Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is now 3 p.m.

I'd like to call it order this historic design review commission for Wednesday, February 18, 2026.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Here.

Garcia.

Velasquez?

Here.

Galloway.

Muzuka Givada.

Here.

Groob.

Cervantes.

Holland.

Fetzer?

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please.

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 the function of the Commission to advise the city manager and all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties and historic districts for landmarks on city property in a river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

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

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

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

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

You will be called on as the case is called.

Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments.

Speakers for or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each.

Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who has signed up.

Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon.

Speakers will be called upon in the order in which they are signed up.

Following public testimony, any commissioner may call upon any speaker to respond to further questions.

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

Permits must be attained for all work.

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

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

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Quick announcement.

Um this Saturday we have our next installment of the Preservation Academy series.

Um Edward, if you can pull that up on the screen so everyone can see it.

So this is a uh recurring educational uh series.

We do it once a month.

This month's session is about financing a rehab, and so we have a guest speaker from First Mark Credit Union that will show you all the different options um for homeowners doing a substantial rehab or or even minor work.

Um so that is a free class in this room at 10 a.m.

on Saturday.

There'll be breakfast tacos coffee, so uh feel free to join.

Um with that we can move on to meeting minutes from the last meeting, which is February 4th.

Mr.

Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting minutes from February 4th, 2026.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second.

Any further discussion?

Maybe a roll call, please.

Garcia Velasquez?

Aye, Galloway.

Aye.

Givada.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Hi.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Okay, moving on to the agenda.

Um, we've got a short one today.

Uh, we just have three items on consent and no public comments on those items.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any items from today's consent agenda?

Hearing none.

May I have a I wouldn't.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm here.

I'm sorry.

I'd like to pull um case three.

Item number three.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

If there are no other others, I'd like to motion to approve the uh consent agenda, which would be item one and two.

With uh all staff stipulations.

Thank you, sir.

Second, second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly seconded further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please.

Mammon.

Aye.

Garcia.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Givada.

Aye.

Betzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda, your address is 100 North Main or 418B to uh for the Favel House.

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, uh I'll pull up uh item number three now, uh 418 V E to the Mexican restaurant.

The applicant and architect uh Mark Navarro is here in person.

Now we'll note we do have uh an updated packet um that I'll also pull up, and Mark will probably want to speak on that.

Thank you.

Can the applicant please step out to the podium introduce yourself, please?

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Garcia.

Yes, hello.

I just had a point of clarification on a couple of items.

Uh one is um the windows on the north elevation.

Um I think that there had been discussion about those windows having yes to make them more proportionate to the rest of the windows.

Is that something that has occurred?

Right.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I can see that.

Um all right, and then the only other question I had was the service door on the west elevation.

Um that is just uh metal door, is that correct?

Or is it like a flush a flush door?

Um right, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for this applicant?

Uh make a motion, Mr.

Chair.

Please, sir.

Motion to approve as uh submitted with the um upgrades with all step stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Is there any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'aman.

Aye.

Garcia, aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Ivada?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

Betzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Okay, item number four, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

This is HDRC case 2025-353 for 525 mission street.

So for the requests, the consideration and approval of a waiver pursuant of the unified development code section 35-608G to accept and review the application submitted further requests noted below in request item two.

Two, the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct an approximately 720 square foot detached carport featuring all wood construction and a standing seam metal roof at the rear of the property.

Staff recommends approval of item one, the approval of a waiver to accept and review a subsequent application under the Unified Development Code, Section 35-608G.

Based on findings C and D.

Staff recommends approval of item two based on findings E through G with the following stipulations that the carport features all wood construction with square six by six wood columns and two by six roof rafters and all structural elements.

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

Panels should be smooth without striation or corregion.

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

No vented rich caps or end caps are allowed.

An inspection must be scheduled with OHP staff prior to the start of work to verify that the roof materials matches the approved specifications.

And three, that the applicant obtains a variance from the Board of Adjustment if necessary.

There is a letter in your packet from the King William Association supporting staff's recommendation.

And I do not know if the applicant is here online or in person.

I did not receive a confirmation.

So I don't believe the applicant is here, Commissioners.

Okay, thank you.

So questions about this case.

Applicant's not here, but we'll go to the forward questions.

Good, sir.

For for staff, uh I'm noticing that it's not a gabled roof, it's a flat roof that's proposed.

And the pitch is going toward the rear.

With respect to the visual of the standing seam, are you in any way requesting that the standing seam is sloped toward the front so that there's a visual of the standing seam or their fine sloped to the back?

So we're not requiring it to be sloped forward, sir.

And then and I imagine that that your request for the crimp is what would also be associated with the pitch of the roof.

Ideally there wouldn't be a crimp if there's not a ridge.

Um but in the event that they do need to incorporate something along that line.

Mainly we just want to make sure that there's not a large ridge cap.

Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fetzer.

Yes.

Um to move this forward.

I move for approval of item one, which is a waiver to uh review the new application, considering the uh the fact that the design has changed in materials.

Second.

Nothing.

Thank you.

Um see no discussion from anyone here.

So um may I have a roll call, please.

Ma'am in.

Hi.

Garcia.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Ivara.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

And Commissioner Cervantes, are you online?

Yes, my vote is.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Petser?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number five, please.

Also.

Well, we need to deal with item two.

Sorry, you have to have the approval of the waiver.

How am I back?

Um if there's no questions, uh and I don't believe the applicants here.

It looks like the all of the stipulations that staff had made last time and the uh commission had uh agreed with have been met with this new application.

So I would move for approval uh as recommended by staff.

Second.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and Garcia?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Ivara.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Hi.

Betzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Mr.

Sadamant is Alma with a city office.

Can you be on camera?

I am on camera.

Can you not see me?

No, we can't see you.

Anyone let me try and stop the video and restart it again.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Item number five, please.

Item number five on the historic and design review commission agenda.

Case number 2024-407, 418 East Locust.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for final material selection for the approved new construction at 418 East Locust.

Staff recommends final approval with the following stipulations that the applicant propose a wood or fiber cement vertical siding detail that is dimension and profile to represent historic siding within the district, and that the applicant meet all setback standards and seek a variance if necessary.

We do have architect Joseph Smith here with us today, as well as the property owners, Priya and Jochton.

And you can approach the daisy.

So what we're focusing on is the steering channels, the uh board and batten metal sighting, what we're proposing.

Um batten system.

This is a house that was approved by HDRC uh twenty two thirteen over St.

Mary's which has a staining scene.

I show this one.

This photograph was taken this morning.

I know with the DRC, there's some concern about low painting of the metal product.

Um these pictures were all taken this morning at the same time.

Again, metal expands, contracts, so you will have different times of the day where uh metal will show more signs of oil painting.

Um, I show this picture again, you know, we're doing a very quality project.

Just as this project was a very quality project.

And you know, when you do standing seam, and we're not proposing standing seam, we're actually proposing a board and batten, which is the sample that's being passed around.

That's a product that is made specifically to replicate board and batten sighting.

Um the advantages again is made out of metal, recyclable, kind of thirty-year uh warranty on the bench, and the panel length is up to uh three thirty feet.

So we can get the whole height out of the panel as opposed to a cement board, board and batten, which we know really comes in eight and ten foot pieces.

And I have some different pictures showing you.

Thank you.

Ed Lapomeka, thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

There's just one speaker.

Michelle Lupomek.

Irene Woolrob.

Shane Woolrod.

Okay.

And Ricky Kushner.

Good afternoon.

My name is Frederica Kushner.

I live at O Zero Five East Myrtle Street in Tobin Hill.

And I'm speaking on behalf of the Tobin Hill Community Association.

The Historic Preservation Committee has been involved with this project since February of twenty twenty-five.

During that time, the committee has been impressed with the changes made to meet OHP HDRC guidelines.

However, we have been concerned from the beginning with the choice of standing seam metal siding or any metal siding, and the massing and lot coverage of the proposed construction.

Thanks to OHP staff for their work on this project.

So today we're going to interchange questions.

And um, and it probably was discussed at DRC, and if not, um the commission can answer is why you adamant about the metal and not the wood or or fiber cement.

The concrete cement board?

Well, again, I think you know, I I have many examples, and I think that uh, you know, it was proposed before, and it was told, hey, well, you you're showing us bad examples.

We have photographed a whole bunch of examples, and I would argue show me a good example of concrete panel, board and batten.

It has a trim piece, so if we go to the I'm just more asking about why for this property, is it that a choice?

Like is it because we look at also just surrounding properties?

It might be, you know, in the whole city, there are examples, yes.

But like just because of the surrounding properties and the neighborhood specifically.

So it there's no have you discussed even just considering it, the cement board, or just that is the only choice, and this is the only material you like the project on the left.

You can see those horizontal lines on that.

So those panels come in eight foot lengths, and the battens come in you know, probably ten foot lengths, and so you're gonna have that trim piece at every eight feet.

We're proposing, I think it's a 30-foot wall, uh, where the board and batten is, and so we would have continuous panel all the way up, unbroken.

Um the cement board again is fuel painted.

If you look at almost every example of them, and I have a bunch, you know, they put a nail through it, they it cracks the battens quite often.

The batten's rust or the uh nail, the fastener's rust over time.

These are all concealed fasteners, much cleaner finish, much more expensive finish.

Um, and just over the length of the project, you know, it's going to uh it's gonna wear better, it's gonna last longer, and it's gonna look replicate, frankly, what a traditional board and batten would have longer lengths of material, they wouldn't be left with you know, with this a sheet good that's eight foot.

That's not how they originally would have done a board and batten.

So I think that again, this product was developed specifically to just in the guidelines it talks about alternative materials that replicate older materials.

I mean, it's straight out of the guidelines.

This is what this material frankly exists for, is that exact reason.

And I do understand that metal, you know, is not traditionally used, but neither is concrete, neither is concrete board back in the 1920s.

They didn't use it on exterior finishes either.

So what we're proposing is a material that is a better standard than what is frankly what y'all are accepting to this date.

I don't have any more questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Haaland.

No questions for me, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Garcia.

Uh yes, I have a question about the setback.

Uh are you the one who can answer that question?

Um I'm not clear on it says that in the recommendations.

Have you checked the zoning?

I guess that's what the picture with the measuring tape is about.

What is the actual thing?

Yeah, so we actually MF33, so the setbacks actually are less than what we have currently.

Um so in terms of the setbacks, we're fine in terms of all the setback um requirements for the city.

Um in terms of the setback for the historic district, we are behind about two or three feet to the house to the east, and we are about an inch behind the house to the west.

So we made a modification uh based since the last meeting.

We are about six inches in front of the house to the west, and we actually shortened the house by seven or eight inches to accomplish putting it behind the house to the immediately to the west.

And I can also provide some clarity there.

Um the language that you see there in the stipulation is really just like broiler plate stipulation.

We put that in everything just to ensure that any variance is requested if necessary.

In this case, that um hasn't been demonstrated that that's going to be a need.

Um and the applicant has met all previous stipulations as it concerns the setbacks from the commission.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lemon.

No questions, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Velasquez.

No question, sir.

Thank you, Vice Sheriff Fetcher.

Yes, um, I was on the DRC last week or whenever that was, and requested photos of uh similar metal siding uh projects, and uh thank you for providing those as well as uh several photos of projects with uh the cement board um product and um on the metal siding that you're proposing, what is the vertical spacing of the anchors?

Last week or whenever that was and requested photos of similar metal siding uh projects and uh thank you for providing those as well as uh several photos of projects with uh the cement board um product and um the metal siding that you're proposing what is the vertical spacing of the anchors uh we'll go by the guidelines uh but it's probably be like six inches on center okay and the width that you're proposing does that um how does that compare to the board and batten with the cement board uh the board and batten with the cement board obviously can vary typically it's about 12 inches on center, which is what we're proposing is 12 inches on center.

So that panel that's you know I I measured that and drew on the dimensions on it.

Typical battens are an inch and a half, that's one and seven eighths, and then it's 12 inches on center.

Uh this material is uh is available up to 25 inches on center, that would obviously be too wide and cause more oil canning.

It's available in a 24 gauge and a 26 gauge material.

We're going with the 24 gauge and a 12-inch spacing is what we're proposing.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

And as far as uh I know you did ask for local examples, and we tried, uh they didn't have any local examples in San Antonio.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There are no more questions.

Can I have a motion, please?

I'll do a motion, Mr.

Chair.

If I may please.

I move to approve.

Um with only uh staff stipulation number two.

Second.

Discussion.

May I?

Um and I think the here's my reasoning is um I think the the way that I see it, and the only reason why I would say that this would be an exception is you were mentioning the brakes, and you have the 30 feet, especially in the front, right?

So I would say if I would look at it, um if we go to slide five.

Um the front part is really of the house, is what we we like to see, and and really that's where the emphasis is.

And then you have that turning corner, so you really am assuming it doesn't really say if it's 30 feet.

You said it was 30, but I know it's 35 till the up till the top.

Um I have I'm looking at slides five of the material that was in the presentation in the package today.

Um and I see you know, dominantly it would be on the on the side.

Um so that would be the reasoning for why accepted.

So I left that stipulation off, but then still have the stipulation from uh for the setback.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland, would you like to add anything, sir?

That yeah, I'm sort of thinking along the same lines that you know the stipulation being um something representing the historic siding within the district.

There probably aren't a whole lot of 30-foot tall uh original board and batten walls like that without uh without a seam, and so again, you know, that there being a seam with the eight-foot product.

Um if it was me, I would I would be shooting for no seam as well.

So I would support this.

Thank you.

We'll go over on for further comments on Commissioner Galloway.

No comments.

Thank you.

Um I just add something as a the stipulation that it be what was presented today.

So it I think the measurements of what was presented today would be the correct I don't know if it's needed, but maybe just add that stipulation to it.

Okay.

I could second concur.

Second.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cavata?

Thank you.

Commissioner Garcia.

Commissioner Mammond.

No comment.

Commissioner Velasquez.

I think the building um I wouldn't be against uh you know the motion.

But it the building is losing its its kind of delicateness that when those big what we're calling batons because they represent that shape at that height in the dark color, it it almost is asking the building to be a totally different thing.

Because now this now the building is adapting to pitched roofs and believing that somehow it it's it's uh mimicking a board and batten, but but it it it kind of like it loses the delic the delicateness of like it doesn't translate that well.

Uh so so I I'll be supporting the motion, but I just for the record want to just voice that I I think the the building is turning into a bit of a warehouse.

Thank you, sir.

Vice Chair Fetcher.

Yes, I'll be supporting the motion as well.

I think the um the fact that the durability longevity of the proposed material uh has advantages over the uh cement board and uh keeping with the uh traditional dimension uh I think would be appropriate.

So I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

May I have a roll call, please?

Garcia?

Hi Velasquez.

I Galloway?

Givata.

I Group.

I Colin.

I Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

I motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Can we have item number six, please?

Agenda item number six, HDRC case number 2026 028-307 Delaware.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct a rear accessory structure structure at 307 Delaware, located within the Lavaca Historic District.

The applicant has proposed for the rear accessory structure to feature one story in height and a footprint of 294 square feet.

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

One that the proposed board and batten siding should feature boards that are approximately 12 inches in width and battens that are one and a half to two inches in width, placed every 12 inches.

If composite siding is used, should feature a smooth finish.

Number three, that a simplified gabled roof should be incorporated into the design is noted in finding F.

And four, that windows should feature both uh should both feature profiles that are consistent with the guidelines and be consistent with the adopted standards for windows and new construction is noted in finding G.

Windows should feature one over one profiles with operable sashes.

Uh the applicant and property owner is here in person.

Can introduce himself and then begin his presentation.

Hello everyone, my name is Alberto Rodriguez Cerveda.

I'm the owner and CEO of Next Door Living.

Uh this is my client, Roberto Lizondo.

He lives in 307 Delaware Street.

Uh we're trying to propose to you guys, we're gonna build a casita behind his house.

It would look like this.

Um I know we're having some issues with the board and buy it, which we'll we already changed the design, and we're gonna follow the guidelines that you guys are asking us for, okay?

We also got thing on the sea metal, which again we're gonna change the design, and we're gonna follow you guys' uh guidelines for the roof metal, okay?

The only thing that we're we're not we got an email saying gable roof are found historically throughout the historic district.

Uh we're we're trying to propose a shared roof, as in this picture, but we actually build this house in Adam Street, which shows almost the same design with the same shed roof and the same windows, and then there's this house on 2020 Divine Street.

We also have a shed roof, and this one you can see from the street.

And there's also this casita on on mission street, 511 mission street, same thing, shared roof with the windows too.

Uh that's the only thing that we're trying to to see if you guys allow us, just because they already all of these houses in the historical district, they have already have the shared roof, and they have the same windows that we're trying to do.

The uh my client is he's just gonna be a home game that he's gonna be using.

Uh it's only gonna be 294 square foot, so you won't see it from the street actually, and he's gonna have a little small kitchen aid.

So he can just do like protein shakes, and then he's gonna have a small shower three by three.

After he's done working out, he's gonna take a shower, and that's it.

So that's that's the only thing that we're just trying to see instead of doing our gable roof.

We want to do a shared roof, like in all of these, all of these casitas that you guys have already in the district.

And the windows too.

Yeah, I'd like to add uh as a property owner that that the home is.

Yes.

So on each side of uh the proposed casita on each side, including the rear and both sides.

I have homes right right behind me.

Right?

There's a home right behind, and on each side it it you cannot view the casita from the street.

Um, you know, that I don't know if that adds any value, but you know, as as he was Alberto was showing there are um casitas already built within the historic district that have been approved within the last couple of years that have shed roofs and wim windows similar to what I'm uh requesting.

Part of the reason why I want these windows too is to give me more wall space, because once I put the the two uh I believe they're called panel windows, uh that I lose a lot of wall space since it's a smaller structure.

Um and I don't want to lose a lot of my yard in the back as well, so that's why I'm sticking with the smaller structure and just trying to make it as efficient as possible for me.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have a um speaker?

No speakers.

Mr.

Chair, uh I'm wondering if we might if you would entertain a motion that we could have a discussion as opposed to going straight to questions and questions from the let me um let's go with questions first and then we can have that.

So excuse me, sir.

You want to see the pictures from the other streets?

He actually showed them on it.

We had more saw them already.

So you can go to have a seat for a moment, sir.

Um entertaining questions from the commission.

Um first, um, Commissioner Galloway, questions.

No questions, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gabana.

No questions at the time, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Yes, I just have a few questions.

Do you have any that like what we're looking at?

This on the do you have any other structures?

Is there a garage at the end of the driveway?

Anything?

Um in the backyard that looks like a low shed.

So on the right side, step up to the mic, sir.

On the right side, so uh uh this is gonna be the left side of so if you're walking to the backyard, this is gonna be on the left side on the right side, right corner, there is a small 120 square foot shed.

Is that staying?

Yeah, the shed's gonna stay.

I mean, it's my I don't have a garage.

No, no, no.

Yeah.

Okay, just making sure.

And then um on the windows, are you willing to change up a little bit, maybe some of the windows?

Or are you all like not from the sides, because that's that's where the wall space really and the wall space?

Sorry, um potentially from the but from the front, depending on what's being proposed.

Oh, I was gonna ask, like maybe even if we say if we focus on the front, but then actually remove the ones from the side.

Oh, you want windows on all four sides?

I would like that just for natural lighting.

I I'm gonna work out there.

I mean, not that matters to you, but that's what No, I know, but if you have a lot of windows in the front part, then you probably don't need windows so much on the other sides.

Uh I mean I would like to keep them if if you guys approve that.

Uh don't have any further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hall.

I I don't have any thank you, Commissioner Garcia.

So the main mode of entry into the cabin is through sliding glass doors.

Is that right?

And is there a specific reason for why he went with sliders versus uh more traditional type of door, French doors, let's say?

Um just more more I can get more lighting into the front, they're larger.

I can slide so French doors, it's really I think an aesthetic uh preference for me, as well as having the you know doors opening versus just sliding, it just it's also more efficient from a space capacity.

Um and I was just wondering if maybe it was for the light, because on the opposite side of that coin, you don't want the windows to be any bigger, right?

On that facade.

On the floor, more keeping, yeah, because there's slip windows pretty much, right?

I mean, if if it's about um, you know, the question was asked about more windows, and I would just ask the question about maybe bigger windows that are more maybe contextually appropriate to the neighborhood and to maybe an accessory dwelling of some kind in the backyard of it in a historic neighborhood.

Um, you know, it just seems like on one hand you've got this huge opening that you want to circulate through, but then you have these little windows that you don't want any bigger for personal preference, right?

For personal pre on the walls specifically for space.

Um, because once I have those windows, I can't put like a anything else on the walls.

I can't it just takes away wall space.

So that's why if you look at the design, the windows are high on the sides, because it's gonna go up 14 feet from the front, 12 to the back.

So it's gonna be pretty high.

So the windows will just allow some natural light to come in, and I'll have a floor ten feet of wall space to use with T V whatever else I'd like to put out.

Uh and I'm this is probably uh going into more um just observation than if I can interrupt you before my time goes out.

You just we're just going to basically all the other ones like on 511 mission street, the same design.

This one has a lot more windows all the way through, and then of aisle street, this one has like 20 more windows too.

Like we're doing like through windows, actually.

Right, but the windows on the the other examples are actually more in keeping with what you would find in the neighborhood, right?

So that's my point.

It's like a mixture.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

Okay, okay, sir.

Yep.

For the applicant.

Is this visible from the public right away?

Uh the this guy's house, no.

The other ones, yes.

Can you sorry, can you clarify just from the one for my gland is not gonna be visible from the street okay behind the house?

It won't be visible.

No, okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammoth.

No question.

Um, Commissioner Velasquez has questions.

Um to discussion, but I could make a motion and then we can go into discussion anyway, right?

Because I'm the last.

Well, no, you're not the last Vice Chair Fesser's last.

So once we get past that point, then we can have a motion that we can go into discussion.

So for right now, we'll look at the question.

I'll pass and wait till thank you, Vice Chair Fesser.

Yes.

You've got a small overhang on the front side, but no overhang on the back side.

So how is that going to be detailed in terms of transition from the roofing to the siding, uh flashing?

Has that detail been worked out?

Because typically uh roofs have uh uh at least some overhang on all sides.

We can put an overhang we could put an overhang in the back.

I think that uh it was my architect, not you.

Okay.

And uh you just hope you would consider uh changing the windows at least in the front to more traditional windows, one over one uh windows as opposed to the slit windows and possibly changing the door to a more traditional.

How were these casitas gonna approve?

And then all the well those have more traditional windows.

Well, you have some undecided though, in the front.

As you can see, you have like well, these are the front.

Right, but those are one over one windows on either side of the door.

Oh, you're talking about the slit windows on the side of the door?

Yeah.

Change those out, change those out to a I wouldn't be opposed to putting more traditional windows and replacing the slit windows.

I would like to stay with the sliding doors.

I really like that aspect of it, and obviously the small windows on top, just for more lighting.

I I can definitely work with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll understand your motion now, sir.

Well, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve as submitted by the applicant.

And if we get into that in discussion.

I'll second that.

It's been more than properly second.

Um Mr.

Chair, if you could put the the gray building up, uh Edward, I'd appreciate it.

The one that that's not the one but the other one.

Okay.

The the the design that is submitted, it's clearly uh contemporary design in in itself, it's holistic.

It could have different location of windows, but for the most part, the way that it's done is the animal that it is, right?

When you look at the gray one over here, the gray one is an example of a building that's adapting, but you can see everything that it's losing.

Now, is it a better building or a worse building?

I would argue that clearly is a worse solution.

Look at where the window is, where the door is.

The way that it's presented, it it might be a little bit of an anomaly, but but clearly there's an attempt in the name to have this um this kind of reoccurring new element.

But I think that the the strongest argument for this is the size that it is.

It's it's clearly not trying to be something that is um taking away it it's it seems to be accessory for very particular use, and it doesn't try to be the house itself.

It doesn't try to be the garage, the historic place.

It it clearly is this little contemporary anomaly.

Um to try to change it.

I think that what we would be saying is you really got to change this thing if it's gonna be in keeping with the guideline or with the building in itself.

So in a way, this goes along with the other guideline that gives the power of not trying to attempt uh false historicism.

So the way that it is, it's i I mean, I think it's not just the outside of it, but if you look at the the nice little sections, it is what it is.

And um again, it's it's uh small square square footage enough to almost be like a like a uh on top of grade uh accessory little building.

It doesn't seem to have the capability of becoming something bigger or adding a bedroom or adding it's it seems that it's gonna stay within the context of what it is, and and in that I I I think it's worthy of of supporting.

Uh those are my comments, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Second, would you like to make comments?

Yeah, my comments really um are sort of in line with uh fellow commissioners, but the main thing for me is that it's not visible from the public right away.

So um I I also just would would support this simply for that fact.

Um and additionally, because it's it's small.

Um it's no one's gonna see it.

It's gonna be yours.

So um and I agree with that, you know, the neighborhood's changing.

This is sort of a little a little spot in, you know, when you look in an overview, it's the the one area where there isn't really anything.

And I I don't think anybody's gonna know that it's there except for you.

So you know, for that reason I would say do it the way that you want to do it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Galloway comment, sir.

No comments, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Guevara.

No comments, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

Uh just have a few comments.

Can we go to slide 10?

Um I think the front is probably just where we could probably just um make the most.

I think uh is there a way that you could center the windows in between batons?

Center the windows?

The three top ones.

And then um I'm not a big fan of the vertical ones, and I don't know if there is an option for you to do like you know the wider.

Like you did in the other, maybe just the front.

I and I think you will actually have a lot of lighting and it would create that lighting for you, which maybe could say, okay, well then maybe one of the sides you won't do the horizontal.

But I think if we do the top horizontal, like the left on the right, and you have a one over one underneath, kind of go together on each side.

I'm not trying like I think that would just be something that I would see more as a compromise.

And that's still, I mean it is because it's not visible, but then at least we're we're not introducing like you know a lot of I I think we see more horizontal windows like that than vertical.

Thank you, Commissioner Garcia.

And one more thing, can we also make sure that we have the stipulations included in the motion, if possible, the one, two, and three?

Sorry, one and two.

Sorry, one and two.

Sir, I'm reading them.

Yes, uh the uh it it's good, and I think that the the builder was saying that that you were all right with that already, right?

The stipulation of one of the size of the button.

So yes, uh will it uh uh accommodate that.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

All right, second conclusion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Garcia?

Um I'd like to start with a point of clarification.

So in the staff recommendations, are you including four?

No.

Uh including number four?

Right.

About the windows?

No, i it be because it it's asking for the window to be something that it clearly is not.

And and the y you know, in and it to a certain extent it seems that they have this type of building that they're building, and this is the window that is reoccurring in whatever plan set this is.

So if it's reoccurring in the neighborhood that that this is what is the norm for for this little contemporary piece of whatever it is.

So so that it can be itself, because I think once once we start to move the things around, it's gonna start to look like that gray one, which is really uh uh you know, r it's really strange.

Well, I think that um I do you mean like inset like sh like like shadow line stuff, or do you mean trim and I'm just looking for something a little bit more in keeping with the proportions of the traditional windows in the neighborhood.

So that would be a one over one.

Um I don't particularly I I have no objection to the architecture overall.

Um where my concern lies in setting precedent.

Um I don't know the history behind the other sheds that you're using as examples and whether they went through this process or didn't.

I know for sure you know.

It's it's right down the street from my house.

Um it's 801 Labor Street, and they have those windows, and uh that's a large uh um unit.

It's huge.

You can see it from the street.

I mean it you saw the picture.

Um and they they got approved historic.

I mean the signs were right there for for many months.

Okay.

So they came through this commission and were approved.

Yes.

Okay.

So then I'm only gonna make a comment.

Um and I'm not trying to uh make a point.

Well, I guess I am trying to make a point, but it's not gonna change anything.

It would appear.

If this is a precedent that is already been established, then you know the horses left the barn, so to speak.

Um but I think that it's not fully appropriate.

It's fairly harmless.

Yes, you can't see it from the street, and yes, there are windows like this throughout the neighborhood, and my colleague seems to think that that example that you showed that was more gray is somehow a really bad example of a shed, which I don't necessarily agree with because I do think the windows are more appropriate.

The color, the materials, you know, that's a whole different story.

Um so I just want to point out that if this was going up in my neighborhood behind my house, I'd be fine with that if I liked those windows, which I don't.

But you know, if my neighbor did this, it would be fine.

But it is a historic neighborhood, and I think that it's a shame to lose the kind of context of what has already been established for uh detached buildings behind a historic home.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammon.

No comment here.

Thank you, Vice Sheriff Fetcher.

Yes.

Um I agree with uh Commissioner Garcia that more traditional uh one over one windows I think would be more appropriate on the front elevation.

Um I don't have an issue with the shed roof or the the board and batten siding uh or even the smaller horizontal windows uh for this size uh structure.

Um I'm not sure how I'm gonna sub whether I'll support this uh motion or not without the the change in the windows and um unless I make an amended motion.

I'll make an amended motion to approve the design with uh staff stipulations one and two with uh stipulation four, which is the more traditional windows on the front elevation, uh changing out the the vertical slit windows to one over one windows, and um working with staff to detail overhangs on the roof uh just for uh not so much the way the building looks, but for uh good design uh transitions from roofs to walls.

I'll second Mr.

Chairman.

I think it's been moved and properly second.

Can I get a clarification?

Sure.

Clarify, please.

Are you accepting the horizontal windows in the front and the sides?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um we will first vote on the amended motion.

So may I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Uh could I ask a quick question before I'm going to be able to do that?

I'm sorry, I don't know if it's comment question, but is the applicant okay with I mean the there there was a kind of a switch of the in the amended motion.

Was there a switch from staff recommendations a little bit of number four?

Uh on the windows?

Yes.

Do we need to ask the applicant in that case if if they're I mean it's a shift in the architecture on that.

Really just the two front vertical windows.

Yeah.

At all.

I heard the applicant say that.

Sorry, but not the public.

You can confirm, but you were okay doing SASH windows instead of the long skinny windows.

Yeah, I'll I'm I'm fine with that, yeah.

I mean, uh to be honest, though, I'm not I don't want them wide.

I'm okay with the one over one, but they're not gonna be wide.

Just and and m Mr.

Chair, we we were gonna have discussion right before we took the vote on the second on the amended.

No, we were just gonna go to the amendment because we've had a discussion on the original motion.

Now you have uh I'll entertain any questions and they down.

I I seconded the motion and and I I but I want to make just clear why um I'm more comfortable with the first one, but I did second the second one.

Is because the the it's the articulation of the change that occurs that I think is where these projects get they they get accepted because they follow the guideline, but but then it goes to staff, and I don't mean this in any offense to staff, because I know what this is.

This is very difficult to where you're approving something that meets the guidelines, but the articulation of how it's being done kind of goes beyond our purview.

So like I look at this and uh quite honestly, when I see this front, what I see are one over ones that are two feet wide, those ribbons are turned into transomes, and somehow the lines of the transoms over the sliding door match it, so there doesn't end up like that gray one where you have these windows up here and then the doors down here.

Okay, now all of that being said, put me on a drafting table and I can tell you what I'm talking about.

But the problem with it is that when we do the motions, everything gets approved, and then the building ends up looking like this thing over here, right?

Which don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying about the color and the trims in the window and all that.

But but when you take that kind of uh a deeper dive into what it should be, and then you attach it to like hardy board sidings that are thicker and all that, if the things really they really look like someone's backyard washroom.

So I support the motion, but I just caution that to staff that when you advise the front, the balance of these things to make it holistic to where the ribbon windows work within it, even if they conform to transoms kind of style, so that they're not out of line with all the other ribbons, because that's part of the way that this thing is right now.

With the things that don't conform, they're at least all balanced within their how they're put together, right?

So otherwise the front is one is meeting one dimensional facade rule, and the sides have their own rules, which I think is a mistake.

Okay.

That that's just comments.

Could I uh just briefly, sorry to interrupt.

Um to the commissioner's point, um, with modifying the vertically oriented windows on the front facade.

Uh it would be helpful for the commission to clarify in working with the applicant maybe a dimension.

Because from staff standpoint, we're gonna take that and say, okay, like we need to find a traditional window that has that proportion, uh which I'll briefly annotate, may wind up being something that looks like this.

And I don't know if the applicant actually intends or has the ability to have a window that width.

So if there could be some clarity in the motion about a proportion, that would be helpful for staff so that the applicant can submit to us exactly what the commission intends.

And we're not back and forth or coming back.

Uh one by uh 12 inches by five feet.

No, the horizontals.

Three feet.

Three feet?

See, see, but Mr.

Chair, with your permission, see when like for instance, uh a one over one, it it's not like you're gonna have a 12-inch one or uh 16-inch one.

There's a size that is normal that looks right, it's about 24 inches.

The the look that you're going for is definitely not going to be a one over one, twenty-four by twenty-four, but that meets the guideline, right?

It's gonna ask itself to be twenty-four by greater than four feet to get the look that you want.

So if if they're willing to uh uh conform the window above the gar above the sliding door to the width of the sliding door and conform the ribbon window above the the two one over ones to a transom that's the same size of the window, you you'd probably achieve that balance.

But and I appreciate what Edward said because it is i i it really is to a certain extent saying, look, if you do this, but you've got to tell them what to do because otherwise they get then they get permission to make a terrible mistake.

I would as a homeowner, I would really prefer to stay with with this design.

Yeah, because it's gonna he was he he had just he had just kind of referenced it before his comment that if you know you're sure this is what you want because of what he just stated, but also like just other things like the little light fixtures, it's just gonna look kind of off.

Thank you.

I have a question, Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Go ahead.

On that window, because on the side, they're not 36 inches, they're different too.

So you have different windows on every side of the house.

Correct?

Correct.

So what are they on the side?

How wide are they?

I think they're 12 by 5.

Uh 12 by 5, 12 inches by five feet.

So I I'm gonna support the motion just because you're leaving the option for the applicant on the side and men, the sizes.

I don't even think the sizes are replicated in this drawing the correct way.

One one seems even more than 36 inches, the one over the door.

I mean, they're not even they look like the same size.

If you have 12 inches in between the buttons, I mean like you don't have 36 inches windows right there designed.

So I think if just the motion is clear that we accept horizontal windows and we would like in the front for the vertical to be exchanged for one over one, but then with the design that the horizontal match, you know, either the door or the I mean a line.

Or we can also ask for this uh applicant to come back with a with a design for the front of the windows and and consider the that without having to make it.

The one over ones, I think they definitely need to be centered below the horizontal windows.

Um I think three feet wide is too wide because you interfere with the framing and construction of the door.

So approximately 24 inches wide by four feet tall, centered below the horizontal windows.

One over ones.

I can't hear you, so you're not at your mic.

What we could see what Edward's doing that.

Those those windows, you're probably about a foot too low.

Yeah, these are too tall, Edward.

And and just uh I'm imagining that the batten system here, it it's throwing the windows off because it's just drawn.

It's not the way that you would build it.

That's off center, but it's just the drawing.

Yeah.

Okay.

I withdraw my amended motion and make a new amended motion and say uh approve uh conceptual approval with uh staff stipulations one and two and four coming back to the commission after the applicant and the owner have a chance to study that front facade in relation to one over one windows and the horizontal windows.

I'll second it.

Uh yeah, I mean the the one and two, the applicant can update in the documents and then um he can propose uh window at the width that um he finds to be appropriate, we can put him on a future agenda uh for consideration.

All right, good.

Thank you very much.

So all right.

So uh mine clear.

We I have a uh roll call, please on the admitted motion.

Mammon.

Aye.

Garcia.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

All right.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Um so that was the last case on the agenda.

Um before we adjourn, I just want to say that the um this case here was really a good example, I believe, of, you know, just collaborating and understanding how things should work.

Um, because you know, of course, we're not in the design business for the applicant, but just trying to make sure things fall within the guidelines and that they are you know, you know, aesthetically pleasing.

So I appreciate everyone's comments here for that particular case.

Mr.

Chair, uh, for the benefit of the of the applicant.

I I I do think that it could be a really beautiful little front that doesn't throw the sides off.

And by the end of that, you may end up with a very acceptable future proposal.

But but it's not enough just to say that move this and move that, that we wouldn't get there.

You you'd it'd get approved, but you wouldn't be proud of it.

So I think probably this way, you might discover something that is really that will really make you very happy when you go in there.

Even just as happy as you thought you'd be going in the way that it is.

But it's gonna take uh that a little extra time for you to you know detail something pretty that's within your budget and all that.

In other words, don't feel bad about it.

I think it's a good thing.

Thank you, everyone.

We are adjourned.