Historic and Design Review Commission Compliance and Technical Advisory Board Meeting – April 17, 2026

The Historic and Design Review Commission’s Compliance and Technical Advisory Board (CTAB) met on Friday, April 17, 2026, starting at approximately 9:00 AM. Acting Chair Jason Vasquez presided. The board considered four consent items, one pulled consent case, two contested certificate of appropriateness (COA) cases, and a violation case. All votes were unanimous unless noted.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1, 2, and 3 (426 East Courtland Place, 719 East Carson, 615 East Evergreen): Approved without discussion.
• Item 4 (430 East Mulberry) – pulled for discussion then approved: Owner Kumar requested a COA to rebuild a rear porch similar to the original structure, which had been removed. The applicant stated the new structure is similar in size and roofline and that a variance had been obtained. No public speakers. Motion to approve carried 6–0.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 6 (447 Fur Drive): Bianca Maldonado, President of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, opposed the retaining wall. She argued that the front yard earth and berms are character-defining features of the district and that the proposed CMU wall would be incongruent. She noted that city engineers did not recommend new retaining walls during a recent bond project on Fur Drive. She urged the board to affirm staff’s recommendation.

Discussion Items

• Item 5 (1518 West Rosewood) – First Consideration (Applicant Present): Applicant Chris Coker sought a COA for landscaping beds, a brick patio, a gable vent, and cedar shake siding on the front gable. Staff recommended approval of landscaping and patio (items 1 and 2) with stipulations, but did not recommend replacing the original concrete steps and walkway (item 3) or altering the original siding. Coker agreed to retain the original siding and instead paint alternating colors on the gable. He requested a gable vent with a simplified design and a ribbon driveway with permeable materials (turf or native grass). Commissioners discussed vent proportions and driveway materials. A motion to support staff’s recommendations (items 1, 2, and 3) carried 6–0.

• Item 5 (1518 West Rosewood) – Second Consideration (Applicant Absent): Later in the meeting, the board revisited the same case after noting the applicant was not present but had requested feedback. Staff reiterated the recommendation. Commissioners again voted unanimously to support staff’s recommendations.

• Item 6 (447 Fur Drive) – Violation Case: Applicant (virtual) requested a COA for an 18-inch CMU retaining wall installed without prior approval. He cited erosion, safety hazards (slippery mud), and precedent of similar walls in the neighborhood. Staff did not recommend approval, stating CMU is inappropriate and that a low stone or steel edging would be more suitable. The applicant acknowledged that the wall was finished without proper COA due to miscommunication with his contractor. Public testimony opposed the wall. A motion to support staff’s recommendation carried 6–0.

• Item 7 (1211 South Alamo Street): Applicants William Canela and his wife requested a COA for a vehicular sliding gate at the front of the porch, a six-foot fence at the southeast corner, and a four-foot picket fence in the front yard. They cited security concerns (trespassing, theft, graffiti) and traffic safety. Staff recommended placing the gate and taller fence behind the front wall plane to comply with guidelines. Commissioners discussed alternative gate types and the four-foot height limit. A motion to support staff’s recommendations carried 6–0.

Key Outcomes

• All votes were unanimous (6–0).
• Consent items 1–4 approved, with item 4 individually confirmed.
• Item 5 (1518 West Rosewood) approved with staff stipulations; applicant to submit final gable vent design and explore permeable driveway options.
• Item 6 (447 Fur Drive) denied; applicant directed to submit a revised proposal using appropriate materials (e.g., stone edging) for administrative review.
• Item 7 (1211 South Alamo Street) approved subject to gate/fence placement behind the front wall plane; four-foot height limit applies in front yard.
• Meeting adjourned after approximately 1 hour 40 minutes.