Historic and Design Review Commission Meeting – April 15, 2026

The Historic and Design Review Commission (HDRC) met on April 15, 2026, to consider a consent agenda and three contested items, including a controversial project near Mission San José. The meeting began with roll call and procedural announcements, followed by approval of the consent agenda and discussion of items pulled for further review. Public testimony was heard on Item 14, and the commission took votes on all agenda items.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were approved with staff stipulations. (Item 7 was postponed by the applicant.)
• The approved addresses included 1301 East Commerce, 331 West Commerce, 418 Florida, 1914 East Houston, 216 Lavaca, 320 East Courtland Place, 502 to North Zarzamora, 316 Army, and 201 West Linwood.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 14 (3406 Roosevelt): Multiple speakers addressed the commission:
  • Betty Boucher, First Vice President of the Conservation Society of San Antonio, noted that a productive meeting had been held between the applicant and the neighborhood association but requested that the commission conditionally move the process forward, as the architect needed more time to produce detailed drawings.
  • Jane Henry, President of the Mission San José Neighborhood Association, expressed strong concerns about the lack of an archaeological study, the presence of tall ventilation stacks (described as smokestacks) that compete with views of the mission, and requested a stipulation against electrified fencing. She noted that the owner had built additions without permits.
  • Brenda Pacheco, a community member of Native American heritage (Papopa Indian), emphasized the need for an archaeological dig before further construction, stating that artifacts (and potentially remains) may be present on the property. She requested that Native American representatives be allowed to observe any dig.
  • Brady Alexander, representing the Hot Wells Mission Reach Neighborhood Association, supported a continuance, criticized the city’s handling of the case, and argued that the project sets a poor precedent for development near the World Heritage Site.

Discussion Items

• Item 2 (1611 Broadway): Applicant Lordina Gomez (KPNJ Architects) presented plans for small utilitarian buildings on a vacant lot. Commissioners questioned the placement of a dumpster enclosure, generator, and transformer near Broadway and Newell, and the orientation of buildings away from the street. The applicant agreed to relocate an exhaust vent, upgrade lighting to decorative fixtures, and fence the generator/dumpster. Commissioner Velasquez moved to refer the item to a DRC (Development Review Committee) for further discussion with the owner. The motion passed unanimously.
• Item 5 (312 West Courtland Place): Applicant Ronald Eccles (Texas Architecture Workshop) sought approval for a terrace railing and elevator tower. Commissioners asked about railing details and elevator height; the applicant confirmed the elevator would not exceed the ridge height. The item was approved with staff stipulations.
• Item 8 (218 Adams Street): Applicant Nick Handel requested approval for exterior modifications. Commissioner Savino added a stipulation requiring a fully detailed and dimensioned site plan. The motion passed with the added stipulation.
• Item 14 (3406 Roosevelt): This was the most debated item. Applicant Javier Gonzalez (representing Joel’s Collision Repair) described the case as an “unusual case” where the owner had built additions without permits. He requested approval for fencing, facade modifications, an addition, landscaping, and signage. Staff recommended approval with stipulations including an archaeological investigation. Public testimony raised concerns about the lack of drawings, the ventilation stacks, fencing height and type, and the need for archaeological study. Commissioner Velasquez moved to refer the item to a DRC, with a target hearing date of May 20, 2026 (within the 60-day review deadline). Commissioner Group noted that DRC meetings do not allow public comment but would allow the applicant to present updated drawings. The motion passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Approved as listed.
• Item 2 (1611 Broadway): Referred to DRC at the earliest available opportunity (target dates discussed: April 21 or 28, 2026).
• Item 5 (312 West Courtland Place): Approved with staff stipulations.
• Item 8 (218 Adams Street): Approved with an added stipulation for a detailed site plan.
• Item 14 (3406 Roosevelt): Referred to DRC with a target hearing date of May 20, 2026. The archaeological investigation stipulation (requiring a qualified archaeologist and review by the city archaeologist) remains in effect. No decision on the applicant’s request for conceptual approval; the DRC will allow the architect to refine drawings in consultation with the community.