have a part of the back that's exposed for the most part.

They're either double-sided or they're up against something.

So I don't know that we necessarily have precedent.

It's something we could look into.

Um just because of uh consistency.

All the other signs don't have a second sign on them.

So I think uh right.

And the the difference is is that this one is actually separated from the sign.

Um so a lot of times it won't be like within the sign itself, but it's included in the sign area because it's still attached to it, and we would include that in the the total area of the sign.

So it may not be on top of the advertisement, most of the time it's underneath, uh, but it needs to be incorporated in that total area of the sign, yes.

Could I propose something?

Um if we made that frame a little deeper on the bottom or the top, and we incorporated the text into the frame.

Would that be acceptable?

No.

I think what um what makes this interesting is because on the other signs that we reviewed, um this is the one that stands out because of the way your signage is your your advertisement of your company is there.

On the other ones, we haven't seen that at all.

And that's what made this one stand out, and that's why it's it's being kind of like a point of contention amongst the um commissioners because this is not what we've seen on the other signs.

Now I know that you want to be recognized in the fact that you say, well, we want to know want people to know something goes wrong who to contact.

We know who to contact.

I'm sure the building knows who to contact if something goes wrong with the sign.

So it's about your name being there so obvious, you know, and that's what's creating the issue there.

So I think hopefully you understand where we're coming from in that respect.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

That was kind of the point that was needing help with.

Thank you.

Um are there any other questions for the applicant?

Uh for staff, could we go back to the um the street views coming up the street?

I know that in reviewing other signs.

This is really the the first one we've seen that appears to be more like a billboard as opposed to integrating into the facade of the sign.

You have done some uh details that uh relate to some of the elements of the facade, but it still does read as a billboard.

And um if the um if the 200 feet view of the of the sign is not doesn't make economic sense, then might I suggest you look for a different building.

Um trying to force it into this location because of other elements uh in the approach seems um uh counterintuitive and contrary to the um the uh ordinance to comment on that, ma'am.

Um yeah, I mean I think we looked at this site and we placed the sign where it wasn't facing the riverwalk.

We placed it um you know with a kind of respect for the context of the place.

And this was the best location on this building.

All right.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

I'd like to make a motion.

Please, ma'am.

I'd like to motion that we deny the application.

Second.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um to to the comments that my colleagues have made, I think um, they're all very solid.

We talk about the frame with the b the the business name on it.

The frame is integral to the signage, right?

It wraps around the signage.

And the name of the business happens to be on the lower left-hand corner.

That's an example of something being integral or integrated.

And that frame, the company frame is integral to the message, advertising message.

The same is not true for the signs relationship to the building.

There's a difference between being integrated, being an integral portion, fundamental portion of something, and merely being attached.

So the the billboard analogy really is is fitting.

And so um, and then of course, with the trees, imagine if the trees were not there.

Perhaps there's a building there.

And if there had been a building in those in that place, would one say, oh, I've got to move my sign out because there is a building in front, and we it impedes the view.

So it's this is a case where um you know the location just hasn't been properly uh determined for this product and on this building.

So that's the basis of my motion.

Thank you.

Any further comments?

Yeah, just real quick for city staff.

How what what what input do you have on determining where this sign was proposed?

So as far as the ordinance itself, I'm sorry, okay.

Yeah, we don't have any direct guidance as far as exactly where the sign is located, only the sizing requirements of it, and that it cannot impede emergency egress.

Okay.

So for this historic district, you might want to lean in and probably have some sort of general overall guidance on something like this.

Because slapping this up there, I know that the client worked with the with the city that we gave them comments, they moved it around.

Um we tried to make it fit, but I agree with my fellow commissioners.

It just doesn't look like it's the right place there.

It looks like a billboard, it is a billboard.

Um then, you know, what about projected growth?

What if another building comes up like my fellow commissioner says?

I mean, are you guys thinking about that from the city perspective?

Future buildings development, growth, project marble, all that other junk.

Right.

And so because this is a pilot program, a lot of the reason this is a pilot program is to go and find um a lot of these hiccups that we are seeing now so that if this does become a permanent program, we're able to address it.

Okay.

Well I hope that gets done.

Um but yeah, I think my fellow commissioners have said everything that I that I wanted to convey.

So thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Okay, sir.

And um I that brought up one last point that I had uh come to mind.

So what happens when those trees do grow?

Do you keep raising the sign?

On the city side, no.

I mean, it would not be up to us if the sign company wanted to, they would have to go through the whole process again, and that would be outside the pilot program.

So then it's gonna be out of the view again, and then you're gonna have to raise it up and then keep raising it to the heavens, and no.

It just needs to be denied.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Any further comments.

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

Savino, aye.

Galloway Vasquez?

Hi.

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number eight, please.

Item number eight, uh, 462, Mary Louis.

The applicant, uh Ramon Torres is here virtually.

Um he is available to answer any questions that the commissioners may have.

Ramon, are you there?

Yes, I'm sorry.

Hello.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, this is Ramon Torres.

I'm the general contractor for this project uh for about a year now.

All right, thank you, sir.

We have a few questions for you, Commissioner Vasquez.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I think you answered one of the questions right now when you said you've only been on the job for a year.

But um do you know what happened to the garage?

Oh, I know I I mean I kind of know the story, mind you, I can't verify uh this is coming from the homeowner, right?

Uh, tell your version.

Yeah, she's an elderly lady.

Uh she went through a very, very uh big divorce in the last five, six years.

Um the house, you know, she bought it from a gentleman, I believe that would that flip the house.

Um she has been in a long battle with one with her ex-husband with contractors and whatnot.

So she actually found me about a year ago, and that's when we started submitting uh from different uh sort of uh COAs.

Um we you know, this is kind of evolving.

Like she throws different stuff at me all the time, like hey, you know, I want to do a garage, I want to do a pool.

We were just supposed to kind of um finish over or do the rehab on the main structure, uh, but it's evolved into something much bigger, right?

Um to answer the question on the pool on the drawings.

Um we do have a permit that's is for a pool, but it's for an indoor pool, which is below the addition uh where we're that we're building that you see on the pictures.

So that's why it's not reflecting on the on the side plan.

Well, my question was was really about when what the demolition of the garage was, but you brought up another uh concern which would be an indoor pool.

And would that be a DSD concern?

I know this isn't within purview of uh OHP, but is there anyone from DSD that or that y'all refer them to?

We do have a permit.

Yeah, I think for an indoor pool.

I think I mean I I don't know what was approved as far as like an indoor pool goes, but the the present request is for the garage.

And so um yeah, the applicant he can answer any questions related to that.

I'm not sure if um correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.

Torres, but do you do you know anything that happened to this garage that was um I guess pulled down sometime almost 20 years ago?

No, sir.

I don't even think that I so the owner bought it in 07.

I don't know if it was up.

I I honestly I mean I can ask, but I don't I do not recall.

Does anyone call it does anyone from the neighborhood suspicion when the uh garage was demolished?

Ms.

Carpenter?

I'm sorry.

Anyone speaking come up and introduce themselves.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Bianca Maldonado, I'm president of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association.

And this demolition was reported to OHP.

So I was um as a long-term resident of the neighborhood, I was kind of surprised it wasn't in the case history, because there is a history in the Hanson system of the permit being issued.

We gave you the AP number where C of A was obtained to do repairs to that garage.

So at some point when repairs were supposed to be done, what occurred was a demolition instead.

Um I do know there was a former resident on that block that did raise concern multiple times.

Uh obviously it's an outstanding issue.

There are multiple concerns on this property.

The goal is to obviously get to a resolution, of course.

So remind me one more time when you said the repairs were allowed.

In 2007, and we provided the AP number, um, the permit number in the Hansen systems 1375.

You can't pull C of A's that far back.

Um but knowing that there's a city permit that was issued on May 29th of 2007 indicates that there was a C of A that was also issued for those repairs.

But there is no permit for demolition of the garage, and there is no permit for our so we assume there's no C of A, because it just disappeared.

Thank you.

And uh the name while you're up there, so I I was trying to document your concerns um being the neighborhood that this house is in.

Uh it was the carriage style doors.

Correct.

One to fenestration on the west side.

On the western, there's no windows.

There's just two garage doors and a pedestrian access door to the garage rendering.

There's just walls.

Uh-huh.

So we didn't want it to look like a storage unit.

Okay.

And then three was the sidewalk and apron reconstruction.

Yes, if you look from Google Earth and Stephen, Mike, please, ma'am.

Then I can introduce yourself.

If you look from Google Earth from the street, you will see that there's a segment of driveway missing um next to the apron.

And so the sidewalk is discontinuous and it's very rough and it holds water and it's just very challenging to diverse.

We just had a lot of complaints of people that have fallen from the neighborhood.

Sure.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Question for the applicant.

In that Google view, it looks like the driveway and apron have been removed and that it's just gravel, which also affected part of the sidewalk.

Is that on I see on the side plan that it says existing drive and existing approach?

Is there any intention to replace that apron sidewalk and driveway?

Yes, sir.

And I actually just noted I bought a lot of plans and notice that it would be the design or put existing driveway.

So staff with the staff, that would need to be a new application for a drive and approach.

That's correct.

So if the uh Mr.

Torres, if you can submit a application for a certificate of appropriateness, staff would review the size of the apron as well as the driveway.

Um and just a note, too, I did look at the Google Street View, and it's been in its present condition since 2007 as well.

So modification of that would be approved administratively so long as it meets the um uh the thresholds described in guidelines.

Are they other questions for the applicant?

I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

I move for approval.

Um staff's recommendations.

Is this for a COA or conceptual approval?

Okay, COA.

Um I move for approval with all of staff stipulations with the added stipulation of uh appropriate size window windows be added to the west side of the structure uh that meet uh the guidelines and reviewed by staff.

And can I add a are you done?

I'm sorry?

Are you done with your motion?

Yes.

Can they ask that you add a carriage style door or appropriate door to the front of the garage?

Historically.

So we have a stipulation about material.

It doesn't specifically say carriage style, which I would assume have some sort of like beam appearance, but that is up to you all.

We would with the added stipulation with historic style doors as well as material is staple stipulated in staff's thank you.

I'll second that motion.

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly seconded.

Further discussion.

Um Mr.

Chair, I would just like to say um or ask is the assumption that that driveway is compliant with historic uh design guidelines and doesn't exceed 11 feet in width.

I don't think it's it's not dimension on the site plan, is it?

Um I I don't believe it does it is, but anything beyond the traditional 10 feet wide concrete drive would require review by the compliance of technical advisory board.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further questions?

I mean, I'm sorry, comments.

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

Savino.

I.

Galloway.

Aye.

Vasquez?

Hi.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Betzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 10, please.

Agenda item number 10, HDRC case number 2025 288, uh, 1253 and 1255 East Crockett Street.

The applicant is requesting conceptual approval to construct a two-story multifamily residential structure on the vacant lot at 1253 and 1255 East Crockett Street.

This is located within the Dignity Hill Historic District.

Sorry.

Staff recommends conceptual approval based on findings A through R with the following stipulations.

One, that all my materials adhere to the guidelines for new constructions, new construction and specifications outlined in finding J.

Two that the front street facing elevation be substantially revised to include the following.

Additional finestration and traditional proportions and dimensions, that the applicant incorporate porch massing and details that are consistent with the guidelines and historic examples found on East Crockett.

Essentially, the porch should be increased and historic details and column designs should be referenced.

And that the cantilever balcony should also be incorporated into the new porch design and be supported by traditional columns.

Three, that window materials adhere to the guidelines for new construction and the adopted window policy.

Four, that all grouped windows be separated by a million of six inches in width, and that the rear and left elevations feature multiple window openings.

That a detailed landscaping plan be submitted to the commission for review and approval.

And then seven that all mechanical equipment be screened from view from the public right-of-way.

He did note to me that he uh agrees with all of these.

Um so there may be questions that can be followed up on that.

Uh we also uh discussed uh him attending a design review committee meeting um as a follow-up to this.

Uh and commissioners, there is a voicemail from the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association.

Thank you.

Can the applicant come up, please?

State your name for the record, please, sir.

Ricardo McCullough.

I'm sorry, say again, please.

Say again, I'm sorry.

Your name again.

Recordable McCullough.

Thank you.

I appreciate it, sir.

Um you have anything you want to present about your case, sir.

I understand you want to you agree to all staff stipulations.

Is there anything else that you would like to add to that?

Yes.

So you have anything else to add?

Do you understand that you agree to all the staff stipulations?

Is that thank you?

Um any questions for the applicant?

Um, Mr.

Chair, I just want to confirm that a DRC is part of the stipulation.

He has agreed to is.

Okay.

You're agreed to that.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

If no questions for the applicant may have a motion, please.

Commissioner Voicemail.

Oh, that's right.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Hello, this is Louis Francois, Chairperson of the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association Historic Neighborhood Review Committee calling in on HDRT case number 288.

We do not agree with staff's recommendations for approval.

We understand this is a request for conceptual approval, but major architectural design requirements are either not provided or are not in accordance with historical guidelines, which requires us to recommend that the applicant go back to the drawing board and provide this information to staff and this commission prior to getting conceptual approval.

Some of the major issues we have with this request include housing material that has not been specified, window material that has not been specified, porches that need to be redesigned to meet historical guidelines, penetration that is not consistent with other historic examples within the district or meet historic guidelines, an on-site parking plan that has not been provided, and a detailed landscaping plan that has not been provided.

This is why we are asking that this case not be approved for conceptual approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right, hearing I may have a motion, please.

I'll move for uh conceptual approval with all of staff stipulations and the added stipulation of a DRC.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr.

Chair, I would like to add another comment.

Um I uh I see that the neighborhood uh comments dovetails pretty well.

Uh comments, which you are agreeing to.

And that's something we these are the items we like to see at the next DRC.

One of the items that was of great concern to for me was the roof form as you had a gable large prominent gable at the very top of that half story, and then how it switched over to a very, very low slope gable at the end because it's because it's turning into um a couple of dormer shed roofs.

And I think that's really awkward, especially um it's awkward, period.

But I think it's especially of concern because it's by the driveway and the car entryway on the east side.

It's very visible.

It's not as if it's right up to um uh another building um from the side street.

What is that monumental?

Um it is clearly visible, and it is an awkward looking form that is not historically found in the neighborhood, so I would consider I would ask you to consider redesigning that back and so that that roof form would conform with historic roof forms in the area.

I actually did already right now on my head.

You just have to go back to the drawing board.

Uh, yeah, yeah.

But that's a new fix.

Yeah, yeah.

And I understand there's height issues on really um pleased that you're doing a story and a half and not a full two story because of the character of that block.

And um I guess the other thing I'm concerned about that you should take into consideration is that the windows on the west side, both downstairs and upstairs, are very, very close to the neighbor, um, not quite 10 feet away.

And just we can take a look at that at the DRC.

Actually, at the beginning I did not want to put a windows on that site.

Well, you need one or two.

But yeah, but then then but it was one of the stipulations.

So if you could be open to sort of those conversations, I greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I want to offer other commissioners opportunity to um make comments.

Um Commissioner Galloway, do you have anything, sir?

No comments.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Vasquez.

No, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Holland.

No comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fesser.

Uh nothing, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Nothing, sir.

Thank you.

And finally, Commissioner Semino, any further comments?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Maybe a roll call, please.

Savino.

Aye.

Galloway?

I.

Vasquez?

Hi.

Holland?

Hi.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number 11, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is item number 11, HDRC case number 2025, 283 for 433 Madison Street.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to first remove existing stucco cladding on the first floor of the primary structure and replace it with natural hydrated lime plaster.

Second, enclose the rear porch and balcony of the primary structure and render in natural hydrated lime plaster.

Staff recommends approval of item one with the following stipulations.

The lime plaster should adhere to the following one to three mixture ratio.

One part white non-staining Portland cement, three parts hydrated lime or natural hydraulic lime and plaster or sand depending on the code for adhesion.

And second, that the existing stucco be removed by hand if possible to avoid damage to the existing masonry.

Staff recommends approval of item two with the following stipulations.

One, that the footprint and dimensions of the existing porch and balcony remain unchanged.

The enclosure should not exceed the original footprint of the structure.

Two, that the dimensions of existing wood elements such as columns, exposed beams, and dental detailing be maintained and visible in the enclosure.

Three, that wood siding or wood paneling be used as an exterior cladding material, resulting in a space that continues to read as a porch element.

And four, that windows on the enclosure be consistent with the adopted policy guide as noted in finding D.

The applicant should install fully wood windows that meet staff standard window stipulations and submit updated specifications to staff for review and approval.

The windows should feature an instead of two inches within facades and should feature uh profiles that are found historically within the immediate vicinity.

Meeting rails must be no taller than 1.25 inches and styles no wider than 2.25 inches.

White manufacturers' color is not allowed, and color selection must be be presented to staff.

There should be a minimum of two inches in depth between the front face of the window trim and the front face of the top window sash.

This must be accomplished by recessing the window sufficiently within the opening or with the installation of additional window trim to add thickness.

Window trim must feature a uh traditional dimensions and architecturally appropriate seal detail.

Window track components must be painted to match the window trim or concealed by a wood window screen set within the opening.

There is a letter in your folder from the King William Association agreeing with staff stipulations.

The applicant, Michael and Mauricio is here in person and they have communicated with me that they do agree with staff's uh stipulations.

Uh Michael Mauricio, if you'd like to come up and introduce yourself, you'll have 15 minutes to speak.

Thank you.

State my name.

All right.

Michael and Mauricio.

Thank you.

So I understand that you are agreeing to all staff stipulations.

Sir.

All right.

Do you have anything you'd like to add?

No, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for the applicants?

I do, Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead, Commissioner Vest.

And this may be for staff, but and I think I heard it in uh what you're reading, Adrian.

But um the enclosed space, um, it's gonna the dimensions are gonna match what's already there.

That's correct.

So that's one of our stipulations that they do not add to the existing footprint of the structure.

Okay.

And then uh the roof line, is that changing at all?

No.

No, that was not part of the request.

So the request is entirely to enclose the existing porch and balcony, and our stipulations are to retain all visible elements of the porch and balcony.

Thank you.

I have a questions for the applicant.

Yes.

Um the application is to remove the stucco from the first floor on the masonry.

On the second floor, is that uh also masonry or is that wood frame contained?

It's wood frame.

Okay.

Um the stucco has a fairly rough texture.

Yes, sir.

Uh on the entire surface.

And a are you intending to match that rough texture when you put the the lime plaster over the stone?

Yes, sir.

We we're gonna do the hydraulic wash so that way it matches all the way across.

Okay.

Um Commissioners, uh just to clarify, I don't think you could so a little background on this house, and we have done a site visit and looked into it.

Um the original home was a single-story Kalichi block or adobe structure, um, and then it was added to over time in limestone construction, solid limestone block.

The second story, we believe is fully framed.

And so at some point the owner had the idea, let's just stucco it all to make it match, which is pretty common, actually.

Um unfortunately, the stucco that was applied is cement-based, and so as you know, when you apply a cement-based stucco to natural limestone, especially a soft masonry, um, that can hold water in where you don't want it, and that can lead to deterioration of the uh masonry itself.

And so what is proposed as technically best practice, we're gonna be carefully removing the inappropriate stucco and installing a natural lime.

Um it's more of a wash, um, it's not as thick.

Um it you can do multiple layers and gain like a little bit of a texture.

But it's mostly going to be a thinner um coating.

And so it's not gonna I think you're gonna have a hard time matching the second floor, which is a different material.

Um so I do expect there to be an ongoing conversation about how we um negotiate those that change in surfaces because I don't think you're gonna want to remove all of it on the second floor as well.

No, of course not.

So um so the goal here is not to match in my opinion.

Um I know that it might look like more make it flow.

You're gonna make it flow.

You're gonna use um similar, I I you'll probably change the paint on the second floor so it's a similar color to the natural lime.

Um, and that's all things that we can kind of work with in the process.

So I guess the question is if you're not going to be able to match the thickness of the new lime wash with the stucco on the second floor, some sort of detail will need to be developed working with staff, whether it's a um some sort of wood band belt course that separates the two uh finishes.

So in terms of the detailing on the the porch enclosure, you agreed to the staff stipulations that it be wood framed and uh wood clad as opposed to the lime wash.

And question for staff, are you all comfortable with reviewing those proposed uh designs for the porch enclosure?

Yes, absolutely.

And when we conducted our site visit, um, you know, one of the discussion points was as you can see here on this photograph, and then I'll go to this one right here.

There is already an existing bay that's uh wood clad.

So then one uh one point of discussion and basically where we're kind of going with our recommendation is that the enclosure mimic the existing bay that you see here on screen.

And then yes we would absolutely um you know ask um that basically that the conversation be ongoing so that we review those plans thank you Mr.

Chair my question is um also for staff um if you're requesting that the enclosed porch excuse me enclosed porch uh mimics or is responsive to the bay I would imagine we would need more windows on both the downstairs and the upstairs to give the impression that this is an enclosed porch so is that something that you're um I'm assuming you understand and agree that with that and that you understand that that's a possibility you may be in for a few more windows we did say the more windows the better okay yeah because that's what would make it convincing as an enclosed porch yes ma'am okay thank you thank you other questions may I have a motion please yes I'll move for approval with staff stipulations and uh offer the applicant and the owner the opportunity to come to a DRC if they want to review uh or get more feedback on the the design of the porch enclosure and the detailed design between the first and second floors may move the improperly second further discussion um hearing none of commissioners may have a roll call please galloway aye Vasquez Cervantes Yes Holland Fetzer and Gibbs aye motion carries motion carries thank you as the last case on the agenda um thank you everyone we are adjourned thank you everyone thank you Drew thank you happy Thanksgiving Happy Thanksgiving