Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is now three three oh three on uh Wednesday May 6th 2026.

Like to call to order this is third design review commission meeting.

May I have a roll call, please.

Here.

Velasquez.

Here.

Galloway.

Here.

Mazouka?

Here.

Givada.

Here.

Group.

Here.

Holland.

Here.

Fetzer.

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please?

See alguien necesita los servicios de traductional espanhol.

Thank you.

The Historic and Design Review Commission is an advisory board appointed by the City Council.

I am Jay 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 in story districts for landmarks on city property and the 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 an administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's unified development code.

If anyone 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 an a project on today's 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 time.

There's 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 of 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.

Thank you for being here.

Um we have a few quick announcements.

Um this is Preservation Month, so we have a large number of um free and low-cost events uh about all about preservation in San Antonio.

Um the calendar, if you want to check out SASpeakup.com slash um preservation month, is May 16th.

We have a wood window repair uh interactive studio at Villa Finale.

Um that is in the morning, and then that same evening on May 16th.

Uh we have Picnic and a movie in the East Side Cemeteries.

We'll be playing Jumanji, and that's a free family friendly event.

Um, and then May 21st, uh, we have a virtual course, how to become a citizen historian, which is all about historic property research, that'll be taught by OHP staff, and then also later that night we have Preservation Trivia at Coolcrest, which is a free fun event and a competition.

Um we have a number of partner events also on the website if you want to check those out.

There's links and registration details uh again at SAspeakUp.com slash preservation month.

Um and then not quite related, but also in the month of May on Saturday um the 9th, which is the Saturday.

Uh we will have a uh public meeting for the Riverwalk strategic plan.

Um that's gonna be at 10 a.m.

at the central library.

Uh, this is the first uh in-person meeting that we've had for the for the strategic plan that OHB has been leading, and so we invite everyone to participate.

Um, if you took the survey earlier in the year, then you should have received an invitation to attend that as well.

Um so again, we welcome all input on the early stages of the plan.

Um, and with that we can do action on meeting minutes from April 15th, Mr.

Chairman.

I move for approval of the uh April 15th, 2026 HCRC meeting minutes.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Hi.

Givada.

Aye.

Daviaso.

Aye, Holland.

Hi.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Megan, I have joined the meeting.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Group.

Aye.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Okay.

At this point, we can draw our attention to the screen.

Um, I don't know, maybe zoom in a little today, Edward.

I have your time seeing everything.

Uh thank you.

We have nine items on the on today's consent agenda.

Um, no items have been pulled, and we do not have any in-person speakers or voicemails for those items.

Thank you.

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

Yes, I'd like to pull item number three.

Item three.

Any others?

Um, Commission um Mr.

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

Item number seven.

Any other items?

No, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll make a motion, please, sir.

To approve items on the consent agenda one through nine less item three and item seven with staff stipulations, approved with staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second.

Any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Seveno.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Did I so?

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 225 Wilkins 318 Parada, 600 North Press, 1901 West We Sech, 510 Divine, 370 East We Sech, and 1300 North Main.

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.

And now I commissioners, I'll pull up item number three, 1611 Broadway.

The applicant is here in person.

Hi.

Hi, good afternoon.

Please state your name for the record, please.

Yes, Lorena Gomez Farrias with KPNJ.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Petser.

Yes.

Thank you for addressing some comments that have been uh sent back and forth.

Uh DRC and all that.

Um I still have concerns about the siting of the two, what are generally I see as utilitarian buildings on main thoroughfares on Broadway and on Newell.

And uh could you help to explain uh how that meets the UDC guidelines in terms of uh the placement of a building on a site should be considered within the context of the block as well as how the structure will support the broader design goals for the area, yeah.

Well, these are placed um to have these um the seasonal festivities in the middle of the site and to be able to be connected to all the people that are also coming from Broadway.

Um these um the building the restroom building needs to be situated by the CPS um poll that's bringing that's coming up from Broadway.

Um we have a dress so it doesn't look like a utilitarian building, um a mural that's gonna be um in the direction of Broadway um with some decorative light pictures and it's all um it it's all veneered, so it really doesn't look like a a um utilitarian building and same as the building on the other side.

Um we've added a a trellis that will um in the future um be able to be covered with some ivy and it's also completely veneered.

Um but with the aspect of how that's situated on site, we we can't accommodate it on another location just of the potential future connections that we might do with the other lots um and how this will connect to the middle area of the um of the of the activities yes it's it's hard to consider these when we don't know the the long-term master plan uh I know in the interim you all are gonna have seasonal activities in the center of the lot uh but not knowing what the uh the long term uh development is is intended to be it's hard to uh evaluate whether they're um inappropriate locations and I mean looking at building one there's a even though it's in an enclosure there's a dumpster at the corner of Newell and Avenue B.

Yeah and and that one's completely it's gonna be covered by a CMU wall that we're gonna actually one of my revisions it's too we're gonna completely stucco over it um and really that's really the best location to be able to situate it of the axis of the dumpster drive um of course we don't want it on Broadway or anywhere else um so that's kind of the best access for it um we are trying to enclose it same as the other two um the generator and the transformer we're enclosing it with some um horizontal cedar planks that will be on steel posts um next to these buildings that will be completely veneered and we've added some articulation to some of that veneer so it's just not a plain blank wall um as a typical utilitarian building but that's why the dumpster is placed in that area and then uh I did see that you adjusted the uh restroom exhaust fan from the east facade to the uh north facade but it's in the northeast corner of that building which is still fairly close to the public sidewalk and wondering if that exhaust fan couldn't be moved further west on that building uh just for the smells and the noise of a of a restroom exhaust fan definitely against the the public sidewalk okay yeah we we can definitely um shift that thank you that's all I have for now thank you Commissioner Sabino Mr.

Chair thank you um my question is um for the client but it may be uh a naive question but since this is a highly desirable lot in the Rio 2 and the Rio 2 um uh focuses on high density it's meant for housing meant for office space for a property like this um did you guys look at temporary structures in lieu of these permanent structures no no because it's gonna house electrical and and all these we we didn't look into the possibility of doing um flex buildings um he he wants something um you know it's nicer if it's a permanent structure with the veneer than having these um flex buildings that might not be as desirable even if they can move later on um so yeah he yeah yeah I was just wondering if there was a longer um plan in that long-term plan this is short term plan um to bring in so that the lot and this property is available for the intended purpose and that is to um infill along Broadway and to complete the Rio number two.

And that is what is now um kind of it has like these flex little structures and depending on the use um but it wasn't working to be able to do a lot of a lot of the activities.

I think they do yeah like a pumpkin patch and it's just there's no restrooms there's nothing like that so it's providing some better amenities for this seasonal um area yes did you also include information on your fencing in this yes so um where that goes and what that is um um are they seeing this one so yeah those um go further back it's on the site plan sheets so yeah go one more so that that's the detail um one oh two and these haven't been issued just because we were waiting on um what's gonna happen that's why we haven't sent them out yet um we're still revising this a little bit we're just graphically the drawings um but that's basically um the details and then we're adding dimensions on the floor plan and so we haven't seen these yet I sent them out yesterday correct these are these are in response to previous comments DRC and updates based on uh feedback from commissioners.

Yeah so they were sent after I got some more comments yesterday and I we were waiting to issue anything before getting more stipulations so we have been addressing them and just been adding them to the plans.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Commissioner Group Thank you I didn't know if you wanted to go in order um are we still in questions or just because this was on consent and it was poll so I wasn't sure.

You can go ahead with your question yes ma'am.

Okay I don't have a question I was going to do a motion.

Okay let me see if there are any others um I I'm um wondering if um the reason why these uses are on Broadway have and not on the alley site because it seems that that there's more opportunity that that the alley site is actually the smaller dimension of the lot it is it a utility sewer line it's all that proximity yes so the sewers on Broadway?

Well the electricity so where's the sewer the sewer let me check civil um actually I have the right here and we'll say exit it's two um to water.

Well but I I think that that even that that even um you know without an answer is that to a certain extent it it's not there because of the sewer.

Yes yeah it it was um well most of it it started even prior to the utilities and just the way that um the owner wanted the the the configuration the config configuration but then the CPS poll and the transformer kind of locked um that location we couldn't shift it further from there.

Hmm.

Because I I just uh well I'll wait till a motion so I can address the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions Commissioner Travis.

Yes uh what are your plans for lighting?

So we have um decorative light fixtures on the the building and then if you go to MEP um the new set yeah so so we have um decorative um sconces all around the building that we changed from having them wall packed so now they're um nice decorative fixtures and then the um light poles that the MEP has on those drawings okay so that's evening lighting and during the day.

Do you have trees or anything around there?

I couldn't tell on during the day.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, during the day.

During the day, um, no, we don't have any um lights for it during the.

I was wondering if there was any trees.

I couldn't tell if there was any trees or anything else that would.

So we do have, so if you go to the landscape, um we have um yeah.

If you go to L.

It'll be sheet L one.

There you go.

Um, those are the trees that we currently have that will be planted.

Um, those were the ones required by code and the UDC.

Um, I confirmed that with the with the landscape piece.

I know some of the comments were a more detailed landscape, but that is the landscape plan.

Um, that's what required by code.

So those are the trees that are currently gonna be in place.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Other questions?

Yes, sir.

Um, sir.

Yes, on the uh electrical service that you're getting from the east side of Broadway, uh CPS is proposing to set a new poll.

Yes, and there's an approximate location shown on the drawings.

Not that you have any control over that.

I don't know if staff could look into this, but I know there's a development on the east side of Broadway.

And has this poll location been coordinated with their development?

Not that I'm aware of.

I can check with um, I I just know there was an extensive, like two months coordination with CPS and the MEP.

Right.

And that's where they he said that um the location was gonna, that that's what it was, but I'm not sure about that.

So I can double check.

Um, but I think.

Because I don't know who would have jurisdiction of that or CPS puts it wherever they want to put it.

We have we coordinate with CPS.

We CPS sends us their poll locations within historic districts in the Rio, more or less as an FYI.

Um there are cases where we can negotiate with them on four or five feet so that a poll is in place directly in front of a historic structure.

Uh, but as far as don't put a pole here, put it 50 or 70 feet away.

Uh we really don't have purview.

Um, it's more of a working relationship where uh they hear our concerns, and if they can address those, they will.

Okay, I encourage staff to uh follow up on that.

And there was a lot back and forth.

We wanted to hide the transformer even more, but it was just um no leeway with with them on regards to that.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, Mr.

Chair, I'm just wondering if if it it might be uh worth it to entertain a motion to have a discussion amongst the commissioners.

I agree, and that um the commissioner grew had a motion.

Um that you want to present your motion now, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move to approve with staff supportations.

It's been moved.

Is there a second?

Oh, second.

It's been moved in properly second um further discussion.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair.

So um according to the UPC and the guidelines on the comments.

I mean, I don't have any concerns as a project presented today.

I know that you know there'll be some further development, maybe, but now we have to look at it from what is presented to us today.

And this lot has been taken.

We've tried to try to approve several projects there.

These are small U-turn buildings.

I do not agree with some of the comments of Commissioner Fetzer, but um we should have a project that interacts with Broadway.

Nothing from the Pearl has actually been interacted with Broadway.

It's all backsides of buildings, especially on you all too.

We have a huge, I mean, all parking faces new, all backsides of building spaces new.

This is actually gonna make this corner a little bit more attractive to you know, actually think okay.

Well, it is maybe part of it.

Um I just we I feel like the applicant, you know, we have to look at this project as itself and not related to what other projects are happening in the future, or was in the past.

Um I know it's a prominent corner, but also there's a lot of these corners have not been developed yet, and I think this is a start.

Um, whether it's for housing or not, the pro is doing the same thing.

They're also doing a big mini golf right down the street.

They'll be also interactive.

I mean, like, I don't think that's fair to put that on the applicant of the case that we're presented today.

So that's just the reason for my motion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Blasquez.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Chair, uh uh to address the the the commission and also to Commissioner Fitzer um the one thing that I looked at uh Commissioner Fitzer on this site is that there's that medical building that's right next to the proposed improvements so there's there's something some I I think some um strength in this what could be considered maybe even a conforming uh uh line of of frontage of buildings but I do uh I do uh agree because I with you that uh perhaps uh electrical can find its way wherever it's got to go particularly if it can be underground uh it seems that the the the more important uh thing would be where the sewer is located which we we don't know where the sewer is um I don't necessarily feel like I want to support the motion because when I look at the site as a whole I'm very concerned with this heat sink situation that that that it that clearly the the tree the the the lack of trees within the in interior of this site um lessens the the um the possibility that there that the site is actually going to be an enhancement like this I I think that when I look at what is the purview of the commission here obviously there's some visual application um and it it doesn't seem to get to a place that not so much when it's full of people but when it's just sitting there I I want to be sensitive to the idea that you have a skating rink and leaves are going to fall and they're gonna fall in your skating rink and all that but I think that just challenges the location the landscape quality of where you allow at least this place to begin to look like it's a place as opposed to an empty lot um so I think there's a couple of things that that are are more important than just what the what the what the with the desire of the of the owner is because if it was a simple uh development services review that that's that circumstance but when it comes here I think it has to adapt to to a couple of things that I think it could easily adapt to and and that would include that if if the consideration is a sewer consideration I could see um the restroom location but if it's if it's electrical I would think that perhaps there's there's uh an easier way to to get uh the um the electricity to where it needs to get and but I'm not I but I am aware that copper and aluminum are very expensive these days so I'll hand it back over to the commission thank you Mr.

Chair thank you vice chair fetzer um I did see on the civil plan that uh sewer location is coming off of Broadway um I'm probably not gonna support the motion um I can see the the utility constraints for the restroom building and there is uh like my fellow commissioner said there is an adjacent structure on Broadway that it uh relates somewhat to uh the other building um with the dumpster and transformer I mean uh generator um I see other opportunities on the site such as along Avenue B uh the alleyway uh there's still access from that corner of uh Avenue B and uh Newell to the dumpster um but uh I'm probably not gonna support the motion thank you thank you um I'll offer other commissioners any um comments um I'll start off with um Commissioner Gibbana any comments sir no comments right now Mr.

Chair thank you commissioner galloway no comments Mr.

Chair thank you commissioner Mazuka um my only comment is that probably will not be supporting this but it's mainly because of tree lack of trees and um the heat generating possibilities for that big slab of cement thank you commissioner so no additional comments at this time is chair thank you commissioner seven i have no comments thank you commissioner holland no comments thank you thank you all right um may i have a follow call please civino nay the last guess nay galloway aye muzuka nay givata aye group aye today soan aye fetzer no and gibbs aye the split vote motion fails i can may i have a uh another motion please mr chair i'll make a motion to deny the request is there a second second it's been moved and properly second further discussion may have a roll call please aye velasquez aye galloway nayzuka aye givata nay group nay davieso aye holland fetzer aye and gibbs nay it's the same split vote all right uh I'll make a motion I'll make a motion mr chair some other commissioners what would the reasoning would be for a full denial for this absolutely so called Commissioner Spain.

Um frankly I don't feel like it conforms to the UDC for Rio number two in a couple of different ways and um I in addition this could conform to it if it were configured differently if the buildings were designed differently if the site was approached differently but um barring that I could not support um the I can't support the project okay and if I may it it does oh I'm so sorry um other commissioners comment sir I was wanted to make a motion but um well I'm asking for comments right now do you okay well comments right I I agree with Commissioner Savino uh this is probably one of the clearest opportunities to um look at it as a finished product project in which case it's incumbent on the design to address the the considerations here so not so much about well what what could it be in the future but what it's doing now just imagining that it stays the way that it is for the rest of eternity it has no trees all of those things that are clearly only intended to maximize a particular objective um are not compromising with uh what this this large open piece of property really really would require if it was a house it'd have to adhere to its landscape and and the commercial application has the same uh I don't think it's just a matter of whether or not you have surround but actually the landscape of the environment there that uh that makes it not just look like we're trying to do as little as possible in in in and being able and willing to sacrifice it that it just becomes this heat sink.

It's more could be done.

Thank you.

Can I respond at all or um I'll give you an opportunity, ma'am.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Oh, if I may, so um, yes, this is a smaller project for the def for the area, but it's what it is now.

So it's improving what currently is.

We are adding trees and some buildings for the people.

If this isn't done, then it'll stay what it is now, unfortunately.

Ideally, this these aren't huge structures of something that's going to stay for the next 10 years.

It's something smaller.

Um, to get to that stage of something in the future.

Umfortunately, it can't be done right now.

Um in an ideal world that would be perfect.

So that's why this is being planned for what it the potential it has now for for the owner.

And um, of course, that's outside of our hands, but um that's why this is um even as an architect, of course, I would prefer to see this awesome building there, but with what we have, I think it's better having some extra trees and some extra um buildings for what currently is right now, and and it'll be used more than sitting vacant for the next few years.

Um, but I agree that it would be in the future, so it's it's an amazing site that has potential in the future to be something more.

So that's why these small buildings are something that won't be there for the next 20 years.

But I just wanted to state that.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate your comment.

Um, you have something?

Mr.

Chair.

Would you uh Mr.

Chair?

The item was neither I it's continued.

Well and that's why I want to make a motion.

Make another motion.

Well, I was gonna ask the applicant if uh based on the comments today, such as the uh location of building one uh rather than on the prominent street on the alley side uh additional landscaping uh from what I hear, those are some big concerns from the commission today.

Uh would you be willing to go back to your owner, discuss those possible options, and maybe meet with us in another DRC.

Unfortunately, I did discuss this with him prior to this.

Um, he does want to stay with this layout.

Um there is plan of doing additional landscape that's not required by code.

Right now he wants to show what's required by code, um, which is showing that.

And um after looking at the cost of buildings elsewhere and electrical utilities, um, there's just unfortunately no ways of moving those.

Um so I I've already discussed this prior to today to see if there was some leeway.

And Mr.

Chair, but I just in the context of well and there's a rendering.

I don't know if y'all saw it.

Well, according to where we are right now, so since we're we're discussing that there we we need to actually have a motion.

Um, if you want to provide the emotion for us and we can move forward, yeah.

Yes, sir.

Although the motion could that in motion could be the motion.

Well, I guess it can't, right?

Because it was a tie.

But the the thing that that is strikes me in this conversation that would that would I it would inform a motion because if I make a motion to continue, the applicant just said that the owner's not interested in continuing.

We're not looking for that.

I mean, I would say that if I'm motion, well, we're I mean that's what we're talking about.

So I mean, but I know you're kind of getting into this question right now, but right now we just need a motion.

So um well, let me make a motion to continue and give the applicant the up just that extra time, and if the applicant chooses to do nothing, it'll just die.

Is that productive?

It it is because see, I think one of the things that the applicant hasn't taken into consideration is that they're they've presented a vision of something, and perhaps in that vision, what they're showing is appropriate, but there is no uh uh further development than what we've seen.

So if they have accessory buildings or they have main buildings that all of a sudden bingo, the generator makes sense and the restrooms make sense.

Well, a continuance would give them the opportunity to go back to the drawing table and bring us the whole context of what it is, just like a sign master plan.

In this case, we're in a tie, we're gonna keep going in ties, and it seems that the project would die.

So the real opportunity here is to go back to the client, shake the tree a little bit.

If nothing comes down, well, they know what they're up against.

Gotcha.

So um place that in form of a motion and then we'll see if it has a second.

So Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to continue this until the next available meeting uh for us to consider uh a motion.

Would that be the next earliest possible?

Yes, sir, the next earnings possible meeting.

So our next meeting would be 14 days from now, so 14 days from now.

Yeah, I'll just clarify that'll be May 20th, and we will need action on May 20th.

Uh to remain within our UDC timers.

And my apologies, um, but I'm so sorry.

Um, so um, can you make sure that's in your motion?

So um be continued until the continue until the next available meeting 14 days from now on the 20th uh 20th of May.

20th of May.

Thank you, sir.

Second.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and properly second.

Now ready for discussion.

Do you have anything to answer?

Commissioner Fetzer.

No.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Group.

Well, maybe you can go down the line.

Um, I'm sorry, Commissioner Fetzer.

You said most of this commission was not in agreement, and I since we had two spits votes, I don't agree with that comment.

Um, it seems like half of the commission, you know, would be okay with it.

This is I, and it's not about the project, it's not about being simple.

Oh, what's the further development?

You're asking the owner to create a huge project.

That's not what they're asking us today.

Um if landscaping is really an issue, then let's add a stipulation of increased landscape more trees, but right now we're looking at a concrete lot the same thing.

We're looking at parking across the street.

We're looking at parking pot, which is also a concrete lot.

I mean, chances are we could actually get so why have we approved concrete parking lots across the street and and then across the alley?

And the applicant has justified why and a little bit further up, we have a huge antenna and a Google utility something that has a plastic fence around it.

We were never even, you know, kicky about that.

We have uh exits and entrances for garages, at least are putting landscape on mule, which we don't really have on you continuously down, nor on Broadway.

Uh so I mean like I just I I'm fine with the motion as it is right now, but I think it's a waste of time for the applicant.

We're gonna go down the same road.

If the applicant is telling you that this is what they want, then I mean like I landscaping if somebody agreed with like let's add stipulations or something.

So Commissioner Group, um I I heard you mentioned that you're fine with the motion, but if we you know add the stipulation, so would you like to do a substitute motion um for the motion that's on the floor?

I'll make a substitute motion, okay.

Okay, Commissioner.

I'm putting move for approval with staff stipulations and the additional stipulation for additional landscaping, including trees, uh and relocation of building one to the west side of the site against the alley.

Second, it's been moved and properly second.

Further discussion, um, Commissioner Um Group.

Okay, so the whole reason why it's there, it's because of utilities.

So you're asking the applicant something that it's not possible for the project.

Well, the building one is the one on Newell.

And it is sir, the power is coming from the generator which is on Broadway.

I mean the transformer that's on Broadway.

Uh if the building is moved to the west side of the property, it may just be, I don't know if it's any longer the service line from the transformer going to the south is going to the west.

Um, so I'm not sure that there is a utility issue by moving the building one to the west side of the property.

This is not our duty to even, you know, make sure that it's past our preview, and I think the applicant we have to believe what the applicant is saying, and the applicant said it was not possible in the first meeting two weeks ago.

I believe that was in terms of building two, which is the restroom and the transformer.

Yes, but both have been placed per utility.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Yes, and the reason and the reason the reason I propose to relocate this building, this service building to the West property line off of an alley, is to uh be more in keeping with the UDC and how location of uh structures on the sites is uh uh phrased.

And this is a utility building, and I think off of a utility uh alley is more appropriate than being on a Newell Avenue.

I understand the relationship of building two, the restroom, and the transformer uh off of Broadway because that's where service is coming from, but I believe uh building one could be relocated to the west and not impact the the uh utilities, Mr.

Chair.

I have a comment one moment, please, sir.

Mr.

Group.

Um, I mean, at least it's a motion that move something uh to staff.

Just real quick.

So would they be able to build building two without building building one?

Like, for example, like with this motion.

Would they be able to at least start developing that part?

Um, I don't know if I guess if they pull two different building permits, they might be possible to construct building two building one.

Um I'll try to answer that typically um staff tries to work with an applicant to see within the approval what they can't get a permit for, uh, but a lot of the times it's proactive to have all the stipulations met prior to staff issuing a certificate of appropriateness.

Uh so sometimes you see in our recommendations, excuse me.

You'll see in our recommendations where we'll have a stipulation that says the applicant must provide this prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

So if the commission saw fit, you can include that in the motion that this information be provided prior to a certificate of appropriateness, or you can include in the motion for staff to work with the applicant to issue permits when appropriate for building number two for site work, etc.

Now, some of that site work's probably going to be tied to the specific location of building one, but I think you could craft in a motion and tell staff what you find to be appropriate, and Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead, sir.

If I may uh uh accessory to that, that it would ask the maker of the motion if he would add specificity to the landscape that that the tree be the 30% increase at the interior of the site.

That I don't think I think that would limit the uh the development of the site too much and put too much of a restriction on the the property owner.

I think there are uh other ways to increase the landscaping around the perimeter, uh which leaves the interior free for uh the owner uh to develop or propose development.

Um I think uh depending on what their activities are, uh they may come in with shade structures or umbrellas or whatever to provide shade, which is uh hopefully what they're gonna provide.

But I think uh along Broadway and uh Newell around the perimeter of the site, I think uh landscaping additional trees uh would be uh what I'm considering in my motion.

Understood.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Chair, I believe the motion as it's currently worded, allows ample time in that continuance to have this kind of discussion into details on how to make this happen rather than do it here.

So you could request a DRC in order to gather everybody to have to further this discussion.

Mr.

Chair, can I talk?

Um, I'll allow you to make one comment before we go into our vote.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Okay, just really quick on on the building one um being situated where it's at, it's because of the um it also has connection to um the seasonal ice rink, and then for the potential deals that could happen with the other owners.

I know that's potential, but um that just kills off that connection that would happen with the lots in front of it that would create more um more development.

I I showed you uh a few concepts last time.

I know it's all concepts, but that would completely kill that potential.

Um lastly, I mean I don't know what happens with the half and half, um, but the owner said if if this I think he would be accommodated to the landscape um being on the perimeter is the same as we showed the the rendering because that is something that they want, it was just showing the bare minimum per code, but I I think he would be open to that.

But if it's something regarding the building, he said then go ahead and like the denial versus key postponing it.

Um I don't think he'll shift in that direction.

Um so I don't think it would be productive if we try to change that later on.

Interested.

Thank you for your comment, ma'am.

Um, did you want to add with something else?

Um Mr.

Chair, I was just gonna respond to your comment.

If we continue with this motion, if we do have a continuation, that's fine.

You can withdraw the application and return to the drawing board without a denial.

Okay, but the motion we're voting on is a substitute motion.

That is correct.

So we're voting on the substitute motion.

All right, may I have a roll call please on the substitute motion?

Savino, aye.

Velasquez.

I Galloway.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata.

Nay.

Group.

Aye.

Did I so?

Aye.

Holland.

Nay.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

What does that mean?

So you always work with staff.

Um well the sub-to motion pass.

So um that's what we'll be working with.

So um staff will get with you and we'll continue on for that.

So we have our next um, well, we want to come to the next one now, so you're good.

The seven.

No, no.

We're good, ma'am.

You're good.

Did you have any other questions for it?

Yeah, so it's not a denial or approval, it's a um till next time.

No, it's uh essentially the motion was to relocate building one along the alley to include additional landscaping to include trees.

So if the owner says no, which he already told me it's a denial, no, we we approved um our motion here.

So um you can go back to the owner and say this is what um we're requiring to be done, and they choose not to, then um OHB will help you with the next steps there.

Oh, yeah, he already told me he wouldn't move the buildings.

You'll have a few options for recourse.

So I would say work with OHB on that until it'll be good to go.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate you.

Thank you very much.

Item number seven, please.

Um, we have applicant George Ramirez here to answer any of your questions.

I don't want to start please um introduce your software of record.

Yes, I'm George Remitas with immersion outfitters.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Our question for um for you, Mr.

Ramirez.

Um, you're asking to requ you're requesting a demolition of the barn on your property.

Deconstruction.

You're deconstruct.

Well, to make it basically go away, you will not be rebuilding it.

We will not be rebuilding that particular building.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, can you tell me why you're requesting the demolition?

Yes.

So um, of course, right now, the way it stands, that building has been falling.

Um it it's we had several bids on to replace and build it, rebuild it.

Um technically, if we rebuilt it, doesn't have much use for our ministry.

Um it is against the fence line, and again, um it was deemed one of the medium level buildings on that property.

All of the high uh buildings, of course, the the original homestead main house, we have uh and the roots that are we have taken care of all of those.

Um we've been awarded some grants as well uh from historic preservation for that, but this big building um was one that uh we saw that hey, because we were in here I think last month and got another project to uh deconstruct uh a smaller barn that was in front of it, and again it was low level, uh part of it had already fallen.

We wanted to do this as well since we were doing all of the work, but um, our estimate was about a hundred hundred thousand dollars to rebuild that building.

Well, yeah, I did see that, and I was going to ask you about that.

Um it looks like it's a reconstruction cost, right?

128,000 to rebuild it, yes.

To rebuild it.

Did you ask your contractor to look at merely um repairing, repairing and making modifications rather than a complete?

We did, and his suggestion would be to completely rebuild it because the inside all of those uh inside wood, all of the um what are they called?

The four corners of it are rotted, they're very well rotted.

The only part that is salvageable and again is something that we will do is the uh purlines that are cedar.

We will reconstruct and keep absolutely rebuilding.

Salvage all of that.

And we've done that in the past with the other projects.

A lot of the material we repurposed inside our building for the ceiling, which was the original roof to the homestead.

Um, and again, so uh that is our plan to do that.

It's just with us having to rebuild that whole thing, we just didn't see that you know, um staff refers to in the review a preservation plan from 2003.

Is that your property applicant?

No, that was a study um done by the office.

Is that available somewhere online or as part of the explorer map as a way to learn about the property?

Uh no, I don't believe it's available for at the moment it's not available for public view.

It was found within our files.

Okay, because I was just gonna suggest making these documents available, especially these uh historic ranches and farms would be really really helpful because I know we're losing so much of the.

Yeah, and along that lines, we did work with Sue Ann Pemberton, and at the time Sue Ann was working with UTSA.

UTSA's grad they had a graduate class come out.

Okay, document all our buildings, they wrote a book on it, and we actually handed them the original deed to procure.

Okay, and so you know we have those things.

We've taken as many steps as we can to make sure that that historic uh aspect of it in history is is saved for people and and again the book is in their history department.

Okay, absolutely.

Yeah, this is really important because again, as these buildings begin to fail.

Right, you know, even even though this one hasn't completely failed, it's it's serving a purpose because it's still housing vehicles.

Yeah, those have been since moved just because that thing is leaning.

Our last storm, we've lost more of that roof, we've raced it as much as we can.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Other questions for this up again?

I'll make a motion.

Please, sir.

Uh move for approval with staff stipulations, second.

It's been moved in properly second further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please.

Savino, aye.

The last guess?

I.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Davias all.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Item number 10, please.

Commissioners.

Item number 10, HDRC case number 2026 114, 731 North Palmetto.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct two two-story single-family residential structures on the vacant lot at 731 North Palmetto, located within the Dignity Hill Historic District.

This lot is located at the corner of North Palmetto and Burnett.

One structure will be oriented towards Burnett, while the other will be looked located, excuse me, oriented toward North Palmetto.

Staff does not recommend approval at this time based on findings A through Y.

Staff recommends the applicant address the following items prior to receiving a recommendation for approval of approval from OHP staff.

Commissioners, instead of reading everything into the motion now, uh it may be easier if we read these one by one, and then I'll pull up the applicant's updated documents to address those individually instead of reading it now and then reading it later.

So uh the applicants here in person, uh Octavio.

And commissioners, what I'll do is I will pull up a combined updated file that the applicant has submitted, um, and then we will address those one by one.

Uh bear with me one second though.

All right, um, we'll start off with number one.

Um both of you feel free to comment on what you've updated or what your thought is behind that, and we'll go through these uh one by one.

So Ed hold on one second.

So since we're going to be doing it this way, I will rather for each of you to introduce yourself into the record first, and then that way when we go back and forth, we're fine.

So, yes, sir.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Octavia Montes.

My name is Alex Schmartzman.

Step up to the mic, please, sir.

Sir, my name is Alex Schmartzmann and the developer, and he's the architect.

Thank you.

Okay, good, Ed.

All right, thank you.

Uh number one that the front setback of the structure proposed to front Burnett be increased to be greater than the adjacent historic structure setback, which is 1122 Burnett, is noted in finding C.

Here is an updated site plan that the applicants proposed.

Uh Octavio or Alex, would you like to comment on what you've changed?

Yes.

Uh we're a little bit tight with regard to setbacks.

However, we're going to move forward with pushing the house behind back, and we're going to try to request a variance for whatever uh we're going over the the rear setback on that house.

Therefore, we comply with with what the commission requested.

All right, stipulation number two that the overall massing that is in reference to the width of the proposed Burnett structure be reduced to be consistent with front facade widths found historically within the district and on this block on Burnett is noted in findings F and I.

I will pull up the updated so uh the structure on the right hand side is the structure that this is in reference to this front's Burnett.

Uh Octavio, please.

Yes, sir.

We were a little bit over 50 feet.

I believe 53 and a half, something of that kind.

We reduced it to 50 feet.

And um also with regard to the massive the amount of construction, we're also at 40 percent of the lot now.

Okay, commissioners on the screen now is the structure that staff reviewed for reference.

And now on the screen is the updated structure.

Uh stipulation number three um that a street elevation of both Burnett and North Palmetto streets be submitted to confirm that the proposed heights are appropriate is noted in finding I.

Um I'm not for sure, Octavio, if you have uh street elevation in here, uh, but we can continue on.

There are more uh stipulations that we'll talk about.

Uh number four, that the applicant submits an updated site plan noting building a lot ratios and overall setbacks and relationship with the existing structures on both blocks is noted in findings E and N.

Um here's the updated site plan.

Uh, and I believe there are calculations here.

Uh yes, so 42% of the total lot coverage, and Mr.

Chair.

Yes, excuse me for interrupting, but um this is typically not the way we review late documents.

I haven't had a chance to review these, and I don't think any of the commissioners have.

For 12 stipulations.

I would recommend or suggest another method so that we could review these more thoughtfully.

I think it would benefit the applicant as well as the commissioner and the public who has not had access to these as well.

So is so for Ed, so with this um, so what Commissioner Sabina suggested here.

Um is there another way we can do this or are you suggesting that if we're going to continue alone as method, maybe we um maybe possibly look at a continuance to be able to do that.

I would suggest uh probably a DRC where they could really explain these and um show us the documents.

I would like to take the applicant the opportunity to finish the presentation, and I think staff is helping to facilitate that.

It I I by no means think I I don't care if there's a motion for whatever today, but I think this is helpful for the applicant to hear from y'all so that he knows what to come back next week with.

Uh otherwise we'll next week he may learn something and then there's still not time.

So I've met with them a handful of times to work through these uh to try to get updates submitted to address staff's comments, and so I do think hearing from y'all uh at least on some of these, you can just say I don't think this is right, come back or provide you know more detail when we meet next week.

I do think that would be helpful.

But if if you want to make a motion now to refer to DRC, then um I can try to meet with them and give feedback on what I think you all may take direction on.

Go ahead and continue, sir.

Good and continue.

Okay.

Uh number five are staff standard specifications.

This is in regards to siding specifications, uh window specifications, et cetera.

Um, I believe the applicant has noted um that they plan to meet those.

Uh number six, uh, window product specifications.

Um the applicant, Octavio.

If you want to comment on uh what your idea is now for windows, the applicant has provided a wall section that staff finds generally will work.

Um, however, uh we do need uh info on windows.

Yeah, originally uh we're we're open to compliant with the depth of the inch dep, and we're open to either vinyl or or aluminum.

Uh if it has to be aluminum, that's something we would definitely do.

Uh we're studying the possibilities of either one.

Most likely it will be aluminum to to be honest on that.

Thank you.

Uh stipulation, I think we're on number seven.

Administration be added to both structures.

Um, so I'll pull up this this elevation.

This is the elevation that you would see from Burnett.

Uh, the one at the rear is the elevation that you would see from Lamar Street.

Um, on the screen now is what was previously submitted to staff, and in working with the applicant, noted some opportunities for additional windows to be added in ways that uh the facade can maybe be balanced.

Uh staff funds, if this is an improvement.

Commissioners, if you have any thoughts or comments.

Right.

Um stipulation eight was that both porch structures be redesigned.

Um so initially, um the structure that's proposed on Lamar, there were kind of two things going on with the porch.

Um, number one, the roof of the circulation element uh that's included in the porch massing featured a different pitch than the primary roof uh that also featured a different pitch than the primary porch roof.

Uh so three roof pitches uh for a structure that's working off of an L-frame uh plan or an L plan rather.

Uh that's a bit atypical.

The second was the the material included in the L the massing.

Uh the applicants changed that to a wood siding, uh is also matched the roof profile or the roof pitch of the circulation element.

Um previously the structure that's here that's highlighted had parking that was included in the footprint, the porch massing doubled as a carport off to the side.

The applicant has since shifted the porch massing to where it's more or less incorporated into the massing of the house, which is more consistent with what you would find in the district.

Uh stipulation nine, both structures feature walkways that lead from the four front porch to the sidewalk at the public right-of-way.

Uh, believe there's an updated site plan at the applicants, yes.

It's included to note that uh for those structures.

10 was that the parking be eliminated from being within the footprint of both structures?

You can see that there are car ports that are proposed for these now.

11 mechanical equipment be screened that's easy.

And then that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted by the applicant.

So commissioners, if there are any thoughts or comments on any of those, or if you don't feel like the applicant has adequately met any of these, then now may be the time to have them be able to work on that for a DRC next week.

Thank you.

And did I I heard you mention 11?

Did you mention 12 also?

Yes, detailed landscaping plan, yes.

Thank you.

Perfect.

All right.

Thank you.

So we'll go across now and ask for questions for the applicant.

I'll start with our virtual commissioners, so Commissioner Group, I'll start with you.

Yeah, uh, and I guess just to stop.

Thank you for presenting this.

We have done this before.

So I think they've accepted all stipulations, but two and seven is probably the ones that are mostly off the discussion.

Um I would say they've begun to address two.

The width has certainly been reduced of that house.

Um however, um, you know, there are a lot of things that are moving parts.

They've increased the setbacks, uh, they've reduced the width.

Um I think mainly at this point, Commissioners, uh, your discussion and way in uh would be helpful.

So it's we're talking about overall massing and finestrations on all facades.

Two and seven, everything else is pretty much accepted or completed.

I would generally say so.

I think having an overall street elevation would be helpful to confirm that the proposed heights um are consistent with those found within the district and on the block.

Um but certainly staff is going to um okay.

So staff two, three, and seven, okay.

Thank you.

Uh I think that was the question I had.

Is there a roof plan uh for like uh when we talked about uh finding eight?

That was your stipulation.

Was there mostly because of the roof or 100% because of the roof?

Mostly the roof.

Okay, thank you for clearing.

Thank you, Commissioner Gavada.

No questions right now, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Galloway.

No questions, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazooka.

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Travis.

So no questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, I do have questions.

Um, I do agree with the um uh concerns about the finestration.

You guys are on board with the quantity and placement of those, good.

Um, my concern is about the height as related to the neighboring buildings.

Okay, can we see uh Google Earth view of the lot and the surrounding structures, please?

On a street view, one sec.

I believe there are ways as you look further in the design to ameliorate some of the heights, especially as they occur next to neighboring buildings that are one story.

I could just say massing is way overdone for this particular lot in its setting, but I think if you had some further direction, be helpful, a DRC would be a place where we could talk about that.

Um this is a very modest part of the neighborhood single-story buildings, um, really small, doesn't mean you have to copy them at all, but those um design moves that you do make on the house should um begin to fit in.

So, um commissioner so you know did you have a question?

Sure.

Are are you um are you amenable to looking further into um uh altering design so that it fits the guidelines and better fits within its existing context I'm trying to I'm trying to understand what this will mean uh that it would probably it wouldn't be acceptable to have two stories or to somehow those two stories try to integrate into the one story houses next to them such as perhaps having uh the carport structure on your site so it could sort of integrate perhaps is that would you be open to definitely um looking at your site in a way that would that the building would better fit the existing context of the historic oh absolutely our best interest is to definitely comply and and make sure that we integrate to the area for sure.

So we'll go we'll look into it for sure.

Okay thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Holland.

No questions thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Blasquez.

Um no question sir um vice chair Petcher.

Yes um thank you for submitting these drawings and addressing staff's comments um I do think I agree with Commissioner Savino that uh possibly some further more in-depth discussions about scale and massing of the buildings um might be uh useful to the project and and for the development um and I would encourage a uh uh design review committee um and uh if there's no other questions I'll make a motion to send this to a DRC uh at the next available which would be next week and then um y'all potentially come back on in two weeks or second it's been moved in properly second for the discussion sir.

No I just think that uh some things have been brought up today such as I mean just flipping the the carport with the single family home on Burnett might be a possibility uh looking at some uh maybe lower ceiling heights on the second floor uh is there an opportunity to possibly use dormers or uh sort of looking at the second floor more as occupied attic space which there are some of those uh houses on the the block itself um trying to get the mass of these two structures down um I know it's originally it was one lot so it probably had a uh house facing palmetto and maybe a a smaller accessory unit on the back end uh but now that you've got two lots and you're trying to fit two houses in there I think getting the the scale of them and the massing of them uh is very important for the I appreciate those comments that's that's a great idea to to approach.

Thank you.

Um I'll be coming to you shortly Commissioner Group Commissioner Blasquez.

Yes sir uh I first I wanted to uh compliment uh Edward and the applicant in the way that they went through that that was a very uh um well smart way to go about it I I do understand why this would come back and so uh you know that the time that's necessary will only make it better I want to compliment you on the design I I tend to like it the way that it is so even if it takes a little is a little higher I wish it was a little longer that you hadn't shortened it so much but I understand that all the hard work that went into that was well well well taken uh but more importantly I think that's the first time that you went through that process Edward in in that way and it was it was it was good it was good so thank thanks for doing that thank you commissioners thank you commissioner group I'll I'll accept the motion I just wanted to make sure that our commissioners also like I I also wanted to say I think thank you uh I think staff work really is working really well with the applicant to come we don't expect every applicant to be you know very familiar with how to handle these type of revocation I would like to ask the applicant to if they are accepting you know most of these um stipulations to make sure that for the next meeting everything is updated.

I want to say like I was gonna maybe you know move for something conceptually approved so that we have less stipulations for the next time it comes back because the DRC is not going to remove any of these 12 stipulations.

There's just gonna be like staff will have comments that says you know, stipulation met or whatever, but it does not remove 12 stipulations, so we're not going further.

We are going further as in like I think the applicant is coming to something.

So I mean, I just the process, I think this process was well done, and I think that's how we need to accept it.

And then um, I don't know if it's a DRC or if it's just really updating this uh this plan to make sure that most of these stipulations are um uh showing that they have been met with formal drawings, and also just remind my applicants that we when we're in question mode, we're in question mode, and I think this was uh leading the applicant into something I think we needed more discussion uh ourselves to I would have discussed more the massing instead of just sending it to a DRC.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

Commissioner Guevara.

Comments sir, right now, no comments right now, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Galloway.

No comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazuka.

Thank you, Commissioner Travieso.

No comment at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner Sabino.

Uh I just want to say I appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to visiting during the DRC.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Holly.

No comments, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

We have a roll call, please.

Sabino.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Aye.

Group.

Hi.

Traviso.

Hi.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your time.

Um time is now 417.

Um, this um design review commission meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.