It is three o'clock, and I'd like to call the Historic and Design Review Commission to order.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'amin.

Present.

Savino?

Here.

Velasquez?

Here.

Galloway.

Mazuka.

Givada.

Here.

Group.

Traviaso?

Here.

Holland and Fetzer?

Here.

Gibbs.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

See all one of those presentes aquí la junta in su idioma.

For favor accompany me a la cabina de atrás a mi derecha.

I le damos el dispositivo para que usted continue escuchando.

Gracias.

Thank you.

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

I am acting chair 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 permit for properties in historic districts for landmarks on city property in the river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

In 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 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 is 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 obtained 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.

Do we have a motion for approval of the meeting minutes for June 3rd?

Mr.

Chair, I'm moved to approve second meeting minutes.

For June 3rd.

We have a motion and second.

May have a roll call, please.

Mammon.

Aye.

Seveno?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Travieso?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

If we can draw our attention to the screen, we have seven items on today's consent agenda.

You have three messages in your folders for reference from the public.

We don't have any in-person speakers on any items.

Okay.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any consent agenda items for discussion or questions?

Item one.

Yes, Commissioner Velasquez.

Commissioner Velazquez?

Sir, item one.

Item one?

Yes.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to pull item number two and number three.

All right.

Any other items to be pulled?

If not, I'll entertain a motion for the balance.

I'd like to make a motion to accept for approval items four, five, six, and seven, all with staff stipulations.

Second.

We have a motion, a second.

Any discussion?

May have a roll call, please.

Ma'aman.

Aye.

Civino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Javieso.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 2484 Gillingham Drive, 741 West Ashby Place, 112 Armor, and 231 Bryan Boulevard.

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.

I will go ahead and pull up item one, and the applicant is here.

Yeah, Commissioners.

Item one is um being requested by the city, and so I have development services staff here to answer any questions about the process, and then um Rachel drafted the staff recommendation report, which has a little bit of case history on the street name itself.

Well, good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name's oh my name's Clayton Wallace.

Uh I'm with development services.

Um we're gonna run through a little presentation with y'all real quick.

Um is this is this working?

Let's see.

Oh, yes, okay.

So um super high level.

This is the uh the map of the proposed street name change of uh Cesar Chavez Boulevard to Durango Boulevard.

This runs from Southwest 36th Street and Council District 6th all the way over to uh South Hackberry Street in Council District 2.

Um, this was submitted by a uh city council request of uh districts one, two, five, and six on April 13th.

Um requesting to rename Cesar Chavez Boulevard to Durango Boulevard, and again it's located in those districts.

So as a part of this process, we are gonna uh need to change 295 addresses that are associated with this request.

Um we've emailed or sent letters to 412 uh property owners along this stretch.

This is a mix of commercial, residential, um all types of uses.

There's also eight neighborhood associations that have been notified as a part of this.

It's uh Denver Heights, the downtown neighborhood, La Vaca, King William Historic West Side Residence, Prospect Hill, uh Las Palmas, and Los Hardinas were all notified.

Right now, uh-oh.

Can we go to the next one?

There we go.

So we started this process with two community listening sessions back in April.

Uh that was in April 8th in District 5 and 6, and then district uh on April 11th and districts 1 and 2.

And so that was the the initial part of this.

The um CCR was requested or submitted on uh April 13th.

We went to uh governance committee back on May 20th, where they recommended um that we start this process.

Um we have done our technical review where we notify all city agencies of the proposed change and haven't gotten any um opposition so far.

We've gotten some letters of support.

We are here asking for your recommendation today.

We're going to planning commission next week on June 24th, and then uh tentatively appearing at city council in August.

Uh right now our estimated costs are three hundred and five thousand dollars and two hundred three hundred and five thousand two hundred dollars.

Um that includes our application fee, notification fees to all those property owners, and then the rest all goes to signage, and that's a split between uh COSA signs along the actual street and then the big text dot signs on the highway.

So that's where all that money goes.

Um if y'all have any questions, we're we're happy to answer it, but that's that's where um we are in that process.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Mr.

Chair, do you have any uh um questions?

Just more wanted to set some side time aside for comment, so I'll turn it back over to you, sir.

Okay, any other questions?

Then we're uh look for a motion.

I'll do a motion, move to approve with staff stipulations.

Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Commissioner Velasquez?

Yes, sir.

Uh I um feel compelled to open the mic.

Uh I'm one of the individuals in the city that uh campaigned and played a central role in the change of the name of Durango to Cesar Chavez Boulevard.

And while I understand the sentiment and the concern, I think that's kind of uh leaves a foregone conclusions of uh subject matter.

I think that's important to just um make very clear that at the time that the name Cesar Chavez was uh proposed and and accepted for the rename of a street downtown, it it in actuality has very little to do with Cesar Chavez and more to do with a a different city that at the time still um uh look down quite a bit on the possibility that a Mexican American would have a name uh on a major street downtown.

Really really kind of an absurd idea that uh a community was gonna get one of the main streets named after a Mexican American.

Um it doesn't seem so weird today because of the successes of that community of uh from the labor community to the activist community that worked so hard to make uh uh um a dream come true, which really has more to do with the values that were associated, not just with Cesar Chavez, but the values that were associated with all of those leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.

Uh I wanted to make very clear that that you know, it isn't possible for an individual to come out of such an aggressive activist uh community as myself to dig a hole in the sand and stick my head in it and uh uh to uh find the the quickest solution possible when our main objective, and that goes uh uh also with respect to the the miles of uh of uh door-to-door uh uh petitioning, uh that the main objective was really to uplift the values that we believe that are important about the contributions of Mexican Americans, not only in San Antonio, but in the nation as a whole.

You may recall that that or may not know that the largest uh amount of uh of uh of uh uh of uh casualties from uh uh the Vietnam War in the United States is in the neighborhood of uh Edgewood because as Mexican Americans got drafted, uh their friends wanted to go and fight with them, and they would they would uh uh volunteer.

Uh one of the largest numbers of uh uh congressional medals of honor, Mexican Americans.

Uh uh civil rights uh successes.

One would say that Mexican Americans are brown in court because of the Garcia case of Gus Garcia, who who fought so hard uh to to make sure that the Mexican American community was given uh uh equal time and in the courts was also given extended time at the Supreme Court, which was uh something that was very very little done.

So I won't be supporting the motion, not so much because I don't understand why uh the name Cesar Chavez should be on the street, but because it really presents an opportunity for city councils, particularly those four city council members that I would put on notice here, that that it's incumbent on them to find a Mexican American that can take the name of Durango, that that battle is already won, that surely we were not uh like any other street, naming a street after a person, but so much more after the values that we hold so uh important to us here in the city of San Antonio.

And this presents a great opportunity for us to remember individuals like Hector P.

Garcia or Gus Garcia or Albert Peña or Margarita Juantes, plenty of leaders that that we can um uh say uh uh embody the values that were the reason why this community works so hard to to gain something that uh it felt was important for the youth of the city to look up to to be able to say there's a street named after someone, that they can do the history and and and find that um that importance in themselves and um uh but more importantly, I it's it's it's um incumbent on myself that I have to take responsibility for um uh much of of of the street name change and in that also continue that fight that uh if we were able to gain one street after someone that perhaps we thought uh was the embodiment of our values then for sure uh there are definitely are others and we have to remember that uh no one's changing the name of anything named after Thomas Jefferson who we know did much worse or or Andrew Jackson who uh was the head of the Indian Extermination Act as they call the Indian Removal Act and that um surely the the the the um the lesson that we're learning that we're learning should be a lesson that's learned across the board but but at the very least that this is an opportunity for us to grow not to look backwards but to actually look forward and use this as a moment for um the development.

Thank you sir for the time.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Chair yes to uh support the motion I did was uh based on review and what we're asked for today so staff finding C I think is where I find that staff has um come up with the reasoning within our purview of there's not mention of a past name but why the new name and I think that's our focus today and that's our preview so this is why I made the motion as it stands.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

I have a roll call please I want to say something um I have to agree with my committee member uh lasquez and uh it's clear that this has uh passed through um through a lot of vetting but I think it was rushed and I too agree that we've missed the boat in being able to select another person who is Mexican American I mean Durango is a city in in Mexico that's very different from Mexican American and um I agree with with um Gabriel's suggestion I just think we've missed the boat or the city admiss administration has missed the boat uh in an effort to make this a quick changeover I mean I just really got used to Cesar Chavez but it took me a long time I welcome the change back to Durango but I think we could have done better.

Thank you.

You have a roll call please ma'am aye Civino aye.

Velasquez nay muzuka aye aye group aye so aye Holland aye and Petzer aye motion carries thank you very much.

Item number two for this item give me one moment we've got um one individual in person and then a few online so give me a second Francisco I'm you should be able to um present and then let me know if there's anybody else that I'm not seeing that should be included as a panelist.

Okay can you hear me now yes yes I can wonderful okay yeah and then Aubrey should also be on the line of Marside.

So let's take questions from the commission and then if they want a full presentation then you can go through the slides.

Okay.

Yes Commissioner Savino uh yes thank you for um being here to answer questions I have oops I have a concern about let's see let me get the case up the review um staff is recommending approval of items one and two but they do have a stipulation they do have a concern on stipulation one that alternative materials be considered for circulation connector cladding um a staff has concerns regarding the block massing, et cetera, et cetera.

Alternatively, they also recommend uh change in materials to reduce the structure's perceived massing.

I've had a concern about the massing at that juncture for quite a long time.

And I agree with staff's uh concern there.

However, that is a large design element, a large volumetric element, and a lot of material.

They're suggesting a change in material.

Have you all considered what that might be and how that might be installed to meet staff's recommendations?

We did get those stipulations, and I think that was what comment uh too that we wanted to address prior to submitting our next uh permit set.

Um, you know, one of the things that I think for us was kind of keen with that material, its initial selection being a precast finish.

You know, we wanted to really develop the mix and really define really what that was because I think during our conceptual review was still very much a concept.

Um, and so we, you know, we did quite an extensive amount of work to get samples and really produce a mix that we felt was rich, but that also paid homage to the existing office building.

So I we know we do hear that the stipulation and that there's still some concerns about that.

Uh, we are considering um, you know, the possibility of changing it or adding some articulation to that, whether it's change uh material to like a metal panel, for example.

Um, we are a bit challenged uh because behind that wall we do have a really thick shear wall coming down uh to the ground level, it's also an eager stare.

Um so we just want to make sure that we're careful to uh just to make sure that we could select something that also makes you know sense.

Um so we are still weighing the options for the different materials that we want to do there, uh whether it's a combination of the precast with maybe a metal panel of some sort.

Um so that's something that we're gonna be defining and making sure that we change prior to our permit set.

Okay, and I assume also that that material would be applied to the upper penthouse area as it goes horizontally across the roof, and then along the west side on the river side as well, correct?

Yes, correct, yeah.

Okay, um, and then I have another question.

Um there's a letter in our package about the Hertzburg clock being immediately adjacent to your property line.

And I noticed in one of your drawings, you do call it out and say preserve the uh uh clock.

Um do you have any notation elsewhere throughout the package about uh preservation actions on that piece of equipment, whether it gets cordoned off, does it get covered?

Right.

So it should have been in our site plan, um, and might be page 22 here if I'm looking at that correctly.

Um the idea though was to basically just leave the clock as is.

We understand uh that it just went through a preservation effort to get it restored.

Um so the clock will stay where it's at.

Um there was a concern though with the plaque, um so just making sure that we could create a path uh for the new sitewalk and basically streetscape modifications there to make sure that we meet code.

Um so the clock will stay as is, and then the back was the only piece that may just like slightly move, and we're talking about maybe like a foot at most.

Okay, and so are you doing any protection mitigation for the sidewalk and the planters in the public right-of-way?

Uh we are pre we are proposing so the basically the trees that you see there on the south end, we're proposing that all of that basically stay or remain the same.

Um, our landscape architect though has proposed a larger planner just so that those trees could basically continue to grow um and be healthy in a bit in a healthier condition, basically, than we would do it today.

Okay, those are my qu my two main questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the commission?

Commissioner Grew.

I guess I have a question on that uh stipulation one, because they have not come up with any new uh ideas for this meeting, right?

So, when the applicant says they're still working on it, we keep it as a as a stipulation and then it's up to you to review it before they get final.

It just says that from conceptual has not been met.

So is it stupid unless the stipulation would be to bring that back to the commission.

It could be.

Um we had a conversation, and so uh the applicant opted to stay on consent because they felt like they could continue to look at options and work with staff.

And so I think if we got to a impasse and felt like there wasn't a material that was proposed to staff that kind of met the intent of that, we would bring it back here.

Okay.

So it's really not about the massing, it's just a perception of massing.

Right?

We're not we're not suggesting change.

I'm not suggesting that um the setback be increased, but we're asking that the material cladding be looked at to alleviate that concern.

Correct.

Thank you for the clarification.

Um you could also um add detail to stipulation that that material selection return here at a future date, and that's also an option.

But would they still be able to move forward with the project?

Because I'm sure there's zones and like all kinds of other yeah, we would be able to start the permitting process while that is kind of worked on.

Okay, okay.

Commissioner Mammon, any questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mazuka.

Commissioner Guevara, no questions right now, sir.

Commissioner Travieso.

If uh you may provide me additional information about the plans on the clock.

So the applicant to clarify what they're proposing for protection and preservation of the clock?

Exactly.

Thank you.

Yes, could you expand on that somewhat?

Uh yes, we we did meet with the conservation society on that individual piece.

Uh we understand that again that's gone through some repairs, and um basically the clock would just remain untouched.

So we're not planning to do anything with it.

Um the only thing that we were basically proposing was to just move the small plaque that's at the ground level piece.

Um, and then again, that was just to make sure that we can meet uh code requirements for the sidewalks.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland.

For clarity, forgive me if I missed this.

Are there any protectionary measures being taken to protect the clock?

So we can go from our end, I think the only thing we could do is just make sure that you know that it becomes basically untouched, and if we do need to do or propose or coordinate any type of barrier to help protect that, we could definitely do that.

Yeah, so if there's like an enclosure or something that we need, we could do that.

Yeah, so something we could do is you and just wrap the the clock itself and like apply it water just to make sure that it's protected, and that way you know when they're doing any other streets game modifications, they're not touching that.

Yeah, I'm not an expert in historic clock preservation, but I'm thinking something along lines of tree protection where you know there's something there, again, because it's you know an irreplaceable piece of history.

So um I would I would want I would ask that you guys have a have a protection plan in place, not unlike a tree protection plan.

Absolutely.

Okay, absolutely.

And that's something that we could definitely uh continue to coordinate that we have to just to make sure that it's protected because we don't want anything to happen to it, of course.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

No comments here.

Okay.

I do have a question uh regarding the site plan.

See that um on the west side of the plaza, y'all are removing some steps by the other building and putting in an accessible ramp down to a mid-level sidewalk, which parallels the river.

Uh was there ever any consideration to extend that accessible route all the way to the river walk?

Um I I believe that one of the requirements uh was for us to at least have that intermediate um as anything accessible for ADA reasons.

Um I don't recall though that it was basically a requirement to go all the way down to the river walk.

Yeah, yeah.

May not have been a requirement, but the fact that you're creating a new public uh development here, uh whether y'all had considered providing that access to and from the river, uh making it accessible, uh, the the other thing too that we were just being sensitive about um was also just that we're basically above all existing structure.

So a lot of the planters that you see there just west of that mezzanine, basically all of that from a structural standpoint will be common touch.

The only thing that we're doing there is just making sure that the landscaping and the lighting get updated, um and then it was also our belief that there was also an elevator nearby radiator access.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Do we have a motion?

I do have a question, one last question to that accessibility issue.

Um can you tell me um how close that elevator is to the ramp improvement that you are making?

For instance, somebody walking from the plaza onto the ramp finds out that they have nowhere else to go but down other stairs, they're going to back up.

How do they get to the closest elevator?

So we the only thing that I know of right now that pertains to being exterior are the steps.

Um so it's all basically stairs because we do have a few um elevators, but they're basically internal to our basement, and we're not really doing much with the basement right now.

Okay, but in the public realm, where's the closest elevator?

I believe that there's one just across um on Houston Street.

So that may require them to do or meander basically around our terraces, either in the dark ground, to bridge over to Houston Street and come down.

There is a public accessible elevator on the south side of Houston Street from this project, it's not on this property.

Okay, approximately, so that would be what a hundred two hundred foot distance.

It's at least a hundred feet, correct?

At least a hundred feet.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh would you be willing to include?

I don't know if you're uh submitting signage on this uh package, but include signage at that ramp that you're providing to let the people know that it does not take them to the river walk.

Yes, I don't see that that would be a concern.

Um we did submit a signage package along with all of our documentation, so if we do need to add that and look at a location for that, we could certainly add that.

Okay.

Because I know that can be a concern of accessibility is you send people one way and then they have to backtrack uh to get down to the riverwalk, which is where they really want to go.

Okay, Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion.

Yes, motion to approve uh with staff stipulations, do we have a second?

Second, discussion.

Um well, sir, I just wanna uh compliment them on such a complex solution.

Uh I I like the the um the riverside uh elevation uh that's all.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammon.

No comments, Commissioner Mazuka.

Commissioner Guevara, no questions right now, no comments.

Commissioner Travieso.

No comment.

Commissioner Group.

No comments.

Commissioner Holland, no comments, thank you.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Savino.

Uh, yes, I have a question for the motion maker whether he would be amenable to an amendment to his motion to include under stipulation number one that the um material and installation choice of said volume return to HDRC or turn to the commission.

Yes, sir.

You utilizing that language, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to add that to the motion.

Does the second concurrent?

Yes.

Okay.

And just to that comment, I you know, we discussed it here and felt like staff leaving staff the option to, you know, if it's fair enough that it doesn't have to come back, it wasn't consent.

Now we are making a stipulation, so it would have to come back, correct?

So the difference.

Yeah.

If I can just add, yes, for something so significant, so visible on the building.

I think um that more eyes and more consideration could be a good thing.

And the uh applicant does have an option to request a DRC if they want further uh commission comments before they come back for the final on that.

Um, you have a roll call, please.

Ma'am and make another Savino.

Velasquez.

I.

Group?

Hi.

Holland?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Agenda item number three.

Okay, this is 405 club.

Um Seth Wilcoxon, the applicant should be present.

Does he appear to be online?

The other name.

Uh Seth Wilcoxon is the only name I have.

No, I don't see anyone by that name.

Can staff answer questions?

I yes, I have a couple of questions.

I have one for the applicant and I have one for y'all too for staff.

Shall I shall I commence?

Um I question uh one of the questions was um I see that there was a COA already issued for this.

Um why is it coming to us?

We issued one um basically for temporary approval so that they could have it right away without having to wait for the commission.

Um, but the UDC does not allow for installation of a permanent long-term ramp on the front facade, and so it requires a public hearing.

So it's here to remain in place beyond temporary approval.

Okay, I see.

Um, because I figured if they're getting an administrative approval, they could just come back in a year or two and renew that.

Um, and then the question I had for the owner was to address the concerns that the neighborhood had.

Might there be a more appropriate location for that?

Do you have any insight on the location choice?

Sure.

I'm not entirely sure um what conversations had been had with the applicant in terms of um location.

Many times these requests do come to us with an immediate need um based on the the end user ultimately.

Um and so I think it does kind of find us to be in a tricky spot in terms of how is that conversation had, but I cannot speak personally to the conversation that was had with the applicant and the particular case manager of this request.

Okay, this is proposed because it was the most direct route between the driveway where they park and the entrance to the home.

Um, the per the Google map, the driveway goes all the way into the back of the property, and there's already another landing, another set of stairs.

So that's something that the um neighborhood is speaking to.

I just wanted to get that answer from the uh from the applicant.

So what they have now, they can install what they have, what they are what they've requested, correct?

But it just wouldn't be for a permanent solution.

Correct.

Okay.

So the emergency has been abated for right now.

It because they um have been granted approval to construct a ramp.

Yeah, cool.

Okay.

Well, yes, because I might I might just be a little confused, but now the materiality says it's aluminum.

So it's is like one of the what we see nowadays.

Yes.

So how does that qualify as a permanent?

Is it just a matter of time?

So yeah, it is a temporary ramp in terms of the type it is, right?

But they want to keep it for it's about the amount of time is the discussion.

And so they're wanting it for long-term use, and so that's why it's here at a public hearing.

We already approved administratively just temporary use because they needed it right away.

Um so the hearing is to remedy the time issue, right?

Right, right.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Chair, since the applicant's not here, can we postpone the item to next meeting?

Uh that's possible.

The uh review date goes until August 2nd.

Yeah, it's fine.

We're not going to make them remove it before the next hearing, so they'll be able to continue to use that while we have the discussion.

Sure.

So would you like to make that motion?

I move for this item to be moved to the next meeting.

We have a motion and second.

Um comments, Commissioner Mammon.

No comments.

Commissioner Mazuka.

No comment.

Commissioner Guevara.

No comment right now.

Commissioner Trelviaso.

No comments, sir.

Commissioner Groove?

No comments.

Commissioner Savino.

No comments.

Commissioner Holland.

No comments, thank you Commissioner Velasquez.

No, sir.

Okay.

Um, uh roll call, please.

Yes.

Quick clarification.

Who seconded the motion?

Okay, thank you.

I have my answer.

Mammon.

Aye.

Savina.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Trevioso.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Agenda item number eight.

Agenda item number eight on the historic and design review commission agenda.

Case number two oh two six-114-731 North Paul Meadow.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to number one, construct a two-story single-family residential structure on the vacant lot at 731 North Palmeadown.

This structure will be located on the western half of the lot and feature an orientation toward Burnett Street.

This structure is referred to as the Burnett structure in staff's findings.

Item number two, construct a two-story single family residential structure on the vacant lot at 731 North Paul Meadow.

This structure will be located at the eastern half of the lot and feature an orientation toward North Paul Meadow.

This structure is referred to as the North Palmadow structure in staff's findings.

Number one, staff does not recommend approval of item number one, the proposed new construction facing Burnett Street.

Staff recommends the following that the applicant propose a structure that features placement and massing to be consistent with the historic development pattern around, excuse me, found within the district.

Typically, a structure at this location would feature a reduced massing in comparison to the structure facing North Palmeadown to appear as an accessory structure or would feature an orientation and massing similar to other structures facing Burnett.

Should the commission approve the proposed design for the Burnett structure?

Staff recommends the following stipulations be included.

That the proposed windows adhere to the adopted standards for windows and new construction.

All square windows should feature divisions or be operable.

That the additional finestration to be added to the first level on the east facade, and that all mechanical equipment be screened from view from the public right of way.

Number two, staff recommends approval of item number two, the proposed new construction facing North Paul Meadow with the following stipulations that a portrailing detail be provided, that the proposed windows adhere to the standard um specifications for windows and new construction, that a tapering profile be incorporated into the front walkways and profile should it need to increase from four foot in width to meet the width of the porch steps, and again that all the quantum mechanical equipment be screened from the public right-of-way.

I'm sorry, good afternoon, Commissioner.

My name is Octavio Villamontes.

And um in the past few weeks we address uh most all the recommendations we've already discussed Palmetto.

I think I'm gonna concentrate on Burn it.

Um the basic problem with Burnett is the massing towards towards uh Burnett and disobeys to the fact that uh the way the the lot is configured does not allow us to uh orient the the house in a different way so that we can have uh frontage that's less than 50 feet.

We've already reduced it to 50 feet and we also changed the layout into an L shape so that we can absorb so that some of that massing uh we're also changing colors and materials to help with this um perception of of the massive uh of the property uh and adding to that we have uh trees that helps us uh screen uh some of the impact that this house may have.

Uh during this past few weeks we work many of the recommendations that were provided, such as uh raising the foundation uh 24 inches, and also in the burnet structure, we switched the carports so that we could create a buffer and somehow uh distance ourselves from the neighboring house, and I'm open for for questions with this regard.

Commissioner Servino.

Oh, um the one question I have is for staff.

Um you're approaching this as two separate lots, two separate items, house one and high house two, correct?

So they um stand independently.

So it is possible to um make a motion to one separate of the other.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions, well, sorry, yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um, when you say you've worked on it, but that's prior to staff reviewing, right?

So staff, you these are the plans that you have reviewed.

There's not been any changes, the stipulation stands after.

Um maybe the applicant can actually shed some light here as um, I mean, our steamed ad word is out.

We had we had some DRCs and so there's been some recommendations, and for the most part, you've incorporated all of those, and I think we're more successful on the front facing uh first structure.

Um staff still has concerns about the massing of the second, and so that's what's informing our recommendation here.

So you're talking about the second, which is facing Palmetto, or the second property facing Burnett.

That's Burnett, right?

Facing Burnett.

Which color is facing Burnett?

So and the uh not the blue one, the one that has the big white area.

But um, so to the applicant.

Um you you see the recommendations by staff.

Correct.

Do you have any comments or questions to those uh stipulations?

So in order to reduce the frontage of the house, because it was beyond the 50 feet, we were originally almost at 60 feet.

Uh we are gonna request a variance so that we can uh relocate the house, and that's what allows to reduce the front, and also we're redesigned the house.

We completely redesigned from the first to middle to a way that we could create that L shape and reduce the impression of the massive towards the street.

So we did uh in in the previous meetings uh respond to to the best that the lot allows us to uh and and and reduce the massive.

Okay, so but the other stipulations are like railing, porch railing, windows, additional finestrations.

Oh, we've already covered all of that, yes.

We have responded to all of those.

Well, not really in what's presented today.

I'm sorry, yes, not in what's presented today.

The railing, porch railings and um the windows.

We have the latest set of plans here that all of that should be addressed windows have been addressed we submitted uh the spec sheets uh so I think some of the things about the windows is uh the type of windows you have like these square windows and you we also asked in one of the you want to show the picture you had you want additional finestrations on no there's another facade right on the white one right yes on the east side of the white house and then those square windows are normally not something that is in the windows.

Okay and then then my last question is uh there was two DRCs and then I would like to hear from my commissioners on you know compared to DRC and then now what we see I'll be moving forward commissioner um let's see regarding materials there I think one of the earlier DRCs we had some material changes and requests those have been uh uh responded to uh most of the windows um I guess a couple of the enduring questions that we've had through all of the DRCs did address the massing the height some of the roof orientations as well as the windows would that apply to all four or specifically to the Burnett facing property that was um for all of them um for the most part um and I feel like uh maybe um commissioner Fetzer can explain about the talk more about the palmetto building I've been more concerned about the transition of the new into the historic street face on Burnett so that's what I've been focusing on and so the Burnett has not changed in its massing we did um ask them to try moving the carport over to the west to help ameliorate that height difference but it in my observation it it affects it mil minimally Mr Chair just for reference for the conversation that fellow commissioners are having the blue house shows two different sites one with two trees and one that's practically on the street which one are we saying is the one that y'all are talking about the the one is facing Pometo and the other one's facing Burnett right but but one of them has two versions the version up there and the version in our package but has a yard with two trees there's a plan so in this photo the one on the or the can you go back Caitlin the image on this on the bottom is that the one are those existing trees we have existing trees correct and then so on the upper one you took the trees out so that we could see the houses exactly.

Okay.

So when uh early DRC there was some um discussion about the roof line that on the house on the corner uh the roof line over the stairwell which has the the natural wood siding uh there was some issues with how that roof pitch met up with the main roof there was also discussion about uh dropping the ridge height by lowering the plate height of the second floor um which they have done in both buildings um but then that's sort of uh somewhat negated by raising the foundation height but uh we did get the the plate height on the second floor down um to minimize that other uh there has been concern on the the burnett house and I would agree with staff stipulations that definitely windows on the that white wall of the Burnett house needs to be added.

Um the fact that the the White House is not painted all the same color uh was an effort to uh sort of break up the the massing and to look more like two structures as opposed to one uh one big wall facing Burnett.

I don't have any further questions, and I'll take a stab at a motion if there's no further questions.

Thank you.

Let's go through questions.

Commissioner Mammon.

No questions, Chair.

Commissioner Mazuka.

No questions.

Commissioner Guevara.

No questions right now, sir.

Questions from this Commissioner Trevioso.

No questions?

Commissioner Savino.

No further questions.

Commissioner Holland.

No questions.

Commissioner Velasquez.

No, sir.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Grew, you'd like to craft a motion.

Yeah, I'll just do a uh conceptual approval of item one and two with all staff stipulations.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second uh discussion.

If I may just clarify uh the reasoning.

So I do believe that I can you know we're willing to entertain the idea of having one of the properties uh face Burnett, right?

Um, but I do believe also that there is some work to do around still um with the stipulations that staff has been um added and then the massing.

Um and I think that it's important that's why I wanted to go in discussion because I think it's important that you understand that there's been DRCs.

I'm not s asking for another DRC.

I'm just asking for if you come back for final, that has to be a very clear distinction of what was presented today, and then take into consideration the stipulations and then come back.

So I think the windows is one important thing.

So those and and if you want to come back with a presentation showing, you know, other types of windows or come with staff, but the square windows in a prominent, it's a corner lot, which is difficult, right?

So it's very visible, it's very prominent.

So the square windows being on that what we see on the corner right here on the windows, the top floor of that blue structure.

You have square windows on one side, square windows on the other side.

I mean, we've we've approved square windows maybe in the back or less visible, you know, more in the bathroom, but here we're we're talking about the front facade, really even though it's second story.

And the white wall that you see on the Burnett facing the house, it's the same thing, right?

We need some more historic windows.

And if we look at page where you see kind of the front go to page, so more than window specification materials is really looking at the guidelines of what we uh we require.

Keep going.

There's one that has the designs, yeah.

But let's look at page 16.

I guess there you can see on the property to the right, right?

The white wall when we call the white house or the one first thing we're in.

I think that's where you can really see where there's missing these historic elements and windows, and you might justify there's bathrooms and kitchens, but I think that's where we want to see those double-hung windows that match the the other side of the house, um, even on the front.

Uh the carport, there's no comments on the carports from staff.

I just even would say that the applicant remove it uh totally and then when you sell it, whoever's the owner will figure out where to park and shade.

I just don't want to create a visual that it looks like there's a you know, garage or something that could potentially be approved later.

I don't think we we don't see that in that neighborhood.

Um I think the porch railing needs some work.

Uh just adding, you know, a metal porch railing.

I think you need to look at what's in the neighborhood, even the two properties next door, have a little bit more details on the porch railing.

Um, and I think on the massing, can you maybe just why is the Burnett roof higher than the Palmetto roof?

Is it the house?

Or is it because the street goes up?

No, it is because the pitch is higher.

So I think that's also kind of maybe what's making the Palmetto house.

I don't know if it's the roof bridge and I'm asking to redesign, I'm not asking to redesign.

I'm just is there a way that we visualize can just make it look, you know, smaller.

And that's why it's conceptual for me in this motion.

But I do believe there's a there's some work to do before we get to final um was there the stipulations I think I I think I talked about all the stipulations.

I'll come back.

Okay.

So uh we'll go through for comments.

Commissioner Mman.

No comments, Chair.

No comment.

Commissioner Mazooka.

No comments.

Commissioner Guevara.

No comments, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Travieso.

No comments at this time.

Commissioner Savino.

Um yes I do have some comments.

Um a couple of requests um as you work further on this um you can come back to a DRC.

Just know that.

Whether it's requested or required, that's a uh a different story, but know that you are always welcome to come back to DRC um for feedback.

Um one comment on sheet 103 you show a tool that's really helpful and that is a street elevation but I would suggest that you um while working on the package update the new construction your new construction in terms of height relative to the bungalows next door I truly think that the elevations you've dropped in there are not quite right.

They look four to eight feet too short relative to the bungalows bungalows have probably a 10 foot ceiling.

The other thing is really consider what your um I'd like for you to really consider what you're doing with the the Burnett house these are in some respects quite beautiful houses the materials and the forms that you've composed uh for Palmetto are are great or fine.

But in order to create a massing not just the perception of a massing because one day somebody will paint the other volume the same color um will really mean to to reduce the building intensity the building size the floor plans in your programs are quite generous.

Three and three three bedrooms three and a half baths plus lots of open space and public space that's very very very generous.

So you may want to consider your program how it affects the true massing and the true size of the building and I would really appreciate another visit through a DRC.

Commissioner Holland no comments thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez well Mr Chair just to just to register for you know as different processes that we go through that they have uh uh amendments to the UDC create the these small lots that you can do anything on where you know there's been a progressive uh allowance to the owner to do more than what would look appropriate to an educated eye but but then it gives the applicant the opportunity to to figure whatever genius they have to make uh two things fit on a lot that typically would have only had one thing in a garage uh so that the code finds this appropriate is it's always strange to me uh but it does lead to uh you know at least at some level a question as to whether or not that second house which is the house in the middle whether or not that could have been a one story house.

I don't know what that does to what the business plan is, but just with respect to what what one could see is how the pattern the the how how the the streetscape pattern gradually grows to what becomes in this corner um uh um taller house than the rest of the the environment.

I just I just don't know with um with what is being was what what's allowed through the UDC whether it's appropriate to ask you whether or not it could be a single story house.

Um but I think most definitely something to consider there is something odd to me about the scale, but at the same time it's a statement in its own.

You're I could say you're making your own architectural statement, you're not trying to be the rest of the neighborhood, yet it it it it falls into place, it is it is it's not a ranch environment, and the houses have a tendency to look a little farmhouse ish, you know, so it it's not just the scale, it's also the style, but I but I but I mean I I appreciate that.

Um but just something to consider.

I don't I don't know, you know, I don't want to say in any way, shape or form I support what you're doing, but you know, uh back to the drawing board moment for that house that's in the middle, but just whether or not you would consider whether there's a single story, maybe maybe a grander single story that's lesser than a double story, um, uh food for thought because I I support it the way that it is.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And then my comments um echo what the rest of the commission has has stated, and uh especially what commissioner Savino said is look at the Burnett House and the program and square footage that you're providing in that structure.

Um again, I don't know your business plan and and all that, but there are some very generous size rooms in that structure, and there may be some opportunities to scale that down, which would help reduce the mass, which helps it uh be more compatible with uh the streetscape on Burnett, and um want to thank you for coming to DRCs and uh working with the commission and staff, and I know um you're uh still willing to work with us because um uh and I apologize for that.

So I look forward to seeing how you uh proceed.

And if you do come back for a DRC, um you might consider instead of spending uh a lot of time with the CAD drawings in the the renderings and that uh come with some sketches some simpler drawings that uh we could talk about uh the big things the massing generally.

Perfect, thank you.

Um I guess we'll have a roll call, please.

Miami.

I Sabino, I'll ask us.

Izuka?

Aye, Givata.

I group, aye, Travieso.

Aye, Holland.

Aye, and Fetzer, hi motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That was the last case.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.