I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission meeting for Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Present.

Seveno.

Here.

Velasquez Galloway.

Here.

Mazuka.

Here.

Givata.

Here.

Group?

Here.

Cervantes.

Commissioner Cervantes, I think you're frozen.

Do you want to try that again?

Can you hear me?

Here.

All right, thank you.

Yes.

Holland Fetzer?

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes a todos.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The Historic and Design Review Commission is an advisory board appointed by 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 in 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 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 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 permits.

Permits must be attained for all work.

Certificates of appropriateness for work approved by the commissions 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 city certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation.

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Good afternoon, everyone.

First item is approval meeting minutes.

We're a little bit backlog, so we have two meetings from November 5th and November 19th.

Mr.

Chairman, uh move for approval of the meeting minutes from November 5th and November 19th, 2025.

Second.

Thank you.

So moved and properly second.

Any further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time we can take a look at the consent agenda.

We have seven items.

We do have uh public comments received via voicemail for item number one, and we'll play that at this time.

My name is Lisa Lind, calling on behalf of the King William Association Architectural Advisory Committee regarding 925 South St.

Mary Street, case number 2025-325.

Dear commissioners, be a representative to present a self-described, mostly completed plan for bus stops along the green line to the King William Association Architectural Advisory Committee in August 2025.

This included proposed bus stops, very modern and very homogenous in appearance, with minor concessions to our historic neighborhoods.

Right in front of Bonham Elementary to take up the entire sidewalk space.

AAC members at that time emphasized that conversion of the only an entire sidewalk into a bus stop in front of a school creates a very dangerous situation.

And with time will result in injury or death.

The AAP also expressed that current bus stops in King William are much better suited to a historic neighborhood with no suggestions offered at that time to make anything silver.

In spite of assurances of a return to the AAC committee taking these considerations under advisement, the AAC has received and reviewed the consent agenda via proposal for green line bus stops on December 1st, 2025.

We remain strongly opposed to the proposed stops in the King William area for the above reasons.

We remain open to discussion, consideration, and modification with VIA.

However, if approved as proposed, this response will serve at confirming the City of San Antonio's awareness of the dangers of this plan on a busy street and the predictable untoward events.

Thank you.

That concludes comments for consent items.

Thank you.

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

Mr.

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

Item one.

Any other items?

Hearing none, I'd like to get a motion for the balance of the consent agenda.

Mr.

Chair, I move for approval of uh items two, three, four, five, six, and seven with uh staff stipulations.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly second.

Any further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givada.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 123 Hofgen, 229 Madison, 3820 Broadway, 803 South St.

Mary's, 2616, North Main, and 3110 Roosevelt.

Your case has been approved and you don't 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.

Commissioners, I'll uh pull up item number one now.

The applicant Christine Vinya and Art Herrera are here from VIA.

Thank you.

May you step up to the podium, please.

Hello, good afternoon.

Is your mic on right there?

Yes.

Sure.

Good name is Art Hur.

I'm with via Metropolitan Transit.

I serve as the Director of Special Projects.

And Christine Vina, Special Projects Manager in our planning and development office.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I have three items to inquire about.

Number one is a staff question.

The case mentions that we have a total of what, 26 or some odd facilities and stations to look at.

And we're looking at six of them today.

What is the protocol for the remaining for the balance of the right-of-way work?

So everything is eligible for administrative approval with the exception of these stations that are in historic districts.

Everything else is in either replacing existing station in the downtown area, which we already do administratively.

The actual infrastructure improvements aren't really subject to a COA, and the stations that are outside of a historic district wouldn't require a public hearing.

Okay, thank you.

And in plan, we see that we have a property line, and then we have a private properties owner, private privately owned property adjacent, and so we have a fence approximately or a wall, what, uh a few feet away from the property line.

You also, VIA also is building a barrier of some sort, a few um a feet or two from the the property line as well, right?

Uh no.

Are you a right on the property line?

No.

So we actually uh there is the wall that the uh that the owner built.

There is some space, but we will own everything from just shy of the wall to the curb.

And that and that property will then be platted or returned back to the city as right of way.

All the way up to the face of the wall.

So that becomes the uh responsibility in terms of maintenance and uh trespass and all of those things.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um there's also one on Woodlawn that I was interested in looking at.

And here's a case where you do have an existing masonry wall, and you have a note that's to be replaced, relocated?

Correct.

It would be replaced.

So right now the wall is failing a bit.

And our concern is if we start the construction there when we start ripping out the sidewalk that's there, we're we're fearful that the wall is going to come down anyway.

And so we're going to go ahead and replace that entire that entire wall from the corner there to the to the end of the property line.

Okay, we're replacing that wall.

Okay.

And the note is to replace the wall.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

And there's a similar situation on Roosevelt northbound.

And there's an existing masonry wall.

There's also an existing via stop there, correct?

Correct.

Um I think um uh I guess when the time comes for further conversation, I'll bring up my point to the to those questions.

Oh thank you.

Sure.

Um, sir.

Yes.

How many of these in the historic districts are replacing existing bus stops?

Uh slide 15.

Yeah.

Or no, yeah.

We brought two slides today.

Um uh Christine, if you want to work on answering that, I'll work on projecting this.

We have in Montevista, there's three stops.

They are all being located in the approximate block within the existing stop, either across the corner to make them a far side stop rather than a near side or within the two cross streets.

In King William, oh here it is.

Yes, the existing stops in red, and I've identified all of them.

Um and so the new Green Line Station Ellsmere would be located roughly on Linwood where the former Lynn Wood on the block toward Ellsmere uh Mulberry is now between Mulberry and Wiesach, and then Woodlawn is just across the street from the existing stop.

Sorry, I'm I'm trying to zoom out on this.

I I know that it's super tight.

And then the next slide for um King William and and mission.

All three of those stops, one at Southbound Perita, which is right above where it says HD on King William HD, and then the two in the mission district across the street from each other on the Roosevelt Park, those are all replacing existing stops and existing um shelters.

And then one other question.

Um The neighborhood association mentioned that uh or reference in their letter that all of these stops are basically designed to be close to identical in style and uh detailing.

Was there ever any discussion or examination of uh looking at the ones that are in historic districts to be more compatible with those districts rather than all uniform?

All starting.

Um well, there are three sizes.

There's a the center run and that don't doesn't apply to the historic districts, and then there's a curbside station and a narrow curb side.

Um so for example, at Perita, we have the narrow curb side, so it's a little bit more narrow, a foot and a half.

Um, when you look at the system as a whole, in terms of branding, you want all the stations to be s alike and um trying to fit a structure into every context along the corridor.

Certainly we wanted to do that, and also speak to the family of shelters that we have are what's called the next gen shelter that's out on the streets currently.

Um it is a modern structure.

It is designed to be fairly sleek, kind of innocuous to be able to have enough transparency to see what's behind it.

Um I would bring up as an example.

There's uh the one with per on uh Perita with the school at Bonham, because they've mentioned that in particular.

When Bonham expanded and put on the new addition, they put on a new modern addition.

Um and we are placing our station right in front of the modern addition at the ex at the same location as the existing stop.

It is a little bit larger, it offers about two and a half times the amount of canopy space.

Um they also mentioned that we're gonna be using this stop to for pedestrians to go through the stop.

They do that now.

There's a uh I think the one that follows this one more before it before it no in the I'm sorry it's in the highlight.

It's got two photographs.

We've got the existing and uh Parita station here, which has about 48 inches from the front of the bench to um the back of the curb.

And it's got two photographs on that image.

Or I can probably bring it up.

No.

Here it is.

Okay, this is the existing conditions.

So um ones the left one is looking north the right looking south.

And so on the right hand side you've got 48 inches of clearance between the front of the bench and the back of the curb on the new plan.

There's going to be a pinch point back there where the candy cane light fixture for mission trails is located of four foot four fifty-two inches.

So at its most narrow point there's four additional inches but then um on the station itself which will take place you know in this location um there'll be much more space between the uh seating that is planned and the curb.

So the only difference really um in traversing across this bus stop area is it'll be much cleaner um in terms of having to navigate or meander through there.

Um there is an 11 inch elevation change from the street grade to the platform.

So that's about you know depending on the size of the curb roughly five inches taller than the existing curb and that's to provide the um floor level boarding onto the bus.

So wheelchairs will not have to have a ramp deployed anymore.

They'll be able to roll right on and um we've made that completely you know 88 accessible.

So the platform is 50 feet long and so they'll be able to to um ramp up and down appropriately at each end of the platform.

Thank you.

Which is what you would do now only you're ramping up at the corner of each block face.

Thank you.

Um any other commissioners have any questions?

We were just looking at a a 48 inch clearance from the front of the bench to the edge of the sidewalk so what will the new with the new plan what will that clearance be this one here oh you've got I'm sorry.

Yeah at the left side uh there's a a um what it says on the bottom elevation 644.04 right above that that square is the new candy cane light fixture and that 4.4 that's the pinch point.

And then you have so an equal dimension apples for apples from the back of the is eight and eight to eight and a half feet.

So we just a apples to apples you it was it was 48 inches it looks like from is that that's from the back you're right.

So apples would be in front of the bench the new front of the bench yes so what are we what are we losing here I think that's the question.

Are we losing or are we gaining space?

16 16 to 18 inch on the we have our engineer here Borough at least seven feet.

So seven feet clearance.

We're gaining seven V clearance so what we're we uh what we ended up doing was we purchased right of way from the uh SAISD from Bonham Academy.

So we were able to pull that existing fence back so that we can essentially provide more depth to our platform so that we make sure that we can provide seating, have folks be able to buy at a their ticket where they're fare at the ticket vending machine all while maintaining uh passage uh behind those folks or even folks that are in a wheelchair mobility device.

So we're actually uh adding depth to the right of way there.

What one of the uh items cited by the architectural advisory committee was a lack of space and so we were looking at uh a picture that showed a 48 inch clearance between the front of the bench and the edge of the sidewalk and I'm still and it's probably me not you guys but I'm still wondering what will be the difference between the way that it exists now with a 48 inch clearance from the front of the bench to the edge of the sidewalk to what the new plan will be when people are sitting when they're when the benches are up.

Can you guys answer that directly the benches that you see now will be going away.

So the new seating is um there will be a bench right or new seating yes and from the front of that to the edge of the sidewalk what will it be?

The um So if it if it's easier, if you can picture that that bench gets pushed deeper behind the curb by another two feet or so, that's how much additional clearance there would be from the front of that bench to the curb.

So you're saying it'll will gain three feet of walking room in front of the benches.

Because of the yes, because we're able to to we bought land behind that.

Okay.

I'm I'm only on I'm trying to figure out why there's pushback from the King Williams Association.

It sounds like they're saying they're can they're concerned that there's there's going to be a pinch point there.

It sounds like what you guys are saying is there's going to be less of a pinch point than what exists right now.

And I'm just trying to flesh that out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Well, I guess just to piggyback on that question.

You said you approaches land.

Okay, so the current fence line that school has is now going to be moved?

It will.

So the the existing fence line uh is going to be pushed back into their property.

How much?

Um I guess that's probably answers a little bit.

So the front of the curb to the new fence line is going to be closer to 10 feet.

Okay.

And then um that happens too on not on Woodlawn, because you're some pet, I think it's some petabon where you're redoing a wall.

You're moving that wall further back, right?

Yes.

So we're actually doing here at this location is we're we're technically widening San Pedro to the west, towards the uh what's called the banana's banana billiards there today.

Because we're able to widen it uh a bit to the to the west.

We're able to we we felt sufficient space existed there between the existing wall and the front of curb that we're able to place uh what we're calling a smaller shelter, a smaller station design there.

The depth of that smaller station is eight feet.

And that that fits within that existing right-of-way.

Okay, but the wall is being moved?

No, the wall is staying where it's at today.

Where it's at.

And then what about there was another one where the wall was going to be moved?

The the wall at Elsmere is already in place, and we're not touching that wall.

We essentially what we did was we're we're going to be purchasing the property, or we have purchased the property between that wall and the face of KERP.

The Rosewell, the Rose.

Oh, the Roosevelt?

Yes.

So we've also uh our plan is to uh pay the property owner for the uh for that wall.

So our contractor is going to be demolishing the wall and then rebuilding it behind.

We're essentially pushing that wall back so that our platform can go in front of it.

The rock wall, right?

Yeah.

Are there any stipulations that they have to rebuild as it was, or is it just an assumption?

I guess it's for staff.

Slide 70.

There you go.

Oh, is it not historic?

So next next slide.

Keep going.

Keep going.

Slide 70.

I think you will be back.

Go back to the colors on it?

Yeah.

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

Is there any stipulation that that wall has to be real built as is, or is that an assumption?

Is it an assumption?

Okay.

I I will say so.

When we're working with the uh the right-of-way department, because we're we're pulling right away permits, one of the stipulations in that right-way permit is that we rebuild uh to essentially making sure that we put that existing condition back in place.

So our plan, and it's already included in our design plans, is to essentially have the contractor rebuild that wall as you see it there.

Obviously, it will be a little different because we're pushing it back.

Uh but otherwise we would be our job, our uh our goal is to reuse that material and rebuild the wall behind it.

Other questions?

Commissioner Manon?

Yes, Chair.

Uh a couple of questions uh back to the bottom elementary uh stop.

The this is an existing stop, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'm wondering, were you all part of the conversation with the the architecture advisory committee, the King William?

Were you were you in there?

Because they're saying that in their letter and in their voicemail the perceived need for a stop, but there's already a stop there.

Okay.

I'm just trying to understand their language a little bit.

And then and then they also talk about the entire sidewalk becoming a bus stop, but again, it's existing stop.

So maybe maybe my maybe possibly their concern is the overall square footage takeover.

Is there if you're looking at the bus stop, you know, left to right, how much more space is the new stop taking up compared to the existing stop?

Does that question make sense?

The footprint?

Yeah, the footprint of the stop.

I am trying to see if their concern is just overall footprint is maybe double the size of the current stop or the amount of shelter space is increasing at least threefold.

Okay.

And then going back to the conversations that you had with them, what were their concerns about result of injury and death, what they note in the letter for a bus stop versus an existing bus stop and what the safety concerns of an existing bus stop would be.

Well, we will have the additional feature of the warning strip that's at back of curb, which is much more visible than the brickwork that's there now.

I am wondering if if their concern is maybe there is more foot traffic there because it is a green line stop or I I personally am not understanding what the difference between an existing bus stop and a new bus stop, other than more possible traffic at that stop versus current.

Well, we would hope that there is because folks stop.

Um there is more linear space parallel to the curb to stand and wait and to be covered.

Okay.

Um it could just be more occupied and so.

But right now it is fairly a meandering path to traverse through the stop.

And this will be a much more linear passageway, even with people leaning or seating there.

Sure.

And instead of this stop, where was the nearest option for a green line stop to be instead of in front of the school?

So the So we we actually looked all the way from about the location that it's at today, and that's and that's because we use that point as the limit because there is bus loading just north of that.

And so what we were looking at was basically from the corner, Parita, there in front of the family dollar, all the way to that spot.

That made the most sense since that private residence you would essentially be wiping out the the only driveway.

And then uh the and then in front of the family dollar, you would essentially be wiping out all the parking.

But a block down, a block up.

No.

So the uh so our goal is to keep so you'll see the the station are directly across the street is to to keep the stops close to one another.

And as close as possible to the crosswalks.

You signalize crosswalks.

Um Mr.

Chair, just a quick note, um we do have a representative from the King William Association here.

If there are questions for the association about their comments, um they are able to respond to those.

Um I'll also note we have another gentleman um that is attending the hearing because of the public notice sign for this case, and he was too late to sign in to speak.

And so we have communicated that the public hearing uh the public comment section has closed.

Um but as chair, you are welcome to call up any speakers.

Thank you.

So uh would you like to hear from the Yeah, I I'd like to hear at least from uh the King William Association.

Can you have a seat, please?

Please step up and introduce yourself, please, sir.

Was participating in the August conference where we had uh significant concern.

It's been outlined that you have 48 inches from a bench to a curb.

Um it was described that the bus stop is actually going to be elevated and it is going to have railings that are going to be corraling as opposed to now, where it is relatively wide open space.

You can actually even even go behind the bench as opposed to this where you are going to be feeling the Acent into a bus stop, which is the only option unless you physically walk into the street.

So if you don't go with the handrails and you go into the street to not go up to the bus stop, then you'll be able to go ahead and get around to the other side.

This is in front of an elementary school, and this is going to be with children, uh, and this is going to be something where we can certainly think and hope that it goes in the appropriate way.

When you do have the relative forcing into this four-foot, four-inch wide gap that is going to ascend up to a bus stop, I can easily see people wanting to avoid that, in which case it is going to be out to the street.

And since you have an 11-inch from street up to that height, um it is going to be certainly uh l more difficult to have what frequently happens now where you hop back on and off.

So that is the significant concern that you are obstructing it entirely with a bus stop.

The bus stop itself is going to be much wider up at the top.

You are physically going into a bus stop.

So that is the concern, as well as the appearances, which unfortunately there is a bus stop there now, which looks terrific, but we're going to make it better.

So I have a question concerning what you just mentioned.

So since the current bus stop is there and you have the 48 inches with on the front of the bench too to back at the curve.

And now with the new proposed bus stop, we are increasing basically the footprint, making it bigger.

The bus stop is bigger.

It's a bigger presence.

Bigger present.

Now you mentioned about the railings being in place and the pedestrians, you know, to try to avoid that with, you know, say they're going to the street.

What is happening now?

They could just surge through.

They can even go behind the bus stop.

Uh there's a little grass strip that they can actually get behind it, uh, or they can just crowd into it and then just sort of squeeze at the bench moment and squeeze back out, as opposed to now where the center bus stop is going to be nice and wide, but the entrance points for sidewalk are going to terminate going into a bus stop, and that is restricted by the four-foot, four-inch uh width of the railings.

I don't know how high the railings are, I am assuming three foot.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

So that's the concern.

Thank you, sir.

Other questions?

Mr.

Chair, yes, I have additional questions for for Via.

And um I read in the case that there are a couple of um baffle boards or screening boards.

One is an informational signage board, and the other is an art board.

And I am reading that the art was gathered from a number of school children within one mile of the stop.

And I can see, generally speaking, for the other 20 for the entire package, if you are trying to make this uniform, I could see using that artwork for that for most of the stops.

But here we're in three separate historic districts that have defined character, that have lots and lots of contributing elements and graphics and histories to be used in the art panel.

Why would you not draw from those historic districts for the art panel minimally to reflect the sense of place rather than having this very universal kit of parts and places that further create a sense of anywhere USA?

We don't know where we are character-wise on the stop.

Wouldn't it be nice to at least have a graphic panel?

So the when we were thinking about how we were going to address the or art and transit uh component of the stations, we thought it would be best to identify the school children that live uh near or attend the school near those stations.

So an example is the Bonham Academy stations.

They'll have artwork made by the Bonham Academy students.

They're near um they're on Mulberry.

Mark Twain, those that artwork would be made by Mark Twain students.

So we thought it was the best way to cohesively bring the entire corridor together using the artwork of the future of the community that will be using it.

So based on that, what are the moves that you are making with the design of the shelter then that reflect the respective historic districts?

So what we did do is we were looking at the colors, uh, and so one of the things that we are gonna be changing is the color of the station there at that specific location in front of the school, uh, the community or the uh the neighborhood in this case requested it to be silver.

And so we're gonna move forward with that with our color.

What we are doing to address specific neighborhoods, not just historic, but all neighborhoods is in the uh informational signs, there would be reference to the historic neighborhood, an area map, um uh key points of interest, things like that within the informational signs along the entire corridor.

But nothing architectural element-wise or artistically on the art panel.

Correct.

So we wanted to make sure that everything was uniform as possible along the entire corridor.

And I guess my final question would it be impossible to uh redesign or modify the design to better reflect respective historic districts?

So at this point, what we would entertain for sure is the color of the station, as well as uh as long as it met our color palette, we have options to choose from.

And then also what we do with the informational sign.

Otherwise, as it comes with as regard regarding the actual design, no.

Right now we are set on the design and and how we want to move forward for the corridor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Was there not another person that wanted to speak?

It's up to the Chair to recognize him.

I don't have his information.

Got you.

I will bring the speaker on the other.

I'm going to finish my question and then you can interrupt, Commissioner Green.

Is it possible again?

I'm one, I want to focus on the design enhancements here.

Commissioner Savino made a good point.

What I am looking at is like look at that, the route ID flag, the canopy, the fixed windscreen, the vertical windscreen, uh the exposed aggregate finish.

Can all that stuff be modified for the historic stops or the stops that are in historic districts to better reflect uh the character of uh each stop in those districts.

I don't think it should be uniform to all the stops.

I think you can kind of keep your your your branding with you know with color and style and that sort of thing, but I think you can kind of modify it to to reflect uh uh the community community that these uh stops are in.

Can you do that?

So as I was mentioned right now, what we are able to change is the color uh of the of the actual station itself, uh as well as the color of the art panels that are going to be placed on there, but not necessarily the artwork or the actual design itself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the person um can you have a seat, please?

Who was the other person that wanted to speak?

Sir So as you are coming up, sir.

Um please uh state your your name, please, before you start to.

Yes, hi, I'm JC Cotton.

So uh we're certainly concerned about how that stops being designed, but we have not been approached by anyone from VIA regarding our property at 2402 San Pedro.

We understand there is already a stop that's there that had been maybe partially retired for a number of years.

It's not really necessarily used.

We support VIA's efforts in terms of what they want to accomplish along that corridor, so we're happy with that.

Um but again, we are just learning of this hearing uh just two days ago or so.

So we're really unaware of exactly what the plans are.

Someone briefly clicked over and showed a photo, I think, of 2402 San Pedro.

If you can find that and bring that up, we can take a quick look.

This will be my actual first time to see what this looks like.

Uh when you click the point of order, Mr.

Chair.

Um can the witness identify himself and his association?

He's referring to a weaker.

So I am the owner of Summit Legacy Group.

My business partner could not attend today, so we are the owners of 2402 San Pedro.

In addition to that, we own several other properties in the Monta Vista Historic District.

So we have both a property owner uh perspective and a historical perspective as well.

I think Monica, you or someone else made a very good point about designing these stops such that they represent each of the uh various um ideas that each historic district or whatever district they are in represent.

Monta Vista is sort of its own little fun place to be.

Um I don't know that using art from uh children at a school that is further south would necessarily be applicable in this case, that might work there.

We'll let those people make that decision.

But I am not sure if anybody here is from the Monte Historical Association or if they're online.

I am surprised that the room is as empty as it is because I know that this via transit corridor has been a pretty big important situation that's been happening in our neighborhood, uh, particularly concerns of traffic.

But you know, do we have an elevation of sorts so we can see the design of that?

So it wouldn't be that one, it would be at 2402 San Pedro.

Right there.

Right.

Okay.

So this is this is very modern.

Um this doesn't really fit in with uh the historical district at all.

Uh I don't necessarily take too much issue with the location.

You can see to the left, there's an uh existing rock walls where I think there was uh an old bus stop at some point.

Uh we don't really know the depths of this.

Again, we haven't been approached by anyone at VIA.

It looks like this is raised, uh, just as you described the other one.

So I would share this gentleman's concern.

Uh there's a lot of foot traffic along here.

I think creating a raised platform is going to create a chokehold that allows people to walk through.

They're going to have to go up and then down and whatnot.

Excuse me, sir.

I'm I want to interrupt you for a moment because right now you are getting into common someone else already made.

So we're using limited couple of minutes.

So if you can wrap up your comments, that would be great.

Well, I think essentially I've kind of hit some of the high points.

I think you guys are touching on some of those things.

We share that.

I think it should fit in the district a little bit more.

It's a bit too modern.

I think having raised platforms is not necessary.

I think there's buses that already have some sort of features that accommodate those who are in wheelchairs or whatever.

And I think that it should represent uh Mona Vista.

I'd like via to talk directly with property owners if they're going to encroach on the property or do any construction whatsoever, particularly as it might touch on it your our systems, irrigations and other things like that.

So I just asked some for consideration along those lines.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Um robust question session.

Um can I have a motion, please, so we can move forward with this.

Um I would like to make a motion, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'd like to motion to approve number requested number one, two, three, five, and six with staff stipulations and the added stipulations to reconstruct uh historic retaining walls to their historic appearance and configuration, and another stipulation to require that uh the art panel artwork um reflect, be a direct reflection of the respective historic districts.

Second?

Speaking more than properly second discussion.

Can you clarify the motion?

Because there's only one item, so I wasn't understanding why she was white um one to five.

It's just one item.

Uh the items are as listed in section C under findings.

The individual stops are listed there as one, two, three, four, five, and six, and my motion includes one, two, three, one, two, three, five, and six.

Okay.

So the motion is to not the not the application, but just uh individual stations.

Is that an option?

Yes.

Yeah, I mean the outcome would be essentially denial of the station uh the design for that station on St.

Mary's.

Is that the intent?

Um I think some additional clarification is VIA will ask me what does it mean for the artwork to be reflective of the historic district.

And so if there's any sort of additional guidance you want to include in the stipulation, that would be helpful.

Well, then I would like to retract that motion if it's too complicated.

Um replace it with a request for the applicant to come to a DRC.

At the next movie, then probably second any further discussion on this.

I just feel like there's um I know that there are some serious issues at hand.

The safety along Parada or um yeah, Parada in South Alamo is is key.

It is absolutely key.

It is counter to expect an increase of traffic and activity and frequency of units picking up and not really accommodate them adequately spatially.

And I think let me finish, sir.

Um especially near an elementary school.

I think safety is paramount.

It absolutely is.

And we know what kids do it's at um bus stops.

We all know.

And so for that reason, I think there's some discussion to be had as well as the concern about the historic nature and the elements.

I've been a part of these conversations and meetings with the silver line, and I've expressed a real concern about these stations or facilities being placed in the historic district, and have been told yes, we'll do yes, these will um comply with the the guidelines and will be historic or whatever.

And I I just don't see that.

I if I'm if I may.

So um, point of order, Chair, we are in discussion.

Yes, we are in discussion.

So that's the basis.

It's the how it reflects the character as well as the safety and um uh I guess the arrangement of the elements in the facility on Parada as it reflects um the safety concerns.

Thank you.

One moment, please, sir.

Yes, okay.

And and I I am not opposed to the motion.

Um I think some of the things that in the presentation was I'm not against the stations.

Um I do believe that I don't know what our purview is so much on the art, but we can go more detail on that.

Um it's a it's a fine line, right?

Because we also want the safety of our wheelchair users and ADA and the new buses are taller, and so there needs to be some compliance there.

So I think a DRC is a good idea, and I would please ask the applicant to first is also there says that there has been some neighborhood meetings in July and August of 2025, which is six months ago.

So maybe that surprised you that it's not, but it was six months ago.

So maybe you know engage more with the historic neighborhoods.

And then second, if that DRC, if you can actually make us visualize much more, how does the I think in all these bus stations, all the concerns, and then this is discussion for us.

I'm just giving you feedback for the DRC to bring, not to bring forward today, is how much is there space behind?

Do you need to buy more land?

Do you need to move walls more to create that part like path so we don't have to go up a ramp and down?

I I accept that we will choose the accessibility, but the safety of the street, yes.

King William is very special because it's a very narrow one-lane street, South Alamo.

So it's already has a lot of traffic every day all the time.

So there you also maybe also increasing the foot traffic, and it's also kind of a special part of the street because of First Friday, and there's people walking and a lot of pedestrian traffic, maybe more than some of the others.

I don't know, I'm not excluding.

So I think those are the considerations that should be discussed in the DRC.

Thank you.

Um the commissioners.

Yeah, I just want to kind of uh emphasize what Commissioner Group and Commissioner Monarchino just said.

Additionally, um I don't accept that just changing the color is the only design change you can do.

I mean, this thing is is is nowhere near being built or started, and and not being able to do something and not wanting to do something are two different things.

So I think on all these docks we need to have to re look at uh coming with some design changes, minor design changes that customize each stop is in historic district to the surrounding elements around it.

Thank you, sir.

Others okay, go ahead, sir.

No, I I thought there was gonna be another question.

That's all.

Thank you very much, sir.

Um, thank you so much.

All right.

Um may I have a roll call, please.

Ma'aman.

Hi.

Savino.

Aye.

Galloway.

I.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Hi.

And Gibbs.

Hi.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

All right.

Can we have item number eight, please?

Agenda item number eight, HGRC case number 2025-328, 901 North Alamo Street.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct an exterior stairway to connect at the wraparound porches northeast.

Staff recommends approval of the request to construct a two-story stairway based on finding its A through D with the following stipulation.

One that the location be moved to the north, right side elevation instead of the front primary elevation.

The applicant may work with OHB staff and development services department regarding this and other alternative locations that minimally impact the front facade.

The applicants here virtually.

Can you hear us?

And yeah, we can hear you.

Thank you, you guys.

The uh issue at hand right now is uh we receive our certificate of appropriateness back in September of last year.

Um the disapprove uh or Easter C30.

Uh we just staircase that is on the south end of the property.

Uh when we first forgive uh appropriateness, we went ahead and uh permitted the building.

Um throughout the course, uh we had to make several revisions uh by the ninth division.

Um the building accepts it more secondary stairs, which is uh which needs to meet a minimum of half the distance of the diagonal distance of the uh entire park uh building sold.

We found that this is the most appropriate place and it meets or needing.

Um, and at that time we did take into consideration of the aesthetics of what it looks like from the outside.

We know that it may not be conforming with the uh well at the time.

Um what I did not know was that I had to go back to the historical mission and get disapproved.

Uh at the time, we've also looked at many other uh options.

Um even the options for the north side, the e-gress path is only six foot wide at seven feet uh beyond the north side of the building two, uh, which is that that yellow building you're seeing, there is a 1500 degree strap with two lids and multiple clean outs.

Our intention right there from seven feet to 10 feet, we would uh have a landscape area to cover that up.

Uh, it's already in place.

Um moving on right around September.

We had a violation notice.

Uh we didn't expect that the stairs would be a problem.

Uh we are working with Ryan to uh get this fixed, and we have submitted plans for approval.

Um, and I believe that we have gotten administrative approval, but uh building right now and fire is having problems with that is that the stairs needs to be 10 feet away from the one hour fire random wall.

That would put our landing in the uh pickleball court.

Uh I would prefer not to lose a pickleball uh entire pickball court, which which we have we have switched it from uh north and south.

The minimum distance or length of that is 60 foot.

The uh north side of the building to the north uh at the property line on the north side is 67 feet.

Uh we were able to fit two pickleball court because we were able to turn it side use.

Uh the width of each pickleball court is 20 feet, so that is 40 feet minimum.

Um, because our egress is six foot, so we have 46 minus uh 67 of which gives us 21 feet deep, which does not account for where the bench is between uh two pickable court and the side for safety.

We need a minimum of five on the sides and uh eight to ten feet deep, and we squeeze as much as we can to accommodate the stairs, and even when we did that, uh that puts our new egress from uh uh four feet away from the building to uh eight or ten feet, and that puts us right into where the grease strap is the lids on the grease strap right now is approximately three feet, uh I'm sorry, not three feet, uh three inches above.

And so we would have to work somehow to return or uh or egress that side to make it work.

But the problem right now is that the stairs needs to be 10 feet away from the building to meet code, and uh and like I mentioned, that would put us right on the pickleball board on the side, and uh, I would prefer not to.

So therefore um going back to where the stairs located right now.

Um, I do believe it is appropriate.

Um I even thought about to how can we move it out to accommodate uh historic the historical fact that uh the porch um it doesn't impede the looks of it.

Uh looking at that, we also have what's called a 10-foot easement where building structures need to be away from the property line.

Um so that's another problem that we will run into.

Um I am asking the committee today if it is possible that we can leave that there.

I do not believe that it does take away from the looks of uh the public because we have been approved for the 12-foot fence line that is on the pickleball side.

Uh there are some pictures that I have uh made.

Uh and please excuse my rendering.

Um, as I'm seeing uh all these professional work, this is approximately 12 feet.

Uh that that where the new fencing is approved, which will hide a structure um uh of the um the stairs.

Um I do not see that being a problem um standing on the sidewalk here.

Uh and as you move through some of these photos, other photos, you may be able to see the top reminiscence of it.

This is a picture sitting across the street.

Uh and behind our setting is an electric station.

So if you look at this, I don't think uh it is inappropriate.

Uh and then there are other pictures that I've taken.

Um next one.

Oops.

I'm sorry, we uh some of the images that you submitted, um, they they won't show, but um, I can go through some of the other photos that we have on the file.

Wait, you'll have to unmute again.

I I muted you while Brian was talking.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh that is uh that's probably that is the fence uh that is six foot.

So if we added another six feet uh to that that that fence, this is on the uh the ninth side, um in which we intend to keep that structure the for the reason that it's one it's a bar, and then we've had uh seven breakings in the last you know year, year and a half.

And so we would like to read those structures.

If we took those fence down, uh we can only have five feet at the front.

Um so uh, but this is not the uh as you can see, we we we tried to do our best to keep the historical uh looks of this building.

Um right now, I do not have any questions.

Um my whole this is uh this is what the existing uh well the form of building uh look like like and uh so um as of right now I'm asking maybe if it's possible that you can find it that we've done our diligence.

Um the current stairs after numerous revision has passed for building safety for building with the building de route, and the fire has uh uh and it has complied with fire codes, and uh the fact that it's already remote.

Um it would be very beneficial if we can keep it right there.

Does that conclude your presentation?

Yes, sir.

Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

I have some questions.

One moment, Commissioner Group.

Um so we have a um no voice.

I'm gonna start with you, Commissioner Galloway.

You have any questions, sir?

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Girlada.

No questions right now, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Savantes.

No questions at this time.

Commissioner Thank you.

All right.

Um, you have any questions?

No, no, I wasn't having thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Yes.

So I just want to send uh staff.

Can you go to slide 22?

So am I understanding that in your stipulation you want the stairs on that wall that's facing the north, right?

Where the two windows are that that is correct, and the applicant provided um updated construction documents and was willing to um agree with staff stipulation on that.

Uh so the stairway would connect here at the second floor of the balcony, and then it would go down um to the west.

Um, but that's what the applicant was noting saying that he discussed this revision with uh fire and that there was gonna be some egress issues with uh stair location.

So he decided to come forward today to request approval for the stairway we're constructed.

Okay, so it was because FIRE wasn't approving it because of the egress, so they made a move he didn't realize, and some understanding from the presentation.

And then you're considering this view the front of the street because it's 901 address, because it's Alamo address.

That's the view facing Alamo.

Yeah.

But really, because now the applicant has extended the patio, right?

From we proved that back then, like extended the whole way around.

The door is actually on 9th Street, right?

Like what are we considering the front of the property?

This is the front here.

Um so the original porch is corner facing.

Um this was the front of the home.

And so with the porch restoration that was previously approved, um, you know, it's the whole kind of corner condition.

Um so facing Alamo, and I don't know whether Cross Street is, but ninth.

So, like, yeah, exactly.

So we look at that, so it's kind of yeah, like the front is almost like from the corner, right?

So we have a stairway on the left side and a stairway on the right side, looking at it from a corner, or what would be the most prominent facade.

Historically, it would have been the Alamo facade.

And but now that it's been modified, it almost looks like it's ninth or the whole Alamo and 9th together.

I mean, I think that's one concern, but the stairs being located here does read more like a side side facade and not the front elevation.

Sorry.

I think that's one of the concerns with the stairs of how they're placed now, is it makes this no longer read as the front facade, which it is, it reads as a side facade.

But it really is become a side facade, right?

With the front remodel?

Because the other stairs are on the other side.

There's a set of stairs right there on that side.

Oh.

Okay.

I have no further questions right now.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland.

No question.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fetzer.

Yes.

Um would you be willing to uh attend a site?

Site DRC so that we can uh observe the existing conditions with the uh the fencing and the grease traps and the the uh historic porches that have been restored uh and get a better idea of uh what you're proposing and what options may be available.

Uh yes, sir.

Uh I would be willing to do that.

Um but may I also interject that for us as operators of this uh business or entrance is on 9th street.

And so everybody is coming in on one side.

So for us as we're developing this bar, that has always been a side for us.

We saw North North Alamo as a side.

It has never been a front entrance.

It was an escape egress and the alleyway is escape egress.

And 9th Street is the entrance for us.

Um but yes, sir.

If you ask your question, I'd be willing to uh to work with you guys and do whatever is necessary to enhance the uh the looks of this building.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Sabino?

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammond.

No questions.

Thank you.

All right.

Um no more questions.

Um do you have a question?

Can we have a motion, please?

I move this to a site to DRC.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second further discussion.

I think uh the description is uh he was quite detailed, but it's a little confusing about what parts are where on the site, and I think it would be good for um the committee to uh come out and and and look at the construction and space available and other uh possible impediments for relocating this stair.

Thank you.

All right.

Doesn't look like you might house has any other questions or discussion.

So can I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuga?

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Groom?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number nine, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

This is HDRC case 2025-327 for 136 Cormann Street.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct a 937 uh square foot rear addition to the primary structure.

And construct a 162 square foot wooden porch at the front of the primary structure.

Staff does not recommend approval at this time based on finding B.

The proposed edition's footprint exceeds what is recommended by the guidelines.

If HDRC approves the footprint, staff recommends the following stipulations be included.

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

No vented ridge caps or end caps are allowed.

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

An inspection must be scheduled with OHP staff prior to the start of work to verify that the roofing material matches the approved specifications, that the applicant installs a fully wood window as submitted, and that the and that the staff and that it meets staff standard window stipulations.

The windows should feature an insert of two inches within facades and should feature 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 manufacturer's color is not allowed, and color selection must 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.

Five, that the front porch railings feature a top and bottom rail and a nool post.

The bottom rail should feature a vertical orientation and should be installed approximately three to four inches above the porch decking.

Both top and bottom rails should be constructed by two inch by four inch members.

The proposed railing should not feature an overall height of more than three feet.

Richard, if you're online, you'll have 15 minutes to make your presentation to the commission.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Richard Gonzalez.

I'm the owner of the property.

Thank you for your time.

So as you guys uh know I'm requesting approval for a rear edition, which we're willing to go down to seven uh hundred square feet to make the property fully functional.

Uh a covered rear rear deck, uh, and then uh a front wood porch, which is already existing.

The only difference is there's a concrete um front front deck.

All we would be doing would be wrapping it with wood or replacing uh not replacing it because it just stay there.

We we just be putting wood on top of it.

Um so everything, everything, the entire historic home is preserved.

Uh no historic materials are being demolished.

The existing front bacade, roof line, windows and siding all remain um and the addition is fully at the rear.

So it is not visible from the screen and does not change the historic appearance or silhouette of the home.

Um all design elements follow the historic president.

Uh using the wood siding, wood windows, uh correct window wreaths and trim, traditional columns, porch details, and decking.

Uh and a compliance standing seam metal roof.

That will go with that.

Uh so we we fully asset uh or I fully accept all staff material and construction stipulations.

Uh so we we fully accept uh or I fully accept all staff material and construction stipulations, um, and is definitely consistent with the neighborhood patterns.

Um many nearby properties have similar or larger rear additions.

This design fits the character of the surrounding district.

Um I believe the only concern is the the footprint size does that conclude your presentation, sir?

Yes.

Thank you.

Can the voicemail please?

Yes, sir.

I'll play that right now.

And then um, just to note, Commissioners, uh, what you're looking at on screen is the previous request versus the updated request.

Hello, this is Lulu Francois, chairperson of the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association Historic Neighborhood Review Committee calling in on case 315, 136 Gorman Street.

We agree with staff's recommendation not to approve this application since they requested additional footprint of both a new addition and the covered rear porch far exceeds 40 percent of the size of the original footprint of the house.

We also have some questions and comments about the proposed conceptual plan.

The existing covered front porch is made of a cement slab, yet the drawing show a covered wood porch.

Does the applicant propose to cover the existing cement slab porch with wood?

And does that meet OHP guidelines since the original porch is cement?

There is a lack of finestration on the east and west facing walls of the addition.

Does the applicant plan to add any additional windows for a smaller addition?

And it also there seems to be a small single-pane window on the east side of the house.

Is this compliant with the window guidelines?

And finally, the rear edition has a sliding glass door.

This should be replaced with a wooden door that meets historical guidelines.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um, do we also have a letter in the packet for you for your review?

So uh for questions, so can some of our virtual applicants.

So um, Commissioner Galloway.

No questions at this time, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Diamond.

No questions right now, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes.

I have no questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mazuka.

Yes, I had a question just looking at the uh photo at the beginning of this package.

It looks like there's I don't know if I'm misreading it, if those are cement slabs.

Are we looking at the front porch or we're looking at the walkway?

Either side of the front of the house, if I'm reading this correctly.

And um what looks like two more on the back at the back of the property, and there's no request to demolish.

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong from the photograph.

Yeah, the there is no um, there's nothing to demolish, including the front slab, which is the current porch.

So as you can see, the columns are landing um a front cement slab.

So we we would just be uh putting a wood deck on top of it.

And as as you can see, there's there's a couple steps that you have to step on to just to get into the house.

Um since the house has been leveled properly, now it's probably like a at least a foot higher.

Um so that's why the new deck would kind of level it perfectly for walking into the property without any sets from the from the actual porch.

Yes, and it's it's clear that I was just looking at that photograph and and don't see in the other photographs any other structures.

Yeah, there's no structure, sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

Yeah, I guess I did have questions on that because what is what is it that is going to be changed in the front?

Right?

It's supposed to reflect what's existing.

So it should match exactly what's there currently.

Is uh staff stipulations that I guess we can add that as a stipulation.

My other question was with the new um size of the new construction.

What's the lot coverage or what would be because you just said 700 square feet?

Is that just rounded 700 or is it 700 something?

No, it's it's exact.

It's exact based on uh the dimensions and the plan that we provided.

Uh it just happened to hit 700.

So then the total, how much is the size of the lot and what's the total size of the house now?

So the lot is over 7,000 square feet and change, and the property is going to be under 2,000, about 1900 Okay.

Um I don't think I have any more questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland.

So is that with the addition, what what is the proportion of the addition to the original structure?

It's 54 percent.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair Fetcher.

Uh none at this time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino?

Um, yeah.

Um according to the street view um on the internet, we see a couple of car ports in place in the front.

Was there a COA issued for the removal of those?

So I'd have to check, Commissioner.

I'm not aware of these car ports.

Um they sh uh they show up on um April 2022, and then there's a plan view from 2025.

Anyway, I was just curious if there was previous COAs for the demolition of these things.

Um the other um, let's see.

My questions had to do also with the cement porch.

And um uh Mr.

Gonzalez, can you talk about how what the detailing at the edge of those perpendicular planks, deck porch planks would look like so that you have a um an adequate transition between your wood finish and the concrete base of your front porch?

Yes.

So there would be wood steps uh also coming down from the the new wood uh um deck.

Uh I'm gonna call it a deck because obviously the porch is already there, so we're just basically adding a wood deck width.

Now it's gonna need uh you know some wood wood uh steps going down, um, and then we'd be using the you know one by three and a half uh plank as the as the decking uh vertically that's required by the historic society.

Um and then the columns they would be the chamber ones, uh, et cetera, et cetera.

Okay, so when you say the deck, is this a tongue and groove material?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then are you planning to remove the concrete steps in front and replace them with wood?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I have to do that.

I I I think I think those um yeah, they definitely have to be removed.

Um just because the property in order to add an addition, you have to level the house first, and that increases the height of the existing property, just so that way the addition doesn't end up on the floor.

Um so now there's a a discrepancy between the entry of the door and the deck.

So that's why the new deck now you can do it to where it's safe.

You can do it to the new elevation that it needs it.

Um you can design it that way because you're using wood versus repoing uh the concrete slab in the front.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Memory.

No questions, sure.

Thank you.

May I have a motion, please?

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to um approve this for conceptual um approval.

Smaller.

With the smaller footprint provided, yes.

I let me reword that.

Like to motion to approve this for conceptual approval.

The updated smaller footprint for conceptual approval, all of staff stipulations, but also a requirement to come to or a request to come to the next available DRC to address staff stipulations in addition to other details.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly second discussion.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I wanted to, I I think this is going in the right direction, but I do think there's the possibility for some missed missed details, missed transitions, material things, if we um due to the lack of documentation.

I think uh, you know, the concern from the neighborhood as well as I'm noticing here, even with the shorter, smaller footprint, uh, we could use additional fenestration.

And I think those are some topics that would yield a good conversation at a DRC.

Thank you.

Commissioner Groove, did the adjust your stipulation?

Yeah.

Um I just wanted to ask staff like how much of that front porch is actually original?

Because I mean when you look at the picture, the stairs have a like rounded edge almost like from the 60s.

I think the columns are not original.

And then I agree with the DRC, and I might want to look at the house next door or on that street because I feel like it's there's many similar homes.

I'm not too worried about the um 700 square feet.

The logic's big, and I and I appreciate the applicant already reducing it to around the 50.

I think it's a little bit better number to handle.

But I would like also to see how much of that porch.

I mean, even if he's rebuilding it, are we even looking at an original stairs?

Are we even looking at original column placements?

Okay, thank you.

Um right.

I don't see any other question.

I mean any other discussion.

So hearing none, yep, Satan?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I would like to respond to Commissioner Groob's comment about the porch.

I agree.

Uh it is not original.

There was um, you know, trends through all neighborhoods to remove wood porches.

So um I've seen some porches modified with a wood um tongue and groove porch board that are convincing, but then there are a lot that are not.

So I think the the front porch needs a lot of attention as well.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please?

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 10, please.

So, Commissioners, this is item number 10, HDRC case 2025-326 for 320 East Courtland Place.

The applicant is requesting a certificate certificate of appropriateness for approval to remove the existing rear accessory structure and construct a new one-story 920 square foot rear accessory structure.

Staff recommends approval to deconstruct the the existing rear accessory structure and conceptual approval to construct a new one-story accessory structure based on findings A through L with the following stipulations.

Uh first, that the existing rear accessory structure is subject to the city's deconstruction ordinance.

Any certified deconstruction contractor must complete deconstruction form submission and permitting in accordance with UDC Chapter 12, Article 2 is noted in Finding B.

Second, that the applicant salvage as much existing material as possible, including wood siding and structural members for reuse on-site, resale or donation.

Full deconstruction by hand would yield a larger quantity of reclaimed materials available for resale or reuse in other projects.

A comprehensive salvage plan must be submitted to staff outlining the materials to be reclaimed and their final destination or proposed use.

Third, that the applicant submit the final annotated construction documents, including the ridge line height for a certificate of appropriateness.

Four that the applicant submit all product and material specifications to include windows, exterior doors, siding, and roof products based on findings G H I and J.

And five, that the applicant meets all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment if app if applicable based on findings C.

The applicant, Terry S.

Benson is here in person.

Terry, if you'd like to approach the podium, you'll have 15 minutes to speak.

And Commissioners, I do want to note that there is an alternate design as well that was proposed.

It was not the primary design, but that is available for you in your late packet in your late folder, and we can certainly pull it up if you'd like.

Thank you.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

My name is Terry Aspenson, and I'm the contractor for the uh doctors at CIS.

And what they'd like to do is uh remove the uh structure that's back there now and put a new one up.

Any questions?

That was it, sir.

That was it.

It's easy.

That's pretty quick and easy.

All right, love it.

All right.

So um we'll start with questions for the commission.

Um Commissioner Galloway.

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Gilato.

No questions right now, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes.

No questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mazooka.

No questions?

Commissioner Group.

Yay.

Sorry.

Do you comply with all the uh stipulations and the recommendation?

Yes.

You accept those.

Okay.

Sorry, I still have Mr.

Holland's question.

Um I don't have any further questions.

Thank you.

No questions.

Vice Chair Fetzer.

Um not at this time, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino?

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammoth.

No questions, Chair.

Thank you.

May I have a motion, please?

Um, yes, I would like to move for approval with all staff stipulations.

And uh with the revised roof line for the the porch of the accessory structure.

With option one.

I'm sorry?

Option one.

The uh instead of the gable roof, it would be the shed roof over the front porch.

Yes.

Okay.

Second.

It's been moved in properly, second discussion.

Yes.

Um reason I'm uh moved for the uh the shed roof over the porch is that um it makes a little more reference to the historic structure that's coming down with the gable.

It uh tends to make it a little too prominent, and it is an accessory structure.

So I think the the shed roof would be uh much more appropriate for this uh location.

Thank you.

Other discussion?

Well, and I guess it was a question that comes out after what's the ornaments on the columns when it doesn't have it on the front.

Is there a specific idea for that?

Or or is it just because the drawing was like that but in the neighborhood?

There's some in the neighborhood in the customer.

Uh the landowner just liked it to make it more I don't want to use the word Victorian, but back in that era.

Okay.

They don't have to put the those up if I mean um I was just thinking because you've taken some of the elements from the front of the house, right?

Like a little bit on the roof.

There's there are some on the front of the house.

Well, uh not on the columns.

It's kind of more on that.

Yeah, on that front gable.

Are there any in the front?

I mean, I'm not super opposed to it.

I guess it's it gives it that instead of just looking like a shed.

I was just wondering what it was.

And I agree with.

So um should it be added as stipulation that it's going with the option two?

I think it should be added as a stipulation to the motion table.

Yes.

Was it clearly option two?

Yes, Commissioner Fetzer pointed out that he he wanted this design.

However, we can restate the motion to clearly state option two.

Okay.

Yes.

Approval with staff stipulations with option two presented today.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Mood, I am properly moved in a second concurs.

Um anything further, Commissioner Group.

Thank you.

Um the commissioners have anything to discuss?

Mr.

Chair, of course I do.

Um to the question of the ornate brackets, they're a little bit uh too Queen Anne-ish.

And I think um it might behoove the project in general to just remove them all, go out on that limb on that design limb.

Because what it's doing along with the the board in Baton and the windows and everything that you've done well, it begins to encroach into this false historicism.

Right.

So that would be my um comment to you and the your client.

Thank you.

Well then I am in my motion to remove the brackets from the uh design.

Does the second concur?

Thank you.

Further discussion.

And Commissioners, if I may.

Um, you know, I just wanted to point out that um, you know, of course, as we have it written, it would be for conceptual approval of the design.

So it would come back for final design, and you would have the you know the ability to review those modifications that you are requesting.

Perfect.

Thank you.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am in?

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Uh sorry, before this, the request says applicant is requesting a certificate of approving us.

I didn't see conceptual on this.

It's in the recommendation.

Okay.

So by moving as recommended when we're proving conceptual.

Okay.

Correct.

Commissioner Group, what was your vote?

Aye.

Thank you.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

That was the last case on the agenda.

Can I make a comment?

Just a comment.

I've been here for two uh properties.

And one was with Adrian and one was with Caitlin.

And I just want to tell you how easy it's been to work with them.

And you all are very lucky to have them.

Appreciate that, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate that.

Thank you, everyone.

We are adjourned.