Historical and Design Review Commission Meeting – April 1, 2026

The Historical and Design Review Commission met on April 1, 2026, at 3:00 PM with a quorum present (Commissioners Memon, Sabino, Velázquez, Mizuka, Guevara, Krupp, Travieso, Fetzer, Gibbs, and Holland). The meeting opened with translation services announced for Spanish-speaking attendees. The commission approved the minutes from March 18, 2026, and then moved through the consent calendar, pulling only item #5 for discussion.

Consent Calendar

• All consent items were approved unanimously except for item #5, which was pulled by a commissioner. The approved consent items included certificates of appropriateness for properties at 309 West Travis, West Martin Street, and 326 West Martinton (among others). No public speakers were registered for these items.

Discussion Items

• Item #5 – Plaza Renovation (Applicant: Allison Chambers, Architect)
  The project involves a comprehensive renovation of a historic plaza (identified as Main Plaza) including a new pavilion, a small restaurant, shade structures, artificial turf areas, and improved accessibility. The applicant team (Elaine Kearney of EG Partners representing the owner, and Allison Chambers) presented the plans. Narley Smith, president of the conservation commission, explained that the organization has used the plaza for events for 20 years and needs a permanent structure to support free public programming, provide shade, and house kitchen and classroom space.

  Commissioner Comments and Concerns:

  • Commissioner Fetzer questioned the scale of the pavilion (22 feet 4 inches high) relative to the plaza and suggested exploring a two‑level roof design to reduce massing.
  • Commissioner Sabino raised concerns about transparency from Commerce Street and the view of the cathedral; he requested further study on how the pavilion and restaurant would affect sightlines.
  • Commissioner Velázquez asked about honoring the Canary Islands history (the plaza’s founding heritage) and was told that a commemorative marker and bronze elements would be included.
  • Commissioner Travieso asked about lighting design; the team described a smart system with elevated lamps, step lights, and theatrical lighting for performances.
  • Commissioner Krupp inquired about the difference in height between the existing shade structure and the proposed one; the new pavilion is taller to allow stage use but still situated below tree canopies.
  • Commissioner Galloway (or another?) asked about accessibility: the design includes a gentle slope (instead of many steps) to comply with ADA, though direct access from the center of the plaza to the pavilion may still require a detour.
  • Commissioner (Gibbs?) asked about artificial turf; the team explained it was chosen for durability and heat mitigation, with strategic placement under existing large trees to ensure shade.
  • Commissioner Holland’s audio was briefly lost but returned; he did not offer additional comments.

  The applicant team responded to all questions, noting that the restaurant will be largely glass to maintain transparency, and that the plaza design incorporates historic narrative elements, food truck parking, and electrical connections for events.

Key Outcomes

• Item #5 Approved with staff recommendations (motion by Commissioner Fetzer, seconded). The roll call vote was unanimous: all commissioners present voted in favor (Memon, Sabino, Velázquez, Mizuka, Guevara, Krupp, Travieso, Fetzer, Gibbs, and Holland).
• The commission encouraged the applicant to return during the detailed design phase to address the commissioner’s suggestions regarding transparency from Commerce Street, direct accessibility to the pavilion, and further shade studies.
• The meeting adjourned after the vote.