Historic and design review commission.

Homer, could we test your microphone?

Thank you.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and Savino here.

Velasquez.

Here.

Galloway Mazuka.

Here.

Givata.

Here.

Group.

Here.

Javieso.

Here.

Holland.

Davis.

Here.

And Fetzer.

Here.

We have a quorum.

May we have translation services, please.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes at all presentes.

Y alguno quiere seguir la reunion in su idioma.

Pase conmigo.

A mi derecha atrás.

In la cabina.

Les damos el dispositivo para que escuchen la Junta in Espanol.

Gracias.

Thank you.

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

I'm 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 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 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 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.

Um I don't have any announcements other than city offices will be closed this Friday, July 3rd for observation of the July 4th holiday.

So please plan accordingly for permits and whatnot.

You can contact 311 if you need immediate assistance from city services.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Specifically with photos of the overall site and setting.

When there are changes that are going to occur to a structure, understanding the elements on all sides of that building are crucial to when our architectural review committee meets to review this.

If we're requiring it for an administrative approval, we should hold them to the same standard for when it comes before you or CTAB.

And so I'm just asking for that.

We've seen it inconsistent, and at times it raises questions and concerns because we can't trespass, but it also gives us a better understanding of why there are intentions to make certain changes.

So I just have that request.

Thank you for consideration of my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um at this time we can draw our attention to the screen.

Um we have five items on the consent agenda.

You have letters.

Meeting minutes.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, meeting minutes from June 17th.

From June 17th.

Do we have a motion?

I motion to accept the meeting minutes from June 17th.

Second.

Motion is second.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Do you have Yeso?

Aye.

Davis.

Epstein.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So as mentioned, we have five items on the consent agenda today.

You do have letters in your packets for two of those items.

And then we have a speaker for item number four, Bianca Maldonado.

Good afternoon, Bianca Maldonado, Monichello Park, P.O.

Box 100 315 78201.

MPNA requested the landmark designation of the existing one half of the Parkmore building at 1909 Fredericksburg Road when it faced demolition in 2007 and 2008.

We celebrate its successful restoration and operations today as a dance studio.

We support the efforts of Ms.

Rios' development at 1901 Fredericksburg Road to restore the missing half of the Park Moor building and are supportive of staff's recommendations one through five.

We respectfully ask for the inclusion of a sixth stipulation that the finestration pattern and articulation be reevaluated on the Donaldson Avenue side.

It's labeled the right side elevation.

It is the eastern side of the building as the applicant works towards final approval.

We make this request so that the openings, their size, proportion, and patterns on this elevation relates to the historic structure.

We look forward to seeing this addition rise to the same quality and craftsmanship as 1909 Fredericksburg Road.

We wish the applicant the best, and we have worked with the applicant in this redevelopment.

So we are wholeheartedly supportive of this initiative.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any of the consent agenda items for discussion?

Mr.

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

Any other cases to be pulled?

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

Mr.

Chair, I motion to accept items one, three, four, and five, all with staff stipulations for approval.

Second.

Motion is second.

Any discussion?

We have a roll call, please.

Seven.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

So.

Aye.

Davis?

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 402 Carleton Court, 218 Adams, 1901 Fredericksburg, or 1103 Cincinnati.

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 commission action letter or certificate of appropriateness will be prepared and emailed to you within 10 days.

And can somebody make the applicant a panelist?

I haven't pulled it up yet.

So the applicant is here virtually.

Um Justin, uh, if you'd like to unmute yourself just to see if we can if we can hear you.

Is it the call in number?

Okay, there we go.

Um, sorry, I was having trouble finding the INU.

Um we are applying to put in a ramp from my mother who lives here.

Um she's 70 years old and has fallen and she uses a walker.

This would be the only way she's able to get out with without the steps.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Savino, you have questions?

Yes, I do.

Um, Mr.

Chair, the reason I pull this, I pulled this last session because I did have questions.

And um questions to staff or even to the applicant is um this received a uh administrative certificate of appropriateness.

Why are we hearing this at this hearing?

So we offered an admin approval for temporary installation because we wanted to give them the option to go ahead and make it available to their mother while they waited for the public hearing.

So it still needs approval to be installed permanently, and that is the request ultimately, um, but they did have a previous approval to move forward with the temporary installation.

Well, the temporary and how long does a temporary COA last?

Did we say six months?

Two years, a temporary last two years.

Okay.

Um my question for the applicant is that um uh typically uh we try to locate these uh appurtenances to the side of the house as well as to the or to the back side where it's just a little less obvious or less visible.

Um why have you chosen or would you consider putting this on the side or connecting to a back door?

No, the back is not really an option because it's it's not paved back there, it's like a gravel driveway, so it's very hard for her to navigate on the unpaved part behind the house.

Um, um she'd have to walk through the kitchen uh to get out, and we'd have to put another ramp outside to get her down that that portion as well.

You mean to include so you're suggesting that you could not have two ramps?

Well, I'm I'm um yeah, well, I guess we'd only need one um on if we did on the back, but the the driveway is not paved, and it's it's very hard for her to navigate on the unpaved uh with all the the rocks.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Chair, the reason why I'm still concerned about this is because the uh survey shows a paved area, but our Google Earth shows that uh there's a further paving in the back.

It's hard to tell whether it is gravel, um, or if it is concrete.

Um, but it does show a lot of parking and what looks to be impervious cover in the back.

So I remain you know, curious whether that could this appurtenance, this ramp could be placed on the back, and without photos of the back, it's hard for me to confirm.

So that's the basis of my um pulling the case, thank you.

Any questions any other commissioners with questions?

I have a question.

I'm sorry.

I have a question, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Group.

And I don't think it's a question, I was just validating the applicant has stated that there is no gravel, or there is gravel, there's no concrete.

Um and then to the applicant as well.

This is not a permanent solution, right?

It's removable.

Which the ramp that they're going to install.

Yes.

Um, I'm I'm not too sure my brother is taking all that, but he is out of town, so he had me step in for him.

But I believe it's removable.

Yeah.

And then I think one question we had last time was uh this ramp goes all the way to the driveway, right?

There's not like a space between the driveway and where the ramp starts.

Or there is there's a small space that we'll end up putting some stones so the door car doors can swing out and then and let her in.

Yeah, like big pavers where there is a yeah, there will be some space between the yes.

Okay, removable as well.

It won't be concrete, it won't be concrete, yeah.

It'll be removable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's a I'm not doing a motion if there's no other question.

It's a question.

Yes, Commissioner Blasque.

Is it a question for the applicant?

Um is it um she had a how to ask this question?

Experientially for your for your mom, is um the experience coming in the front door.

Um, I imagine it is it important to her.

I mean, how how do you feel that it would make her feel if she had to come in through the back door on a daily basis?

Is this also about how she perceives uh her inclusion and normal normal uh entry?

No, I think that this is more about the um the accessibility the back is just not really an option.

This is just the only the only option we have right now without uh the back being able to be an option.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Groovy, you have a motion, motion to approve, second, have motion is second.

Any discussion?

Can I just say a couple of comments?

Yes, ma'am.

And while the applicant has stated the that, you know, this is an accessibility thing, and I think that also the fact that it's not a permanent, you know, permanent solution or permanent structure to the home in the front.

And um, I also feel like we uh in this body cannot question, you know, what the applicant is stating.

Um, if if then staff find something different at a site visit, then we can discuss other options.

But you know, the applicant is stating what the state is, and I don't think we need to uh, you know, fact check that.

Um so I think that the applicant um can made reasonable case for this to be installed in.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Guevara, any qu any comments?

No comments right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis, no comment.

Can Commissioner Mazuka?

No, no comment.

Commissioner Chavieso?

No comments.

Commissioner Savino.

Uh just a couple comments.

Um, I do think that when we typically have a case um coming to HDRC, having a complete set of photos and drawings to document the site is really important, and that's the documentation that would um answer a few questions.

Uh the other question I had, or the other concern I have is with the at least the photo of the front porch, the width of the ramp and how it's being placed.

I well, I have like many people lots of experience with um our older and disabled family members, so I know exactly how these things can work, but the front door appears to be blocked if you have a first responder, somebody else who needs to get in.

Um, it just makes it that much trickier or challenging.

Um, so that was my other concern.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Velasquez.

No, sir.

Okay, thank you.

I have a roll call, please.

Savino.

I.

Velasquez.

Izuka.

Ivada.

I.

Group.

Aye.

Do you have yeso?

Aye.

Davis.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Agenda item number six.

Agenda item number six, HDRC case number 2026-162 to 14 Adams Street.

The applicant's requesting their certificate of appropriateness for approval to one construct a two-story rear addition to construct a two-story rear accessory structure.

Staff recommends conceptual approval of items one and two based on the findings with the following stipulations.

One that the applicant reused historic windows on site that were removed as a result of the following um proposed structures and additions.

Two, that the additional information be provided regarding the overall height of the proposed edition.

Additionally, staff recommends that the applicant should explore the shortest possible height for the proposed edition.

Three, that the applicant installs a fully wood or aluminum clad wood window that meets staff standard stipulations as follows.

Four, that the applicant provide window door specifications for review prior to returning for final review.

Five, that the applicant install a standing sea metal roof with staff standard stipulations as follows.

Features both the top and bottom rail.

The bottom rail must feature a vertical orientation and should be installed approximately three to four inches above the porch decking.

Both top and bottom rails must be constructed from two by four members.

The proposed railing must not feature an overall height of more than three feet.

Seven, that the new wood columns be a maximum of six by six inches in width and feature traditional cabin base and chamfered corners.

Eight, that the applicant bisect the proposed rear-facing double wide garage door to mimic two separate garage doors.

Nine, that the applicant installed a fully wood garage door or garage door with a design that mimics wood construction that features the following uh characteristics.

10 that the applicant install fiber cement lap siding featuring a four-inch reveal and a smooth finish, and eleven that the applicant meets all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtain a variance from the board of adjustment if applicable.

Um the applicants are here in person, uh Jaime Jimenez and Christian Vasquez.

Um I would staff would also like to note too that there are two letters in your folder for this request, and also that there's an updated uh plan in the late folder that uh addresses some of staff's stipulations and commissioners' comments uh specifically pertaining to the overall height of the proposed rear addition and the rear accessory structure.

And um if the applicants want to come up and make their presentation, you'll have 12 minutes.

Hello everyone, my name is Christian Vasquez, uh architect on this project.

Um we are applying to do a remodel for the existing um main structure as well as a rear addition.

Um as for the main structure, um, for the addition, we wish to add a second floor as well as just mainly interior um remodel, um, keeping all the same historic design that the project currently has, um, and removing some of the interior walls to make more space to make it more of an open floor plan.

As for the uh rear addition, um it's about a little over a thousand square feet.

Um we're keeping it extremely basic, um, trying to make sure that the rear addition follows the same design elements as the front structure.

As far as some of the staff stipulations, um, we agree to meet all staff stipulations and have already made some of those changes as they are present in our plans.

Anything else?

Uh that is all.

Okay.

Uh questions for the applicant.

Commissioner Velasquez.

So um understanding that you'all are agreeing to all of staff stipulations.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Commissioner Groove.

Any questions?

Thank you.

I don't know if you can see the raised hand icon.

I can't see it, but I'm clicking on it.

But on that, can you tell us how you've uh addressed each of the stipulations?

And I don't um staff, have you seen this with what's presented today, or are we talking about the stipulations from conceptual review that you have met?

Or do you think you've met?

Uh we have met um some of the stipulations that were brought up during the conceptual review.

Um, as far as the rest of the stipulations that were provided today, we intend to uh meet all of those stipulations.

Um, not all of them are currently met.

Okay.

Um, like for example, the addition, how are you?

What's the overall height?

Do you know that?

Did you figure that out or uh the top ridge height for the addition is gonna be 25 feet uh nine inches?

And and what's the what's that the shortest?

Because I think there's some options of lowering the floor, okay, and that'll do that for discussion.

So the window specification now, the standing roof metal.

I'm sure you can meet that.

Um, the railings, the wood columns, those should be fairly easy.

Um the garage door, are you okay with that one?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Um, and then the setbacks standards.

You understand that too?

Yes, ma'am.

Uh, we currently are meeting all standards for steps for a setbacks.

And then the reuse of window historic windows that were removed.

Do you have those on site?

The one, sorry.

The windows that were removed.

Oh, that will be removed.

Yeah, we haven't.

Excuse me, sir.

Would you introduce yourself, please?

Sorry, this is Kyle Mickey Menus.

Um, architect for this project.

Um, we haven't removed any windows.

All the windows are in place, but yeah, the owner is here with us as well, and they they are aware that they have to reuse those windows.

Okay, and I think that you should maybe uh before you start, you as the architect visualize which windows they are and where they will be, like maybe map that out for staff prior to which windows you will be reusing and where.

Okay.

Um I guess staff, um, you still are looking, and I think the only stipulation that's kind of a big one is the height of the reordition.

It's kind of an open question.

That's correct.

So, yeah, so that's correct.

So we're recommending conceptual approval, a um a successful review for final for final review would um as you mentioned before, call out specific windows to be reused.

Um we would like to see that the overall height, uh, the exploring of reducing that.

So as Edward's showing right now, there's a total ridge height of 205 and some change, and so potentially dropping that height to match that ridge that's directly in front of it, uh, might be an option, or if the applicant can uh specifically show why the additional high is required or needed, uh then that would still be a stipulation once it comes back for final review.

So we would just like some more information about potentially uh dropping that overall height just to reduce the massing just a little bit more, especially considering this is a one-story structure that's gonna be turned into a two-story.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Okay.

Any questions?

No questions right now, sir.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Davis, no questions, Commissioner Mazuka.

Yes, I I had a question.

Um in looking at the drawings, I didn't see any landscaping or the trees, and from the photographs, there's like three specimen trees, two in the front and one in the back.

Are those all staying or it looks really tight, and but I couldn't see the placement of the tree in the back.

I'm sure the trees in front are fine.

Well, there's one in the front that is almost next to the existing porch.

And we have an arbor going on because that's really dangerous to existing structure.

There's one in the back as well as next to the to the porch to the existing porch.

So those trees maybe have to be removed.

Okay.

So are you planning to replace them?

That's correct.

Yes.

Okay.

It's so it would be nice if there was a um, or it would be helpful rather, if there was a uh a diagram that showed the trees and the landscaping that you intend to put in there, because it the the um the property looks really tight with all the building that's going on, and I would think that landscaping would soften a lot of that massiveness understood.

Okay, Commissioner Travier, so my understanding is the addition will have the same type of metal roof consistent with the existing one.

Yes, Commissioner Savino.

No questions.

Commissioner Velasquez?

No, sir.

I have a question about the uh the ADU and the height of it.

Uh the elevations both on the original application and the updated drawings show uh that the floor two top of plate is at 18.4, but then there's another dimension top of roof at 19.8, and um typically ADUs and and accessory dwelling units and accessory buildings are uh the scale of them is supposed to uh be smaller than the main house.

True, this is shorter than the your current design, but um, can you explain what that difference is between top of plate and top of roof dimension?

Um the difference is just around I want to say six to eight feet.

Well, it's a looking at this drawing, there's one foot four between the top of plate and the top of roof, yes, sir.

And wondering why you need that extra one foot four on a second floor of a accessory dwelling unit.

Uh, understood, yes.

Um, uh I need to redo the drawings there.

Uh that is correct.

The roof should be sitting at that 18-four height.

Okay, thank you.

Questions.

Uh, do we have a motion?

I can do a motion, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Groove.

Um, move to approve conceptually with all staff stipulations.

Second.

Motion is second.

And if I may add some comments, yes, please.

Yeah, and I and I think to the applicant, I think these are the things that just are pending.

Um, that you actually, you know, there's a lot of stipulations for us to do a final approval, and I think that the height of the ADU and the height of the addition is something that needs to be lowered.

Um, I don't know if there has been uh a DRC since the last approval, but um, if you you know, that's an option for you to see kind of where, but I think when you go back to analyze the height of the addition, I think staff uh mentioned it earlier is you know it's really what's visible from the street, right?

And how much lower can you go compared to what's the existing structure?

Um I'm really worried that because you're building that ADU all the way to the back, also is because of the lot bearings.

I mean, I know you're within the percentages of lot coverage, um, but it's gonna be, it's a very tight lot and you're going very high, and the rest of the street just from Google Earth, I don't see a lot of those two story ADUs.

Um, so uh, I'm gonna make sure that it doesn't get you know under you from the street.

And I think on the windows, um when staff can help you with that.

I think there's some important um analysis to do with the windows because I can see from the pictures there's a lot of historic windows that probably will be removed and make sure we visualize where those are gonna be and what type of uh window design will be new windows, and making sure that it follows with your design uh at approval, right?

Sizes and width and everything.

Understood.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cavera.

No comment right now, sir, no question.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis?

No comment.

Commissioner Mazuka?

No comment.

Commissioner Travieso?

No comment.

Commissioner Savino.

Uh yeah.

Um, to the um DRC question, might you return to a DRC before you go for final?

Should you get conceptual approval?

I'm sorry.

Might you return to a DRC?

Should you get conceptual approval today?

Yes.

I think it might be wise, so um, because this is a complex project where you're doing so much work again on a very tight lot.

Um, it might be wise to have um additional eyes on it again.

And I would like to agree that there are concerns about the height about the addition in the ADU, and as I had mentioned in a DRC, uh, there are really some some very good examples of property owners who have added onto their historic houses throughout the neighborhood, and even the neighborhood over um in Lavaca.

Um you may want to go look at those to see how they have managed the volumes to get the program and still create a composition that works with the house uh as well as the lot.

Maybe it won't create such a building intense um project because again, once you have your ADU in place, um that's a pretty tight lot.

Understood.

Thank you.

Commissioner Vlasquez.

No sir.

Um you have a roll call, please.

Did we do a site vis on this a little while back?

Can I ask that?

No, we've never done a site visit.

I don't believe so.

Um I know that this request has been around for a while.

Um, so I'm not sure if maybe one happened while I was out or something, but um I we don't believe so.

Okay, and is it the same applicant?

Yes.

Um this I think first came to us in fall or winter of 2024.

So I think we'd spend a couple years now.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Belasquez, there's there's a question I have for the applicant.

It might help, I don't know if it's a problem.

Can Steph go to the sheet A40?

A4 point zero.

Um it immaterial too, you know.

Uh the motion and all that, but the peak right there, it has a flat.

How why is that flat?

The little roof comes up, goes up, comes back down.

Then the other roof is doing this.

So the assumption is you're creating a place for the water to come out.

That's correct.

But so so then in that spot, the roof is flat and the water maybe it's slightly sloped, but the water's gonna come out of that flat situation that's on um originally I got it where the the end of the roof, right?

But um from based on our previous meeting with the CRC, they recommend us to move it further back to the of the property.

So I move it about four or five feet.

So that's why we're creating that area now.

Uh Steph, can you put a cursor there?

Just right there, okay.

Okay, right there.

Okay, so uh staff.

In considering that that was a suggestion from staff for HDRC.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate if he was allowed to not cricket it, but have them almost almost an invisible one in 12 or 2 and 12 slope coming back because otherwise the water comes down and it's flat, and he's got to create a situation that really doesn't it wouldn't exist in a normal world.

I mean, you would never do that on your own.

If it was your house, you know what I mean?

You wouldn't do that.

You gotta figure out how the water's gonna come down and come out.

So just when y'all are looking at it with the applicant, uh you you gotta do you you've got to come up with a solution that's an actual solution, even if it's articulating at the four feet or whatever it is, it's just to show the difference between the two buildings.

More important than the articulation is the fact that actually works.

So it just looks it just it just doesn't look right in the drawing, which is kind of a either they made a mistake or uh we thought it yeah, yeah.

I mean, I see, and there's something that we that I explained last time, but are they still wanting us to push it further back?

And actually that's part of the original design.

Uh-huh.

So I was trying to you'll need a little exactly right, and then you'll have to flash up.

Yeah.

So okay.

Well, I just wanted to just in case it was just uh left there.

We push it back.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

We have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Aye.

The last guess?

I.

Group.

Aye.

Soye.

Davis.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Agenda item number seven.

Agenda item number seven, HDRC case number 2026, 158, 1037 Dawson.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct a one-story single family family residential structure on the vacant lot at 1037 Dawson, located within the Dignity Hill Historic District.

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

Staff recommends the following items prior to receiving a recommendation for approval.

One that the applicant provide additional information regarding the proposed construction setback, including a setback diagram, comparing the proposed setback to those found historically on the block is noted in finding C.

Proposed structure setbacks should not be less than those of the adjacent historic structures.

Two that the proposed new constructions width be reduced is noted in finding E.

Additionally, staff recommends that the applicant revise the proposed massing in form of the roof and porch is noted in findings H and M as what's proposed is not found historically within the district.

The proposed porch mashing should be integrated into the massing of the new construction.

Three that the applicant incorporate a foundation height of at least one foot is noted in finding G.

Uh, stipulation four is in regards to staff standards for material specifications.

Uh five that window product specifications be submitted for review and approval.

Uh window products shall comply with the adopted standards for windows and new construction.

Six that finestration be added to both side facades is noted in finding in.

Additionally, staff finds that all window openings should be located in profile to be consistent with those found historically within the district.

Seven at the proposed driveway profile be revised to feature ten feet in width and be located to the side of the proposed new construction.

Eight, the front walkway be introduced.

Front walkway should align with the front door, and nine that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted as noted in finding R.

The applicants are uh both in person and virtual.

Uh Ms.

Nicole Sostra is here in person and Caesar Sostray is virtual.

Um I'll go ahead and make him a panelist now.

Uh commissioners, also, we have uh an updated file uh for this that I'll uh pull up on the screen.

Um and uh Mr.

Chair, if you're okay with it, uh it may be easiest for us to walk through these one by one and allow the applicant to uh note in their updated document what they have addressed uh and what they uh what they have not addressed or or what they may be unable to address.

So um the applicant can come up now.

Okay, perfect.

Um Mr.

Sostray, uh, can you hear us okay?

See if you can unmute.

Can you hear me?

We can perfect.

Okay, okay.

Um, I'm assuming you can see my screen.

Uh so we have the update updated document that you submitted.

Uh it's on the screen now.

Uh what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna walk through each stipulation one by one and allow you to comment on what's been updated.

Um after that, we can entertain uh questions from the commission.

Uh so uh stipulation number one was that the applicant provide additional information regarding the proposed new construction setback to include a setback diagram and that setback should be uh, excuse me, uh the proposed structure setbacks should not be less than those of the adjacent historic structure.

So could you uh provide uh comments on the uh setback diagram that you provided as well as uh what the setback is in comparison to what's on the block.

Sure, and and on the the presentation seat uh sheet uh uh name block site plan, uh I've included an overlay uh of our property along with the floor plan.

And uh after I went out to the job site or out to the site and uh and took some measurements, um and so I think uh the the main facade of the building uh is set back to uh 32 feet.

We should be in line with some of the adjacent homes.

Uh and uh and if we set back the the front porch at 25 feet, we should be in line with just about I we should be in line with the with the adjacent residents and we we might be in line with some of the other adjacent residences next to the next to that home.

Um I don't know if you guys can tell from the from the from the site plan, but it's it's kind of tough to tell, but the the home that's right next to our property is set back a little differently than the ones um further to the to the west.

All right, thank you.

Number two, that the proposed new constructions with be reduced as noted in finding E.

Additionally, staff recommends the applicant revise the proposed massing in form of the roof and porch.

Uh as what's proposed is not found historically within the district.

The proposed porch massing should be integrated into the massing of the new construction.

Uh I've currently right now I will pull up the uh front facade uh that you've submitted, and uh if you want to uh comment on that, uh as well as um stipulation three, the applicant incorporates a foundation height.

Uh that has been done, so I don't think we need to discuss that unless commissioners want to.

There's standard specifications for materials.

Umestration be added.

Um so uh if you want to address the width, I think that's the primary the primarily the most or the largest thing that's remaining.

The other items generally seem to have been addressed, uh, and we can look at those uh all together.

Uh yes, the width uh of the building is is in is mostly in part due to the uh to the small property that we're we're dealing with with.

So we're trying to maximize floor area.

Um and so the only way to do that would be uh going from setback to setback on sides.

Um that's essentially that's that's really what it is.

Understood.

Uh commissioners, there are a few other uh stipulations that staff included.

Uh one of those uh in the previous um previous document, the applicant had uh grouped uh uh windows uh it basically one window unit as you can kind of see here in this rendering.

Uh the applicant has since uh divided those with the mullion as would be typically found historically within the district.

Uh there was also a comment on the applicant adding additional finestration uh previously there was only one window um on the east elevation the west elevation was completely void of finestration uh the applicant has begun to address that uh from a staff standpoint uh generally the east elevation is getting there um larger windows would be better but the applicant has introduced finestration uh if the applicant could explore additional finestration on the west facade uh that would be that would be helpful as well uh staff had previously commented on uh the expanse of the proposed driveway um i will pull up what was originally submitted um bear with me here we go uh the applicant has eliminated uh more or less the front yard parking element uh has reduced the width of the driveway uh has incorporated a front walkway and then has provided uh a little bit more information in regards to what's proposed uh for landscaping um i will note um i think one of the largest things in working with the applicant um to address the proposed width um this lot is a subdivided lot uh there's a historic structure to the north of this lot um this lot is narrower or shorter than all the other lots on this block um you can see the concrete stoop from what was uh previously a historic house there uh and if we look at um uh better aerial you can see that that concrete stoop was uh well in front of the other structures on this on this block um this is somewhat atypical but if the commission found it to be appropriate for the applicant to potentially um increase or excuse me decrease the setback in the front that may then translate to the applicant being able to uh have a longer structure that's narrower uh that may uh be a little bit more consistent with the massing and profiles of what's found historically on the block um that's a lot to discuss uh at today's hearing uh so um i think those are most of the larger stipulations uh commissioners that there's questions for staff or the applicant we can start with those okay uh let's start with questions commissioner group thank you um and thank you edward for moving on this presentation um so the lot right to the west of it has an attached garage or is it like a carport it is an attach it's it's an attached garage uh the total width of that building was measured at 51 feet um so yeah that is an attached garage okay and it based on on um on um Mr.

Hall's comments if we were to consider uh a smaller setback in the front would that open up like would you be willing to then do maybe a driveway that goes down and not do a front you know front parking in the front of the property like some of the other properties right now the setbacks uh are are five feet um in the back and on the side but if you were if we were to increase front uh to make the property itself narrower and leave more setback maybe on one side to have uh a driveway a continuous driveway is that something that you would be willing to consider well we we've discussed this internally uh me and my family and we believe that this is the best option so even if we were to talk about that that would be not be an option for you.

We do not want that option okay um and and so you're okay with all the stipulations and and I know you've done some edits.

So if you're you're in agreement with them and you know for Edward's comments there's a little bit of adjustments like for example on the window sizes and and you're willing to keep working on that.

Yes, and I I've made some some changes on the on the exterior elevations to reflect uh to reflect the OHP comments.

Um if there are further changes, uh that that that's fine.

I mean, obviously we're always uh cognizant of budget when we're uh developing these little properties, but um yes, we'll we'll we'll take we'll take those into consideration absolutely, okay.

I don't have the further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Guevara, any questions?

No questions, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Davis, no questions.

Commissioner Mazooka.

Um is that slab that exists now?

Is that gonna be demoed and a new slab board for the front porch?

Um I'll uh yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Travieso.

No question.

Commissioner Savino.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I want to say that I agree with staff on all the recommendations, all the findings, as well as the informal suggestion of um altering or working more creatively with the setbacks.

So um in lieu of probably two dozen questions I have regarding all those items.

I would like to ask the applicant, would you be amenable to a design review committee where we could um look at some of the uh elements that have not yet been addressed that are stipulated, but possibly look at some other um small tweaks and design options?

That's a question for the applicant.

I will answer on his behalf, yes.

That's something that would I'm sorry, yes.

We already expected that, so yeah.

Oh, thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Um no, Mr.

Chair, but I make a motion, but uh uh I want to make a motion respectful of the previous request right here.

So I would make a motion to approve with staff stipulations, and add that there's an expectation of a of a design review meeting uh as well.

Second uh could staff clarify if that's uh motion for uh conceptual approval or if that's a motion for a certificate of appropriateness, well I'd rather it be a certificate of appropriateness with a work through of through the DRC, but if a certificate of uh if um of a conceptual is is uh easier for the process than conceptual.

From a staff perspective, conceptual may be best.

Um that way that will allow the applicant to work through with the DRC, come to a solution and then come back to the commission with something that they feel comfort confident in.

Um in the past there's been uh at times uh staff and the applicant can't find a solution that addresses a stipulation and then it winds up coming back here anyways, okay.

So we're conceptual.

Um mr.

Chair, what one of the things that I want to just uh make sure that uh it's communicated.

When the windows changed from a farmhouse kind of window building, there's windows that appear in the drawing here that they that they because they're windows, they are acceptable, but once the windows become these rectangular windows even gang together that makes the square window really seem out of place, so it it's like a really big compromise that I think that you made from stylistically one kind of house to another kind of house that is really um gonna ask you to make all the windows within the same proportion so that it doesn't look like it was once one thing and then became something else later.

That might even include the square window that's at the top and the top gable.

Maybe that becomes a small rectangle, but especially the square window that's in front, that it just doesn't look right anymore because it is and now it's too big.

Yeah, that would that would that would really work well.

Excuse me.

If you if you wish to speak, would you come up and introduce yourself, please?

Sorry.

I am Nicole Gonzalez.

Yeah, that was one of the things that we talked about on our call earlier this week, and Cesar did make the change to make it uh look like two right time.

You know, if it was out in a in an open field, it would look wonderful with those square windows.

But I think in the inner city that those are some real um uh recognizable patterns that they make the house look well.

The other thing is with respect to staff and the and the DRC, they have to be very um lenient, I think, with the size of this lot.

You look at the other lots, the other lots are these full lots, and then all of a sudden someone cut this lot in half.

And I'm very concerned that that pushing it further back will limit the back experience.

But hopefully staff can look at and that and that the commission will look at the property to the right of it is way in front, so it may be that they have an accessory dwelling because their house uh is facing the other street, which I think gives that property the power to be further front.

I don't know what that does for your driveway.

It's unfortunate that you don't have that much of a driveway space, but um it would be great if you could maximize that front usage because it's not blocking anything.

I think the rule we were taught about uh the pattern of the front was so that a neighbor can walk out on the porch and look, and they're right, they have the right to be able to look straight down the street and see everything all the way down.

Well, this them being right next to that garage on the other side, it it's it it gives uh an exception to that rule and uh hopefully within reason that they're not pushed any far back because it would be such a waste to have a house and have 15 feet in the back.

It's just uh yeah, I think based on what the applicant submitted, staff generally finds where they are right now to be okay.

Um what staff is saying is it would be the commission's uh direction to allow the applicant to decrease that setback because it would be outside of the guidelines, and staff is going to be recommending what the guidelines recommend.

So I appreciate that clarification.

Edward, and that's why I'm also mentioning that the DRC that they take into consideration that as well.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so we have a motion and a second clarification.

That's for conceptual approval.

Yes, DRC.

Second concurs.

Okay.

I also have another question.

Um that 10 the 10 foot front setback, 10 foot back setback is a zoning issue, correct?

It's a zoning designation.

So depending on the flexibility of potential future design, um, this might have to go to a BOA for a variance.

Um as what's proposed now, it's fine.

Um if it does encroach on that 10 foot setback, then yes, a variance would likely be required.

Okay.

Okay, comments.

Uh Commissioner Groove.

I have no comments.

Commissioner Guevara.

No comments right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis?

No comments.

Commissioner Mazuka.

No comment.

Commissioner Travieso.

No comment.

And I have no comments.

Uh may I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez.

I.

Ivana.

I.

Group.

Aye.

Travieso.

Aye.

Davis.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We look forward to uh meeting with you at a DRC.

And for the commission and the applicant, the DRC will be scheduled for next Tuesday.

Okay.

Thank you.

Agenda item number eight.

Agenda item number eight HDRC case number 2026 163, 7303 Old Corpus Christie Road.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to uh construct 21 two-story multi-family residential structures on the vacant lot at 7303 Old Corpus Christi Road.

This property is located within the river improvement overlay.

District five.

Staff recommends approval based on findings A through Q with the following stipulations.

One that a sidewalk should also be installed parallel to old Corpus Christie Road to connect the existing sidewalk to the existing sidewalk is noted in finding D.

Two that the proposed curb cut at Old Corpus Christie Road not exceed 25 feet in width is noted in finding E.

Three that a more detailed landscaping that more detailed landscaping information be submitted to OHB staff review and approval is noted in finding F.

Four that each structure's mechanical equipment be screened from view from the public right-of-way consistent with the UDC's Rio standards.

Five, that the easternmost lots or excuse me, structures, lots 2242 and 2243.

Feature a primary orientation towards old corpus Christie Road is noted in finding H.

Stipulation 6 is in regards to staff standards for material specifications.

7.

If the applicant submit window product specifications and that windows be recessed at least two inches within wall planes and feature a non-manufacturer's white color.

Changes in design elements should could include varying roof forms, siding profiles, paint colors, and finestration patterns.

And stipulation 10, the project shall comply with all federal, state, local, and local laws, rules, and regulations regarding archaeology.

The applicants here in person.

So I'll let the applicant introduce himself and respond to staff stipulations.

Hi, my name is Tyler Schlinke.

I'm developer of this project.

So we've already started the development.

We haven't started building yet.

We're currently pulling permits, but just wanted to kind of touch base and all the notes that staff recommended.

So the sidewalk off Old Corpus, that we're gonna do, so that's good with us.

The proposed curb cut.

So that we have our actual road off of old corpus is a little wider than 25 feet.

That's just based on what the city required us.

But all of our actual curb cuts in the development for our driveways will be less than 25 feet.

So that should be okay there.

Um number three, so uh we submitted earlier updated landscape plan.

So we have sod front and backyards, two trees per lot.

Number four, we have a privacy fence, so all the HVAC equipment will be screened from view, number five.

So the two duplexes that will face old corpus, that front that will have a side entry door, so we can do a special trim pattern or something like that to just kind of different differentiate that from the rest of the duplexes there, so it'll be easily seen from old corpus.

Then number six.

That one we're good with.

We can use the smooth siding.

Um, so no issues there.

We have steel garage doors, not vinyl, so shouldn't have any issues there, and then number seven, the we are adding trim around all of our windows, so we'll have the two-inch depth there, so we should cover that.

Number eight, we will alternate color patterns throughout the neighborhood.

So there won't be any two duplexes next to each other that will look the exact same.

We'll have different colored paint for every single duplex alternating.

So we'll have between four and five different color combinations throughout the development.

Number nine, the only lighting that we're gonna have is just from our sconces off of the duplex.

We aren't gonna have actually any landscape lighting, but that will just all come from the sconces front and backyard, and then 10 that's been completed.

So we've already got all of our permits and everything from the city of San Antonio to do the development.

So we covered that aspect there.

That should be all 10 items there, so most of those should be pretty good to go as far as where we stand.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, we'll start with question.

Commissioner Savino.

Uh yeah, I'm looking for a tear sheet, cut sheet for windows.

Is there one in the package?

The actual window that we're using.

Yeah, we didn't submit that.

Um, it's just a normal vinyl window, but it is not going to be the manufacturer's white color, it will be a black or 10.

Okay.

Does it have a an ailing fin?

Is that how that gets put in?

I believe so, yes.

That is correct.

Okay.

Um, because that will affect where your window sits in the wall in order to achieve that two inch setback, right?

Yes, that's why we're adding the trim around the windows to achieve the setback.

How thick is your trim then?

It's about half an inch, and then where we're gonna put the with the siding and everything, so we should cover about the inch and a half to two inches right there.

Okay.

And let's see.

I will pass right now.

I may have another question in a bit.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Um question.

More for staff, staff it it's a little complex to figure what HDRC's purview is, because what it would I look at it from the context of um all of the things that that seem to be the requirement.

Um it's hard to see whether or not we're talking about acceptable setbacks, facade uh, I mean, it's like almost every single aspect of development.

Is that well, not quite.

So um typically when we see single family, I know this is multifamily, but a structure that's massed like a single family house, it's in the context of a historic district where we're reviewing it against the historic design guidelines.

Uh this is only in the river improvement overlay.

Where typically we're gonna be looking at how a development's connected to the neighborhood, what's the pedestrian experience, and very broad architectural standards and not more detailed recommendations or guidelines like the historic design guidelines would recommend.

So more or less the findings that that we have are uh what we would review for uh a large multifamily structure in the river improvement overlay.

Uh what staff has found to be most applicable.

Um that's the reason why we're recommending that the easternmost structures front old corpus Christi, because that's what the unified development code is going to recommend.

Uh, we're recommending architectural details that the unified development code would say find a traditional or or find what's uh vernacular and and implement that.

So don't think so much in the the sense of the historic design guidelines.

Think of Unified Development Code Rio standards, so okay.

So and this might be just taking advantage of the opportunity for clarity here.

So, the UDC or the or development services, is gonna have looked at it almost for the exact same things.

Because if we're not quite um development services is gonna look at everything from a building code and a UDC standpoint as far as stormwater, traffic, fire, uh building code, zoning setbacks, correct.

Um these standards are the generally the same standards that we would be reviewing off of Broadway.

Uh the same standards that we would be reviewing somewhere in River North, uh mission reach or the museum reach, same standards, it's just that this is an I guess an oddly placed lot that happens to fall within the river improvement overlay.

Okay, okay.

Now, just one other thing, because the the setup, the the the lot divisions, all of that is I mean, you know, if one of us was to say, uh the entries are not right or the um the placement of the buildings are too consistent.

There's already a lot of work that's been done in the layout of this subdivision.

And and staff's not uh providing a specific recommendation on how the lots have been individually divided.

Because there's nothing within the UDC that would say that you couldn't divide the lots like they have been.

Staff's comments are specifically on how the common use drive interacts with old corpus Christie, how the sidewalks interact with old corpus Christie, how the easternmost structures interact with Corpus Christi.

So the layout of what's been proposed is fine generally.

No one lay out is one more question.

When looking at what is being proposed, is it proper, which is odd?

Is it proper to say that the prevailing pattern of the community there is set by those other houses that use those other developments that exist?

Um so I would actually let me go to um if you look at an area, you see the other the other developments that are there that seemed that they were developed without any standards.

Well, what's what's unique or interesting is the unified development code would direct an applicant to develop to develop a site plan that has maybe a campus-like setting that creates courtyards?

Uh so uh what's to the north and south are maybe a little more consistent with the UDC than what's proposed today.

Thank you.

Commissioner Groove, questions?

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair.

So I wanted to address some of the stipulations that the applicant presented.

Um I'm a little worried there's a misunderstanding here.

So uh on the number two, the curb cut.

Uh, maybe staff can clarify.

It's not about what the city approved.

What is the current curb cut right now in your plan?

Is it 25 feet or more?

So the city had us do the curb cut off of old corpus wider, but all of our actual curb cuts in the development for our driveways.

What is wider?

What how wide is that curb cut?

And when you say the six our road is 34 feet.

Sorry?

Our road is 34 feet wide in the city of San Antonio.

I know, but this is uh because it's in the real district, so then you have these droid guidelines.

So we're asking for 25.

Is that something that's possible for you?

That would not be possible, honestly, um, just with traffic flow in and out of the development.

So well, I mean, you see it in other neighborhoods and other historic neighborhoods that have this multifamily concept.

So is it there's just one way in and one way out in the back, you have like a curb, like a cut, like a correct.

Yes, the T is in the back.

I think it's a zoomed in, so I can't see it.

Um, so you would just go in and then do a turn and come back if you needed to go out.

Hi, uh, my name's Clay Schlinke.

I'm uh developer as well.

I'm actually his father, so but um this development's already actually complete, so it's not something that so the streets already been in installed, curb cuts are all done, everything's been approved by by COSA per their standards.

So it's already a complete streets development already set, so I wasn't sure if we made that clear.

Ma'am staff can clarify what how does this work now?

Uh I mean, this came to us because the permit's on hold, the building permit.

So if there's been a site work permit that's been issued, um, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been done with OHP's review.

Uh so that'll be something that we'll need to speak with development services about.

Um, to the point of the curb cut, it could also be the clear classification of uh what this is used for.

If this is an actual street um that's reviewed and approved by development services as a street, uh, then that 32 or 35 feet is fine.

If this is in all intense a driveway entrance or a curb cut uh that uses a private drive like what we would see within a city block, uh then it would need to be reduced to 25 feet.

Um staff can work with development services on determining how they've classified this uh and if it needs if it's if if it's a street that's gonna be uh maintained like a city street would, then um obviously within the context of the UDC, we wouldn't say that, you know, a street off of Broadway could only be 25 feet in width if that comes clarifying to verify all this, and then next time for staff, is this something that we can work out prior to the applicant coming in here?

Since it's if it is a street, then there's not even a stipulation that should exist here.

And it kind of changes a lot of the guidelines.

Sure.

Okay.

And then I think on the stipulation number A, uh, this is also to the applicant.

I don't know if there's a misunderstanding.

It uh staff is not asking for change in design elements as in roof or siding or paint or finestration.

I think it's an end or.

So I think there should be more changes more than just paint colors.

And I think they got a valid point there.

So just um if staff feels confident they can work with with the applicant on this, I think it's beyond uh it's beyond just paint colors, right?

Um, and then on stipulation number five.

Um the primary orientation, we are in historic district, so I wasn't sure either to if there's a misunderstanding that your properties had already been approved.

It sounds like there's a little bit unclear of this role of the historic um, you know, overview of purview over this property.

So I think this stipulation should also stay, and I'm not sure if this should be a final or if staff feels confident that this can be a final and they can work by the applicant, then I'm fine with that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Guevara questions?

No, no questions right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis, no questions, commissioner Mazooka, no questions, Commissioner Travieso.

No question.

Okay, I do have a question or two.

Um your landscape plan.

If you pull that up, Edward.

The front doors to these houses are on the side of the buildings, correct?

Correct.

Uh, I don't see sidewalks back to them.

Yeah, there should be sidewalks there.

So that was left out of the plan, so we need to update that.

That's one thing that we need to do for sure.

Those will be there.

Okay.

And uh looking at uh stipulation eight, which is variations in design.

Um have y'all looked at different roof forms so that they don't all have the same roof shape and gable and hips and all that.

Uh or have you looked at uh a slightly different floor plan for some of the houses so that the garages are not ganged together in the middle of the house, but they're split.

Uh and then you've got the front porch facing the main drive.

Have you studied anything like that?

We have built some like that in the past.

Ideally, we like to keep it pretty consistent in neighborhoods.

That usually is what works best for us.

So we definitely can change maybe some of the front, like uh board and batten to siding and switch things around like that.

But ideally, we like to keep it a consistent because we do rent out the neighborhood and then try to run it pretty similar to an apartment complex, which has a lot of consistency as well.

So we like to try to do the same, okay.

So these are being built for rentals.

Correct.

Okay.

Um would you be amenable to a DRC to uh spend some more time looking at what might be possible for variations?

I can we would like to move forward honestly as quick as possible.

So um if we can just move get approval and move on and um work with staff, then we're happy to do that.

If we need to come back and meet again, I mean we will, but ideally we would like to move forward and can work with staff with whatever they need from us.

Okay.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I uh I don't know if there are comment a question.

Um we're in questions right now.

Yeah, I'll wait till that's the motion.

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion to um approve the conceptual approval, provide conceptual approval with all staff stipulations and a DRC at the next available date.

Do we have a second?

Okay, okay.

Yeah, there are a number of very important aspects to this project.

Yes, it is important that it gets moved forward.

It would be wonderful to have more housing.

And in some of these areas, but at the same time, you're in a Rio, you're in a very sensitive area, which we all care about throughout the city.

So it would be nice to take some time and adjust some things here and there and have a good conversation with you guys.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Okay, Commissioner Velasquez.

In the spirit of being very direct, uh my fellow commissioners, I I'm not uh comfortable with the hidden doors.

The front door is just it's in District Three, you know, and and uh, you know, the for the sake of expediency, that's not an excuse for a design that sets a standard that by all even academic uh standards is not an acceptable solution.

And it's I'll tell you why.

The if you just box out the two the duplic one duplex and box the two units out.

There's clearly at least three other solutions with the doors in the front, even if they're garage doors in the front.

And even if you look at the stoop and you look at the size of the restroom, the half bath, the half bath could be the stoop.

There's absolutely no reason for those front doors not to be in the front.

And it doesn't have to do with it doesn't have to do with with building it or living in it.

It has to do with the standard expectation in a community that the front door is that you can see the front door when you're passing by for all kinds of reasons, especially safety safety reasons.

Uh so I know that that's a a pretty hefty lift, and there's ten of us, it's I'm just one commissioner.

But for the standard for district three, at least the standard in the south side, there's absolutely no excuse for there not to have been a more sophisticated design with the front door in the front, even with the garage door staying where it's at, that creates a bit of a problem, but it it's it seems like it was it just is like not acceptable.

Could I uh say something, please?

I respect your opinion.

The reason we like this uh this plan with the side door entry, we would this is not our first rodeo.

We do a lot of developments around San Antonio and Texas.

Um one development, for instance, just to give you an example, we had 34 units, and we we did this kind of as a as exam as a test.

We had of the duplex, one unit had a side entry, other unit had a front door entry, just like Mr.

Velasquez is is saying.

Of those 34 units, we literally rented out all 17 of the side entry door first before any with the front door even rented out.

And so that's one reason we really like this floor plan.

The the tenants like this floor plan, they like the the feel that it's more of a private entry.

Um, and that's the whole reason we do this floor plan.

And I don't I know district three, I mean I don't think you know it's something where having a side entry door or a front door is not a safety concern in our opinion.

I think it's a it's a great neighborhood and not what not concerned one bit about safety in that neighborhood.

Thank you.

I just let me just respond to that I appreciate your your your your honesty.

I want you to know too, I've got 45 years in the design industry.

Um you have uh uh uh just a box that box can go anywhere you wanted to go.

You have all kinds of opportunities and the challenges there.

There's a lot of reasons why people want uh that kind of privacy.

But if you just look at the case that we had before, none of them, none of the people that live in that community are afforded that amenity to have ultimate privacy.

They all have to have a front door.

I I don't know why, for whatever crazy reasons everybody just said at some point a community will have a front door, and then to extend it, they'll have a porch and then they'll have you know all kinds of and it can get silly, but where there's absolutely no indication of where that front is, I would just say like again, I'm just one commissioner.

I would I would say that I I don't think I would support a plan that has all the doors on the side like that.

And and I think it's too simple of a problem to be solved.

And if they didn't have the option to the side, then all your renters would have to rent a front door.

That's just the way that it is.

You wouldn't give them an option.

And again, just like the neighborhood that we looked at before, none of the people there have an option to have a side door.

So it's just it just creates a pattern that it doesn't seem to be a positive pattern.

But thank you.

Um Commissioner Savina, you want to clarify?

Uh yes.

Um, I would like to ask my colleague, would you be supportive of an additional stipulation to that motion that addresses front entry sequence specifically?

I would I would okay, legal.

I need your advice.

What is the proper way to add a stipulation?

Is it modification or is it an amendment?

You can clarify your motion if you intended to have that as part of a stipulation.

If not, we can have an alternate motion, which would be um an amended motion to the original motion that has been second.

Okay, then I um I would like to just clarify that it would include um addressing the front entry sequence.

Oh second withstand.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Groove.

Yeah, if we can uh um to the applicant, I wanted I had like one question staff too is because the applicant said it had, and I and I agree with the motion as it stands.

Um, I think the app there's some misunderstanding between what the city has approved and and this historic purview.

Um I'm I'm okay discussing the the front door.

I do not think that this should be the place to be, you know, discussing design elements.

That's why I agree with the DRC and I encourage Commissioner Velasquez to show up at the DRC to really come up with uh, you know, these specifically also because this properties in the district that's important or you're very familiar with.

Um the archaeological site, like it says the applicant said that he had been approved.

Has this been completed?

But there's already a street done.

So yeah, so we we pulled all of our appropriate permits.

We've already done the development, um, everything's been approved.

We did everything the city required us to do.

I don't remember.

No, the city development, but it okay.

So stop.

Yeah, I don't remember.

I don't believe we required it this.

I don't remember to be honest, if we had to.

Um, so this how we ended up here at this committee is it was a complete surprise to us.

We had all the approvals.

Um, I mean, everything went through.

Well, it is a surprise, but you also say you're a developer that's been used to doing a lot of these projects, and if you just when you buy a property or when you go in, it's coded as historic.

Oh, there is a historic overlay.

So, like, does one of, you know, it just it was just a bad of, you know, I don't know.

This should be a check.

So, staff, how would you uh deal with this last stipulation?

Uh we have a city archaeologist on staff that can reach out to the applicant.

Even though the city the lot has already been developed, and it's the fact that there's already been uh asphalt port.

That's all I can comment on right now.

I'm not for sure where he is and in his and then I asked F to really uh can it maybe even if it requires to push DRC to get these clarifications between development services and what's been done and and what can actually stay as a stipulation if that can be clarified before it comes back for final.

That the only thing that that I believe may be needing to be adjusted could would be the curb cut.

Um the reason why this is here in front of us is because back in January or February, staff noted on a permit for new construction on this on within this development that a certificate of appropriateness is required because this is in the river improvement overlay.

Um outside of that, I I don't believe we've been flagged or have seen any other permits.

That's something we can check on.

But uh what's in front of us today is is what we're reviewing uh in regards to these 21 structures.

Um staff's recommendation is what we find to be consistent with the unified development code.

Um, and as with any applicant, we're we're happy to work with these applicants and find uh the most efficient path forward uh for them to get a certificate of appropriateness and continue.

And Mr.

Chair, uh, as a point of personal privilege.

I I just want to clarify my uh comments are not design uh oriented.

It's about the urban pattern and and the the way that that's handled.

There's a hundred different solutions for how it's handled.

But my concern is the introduction of something that is country to the urban pattern.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Guevara comments.

No comment, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis.

No comments.

Commissioner Mazooka.

Uh this is more of a question.

Am I allowed?

Um are there any fences in between these houses?

These buildings?

Yes.

Correct, yes.

It will be a privacy fence.

So each unit will have a fence between each other, and then it'll wrap for their own backyard as well.

So everyone has their own private backyard.

Okay.

Commissioner Travieso.

Yes.

Uh, I'd like to inquire the front door versus side door.

Um, it just seems to resonate as me.

Which is your right your recommendation is side door, correct?

That's just from our experience, that's what's rented out most, you know, quicker, and and it's what tenants have wanted.

Um, and we have front door plans as well.

Um, it's something that we can maybe do a mixture.

We could come in and do some side door, some front door.

You know, that's something that and that would give uh you know some different elevations as well, so that's not gonna be 21 you know buildings exactly the same.

We can mix that up and it's that's something we can do.

I mean, we're willing to do that.

Okay, that's was the essence of my question.

Yeah, we're not here to be like this is you know the way it's gonna be.

Like we're we're open.

I mean, so we can we can make that change and and uh you know split it up that way.

Good.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um may I have a roll call, please.

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Ivada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Trevioso.

Aye.

Davis.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank y'all for your time.

Yes, we look forward to uh meeting with y'all at a DRC.

Okay, secondly, next week.

And agenda item number nine.

Agenda item number nine, each HDRC case number 2026-159, 145 terrain boulevard.

The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one includes two window openings at the rear facing facade to include installation of a 65 by 73 inch fixed window, and two replace a non-historic one over one wood, or I'm sorry, uh replace a non-historic one over one window at the west facade with a new casement window.

The staff does not recommend approval of items one and two based on the findings.

Staff recommends that the applicant retain the existing window openings located on site.

Cross this here as the applicant.

Um staff would like to note that uh per finding B, the applicants requested approval for roof modifications, window rear door, and siding replacement, front door staining, and exterior painting of non-masonry surfaces.

Um the property does not feature any historic wood windows on site and siding and door rear rear door replacement is requested for the existing rear edition.

Um these items are eligible for administrative approval and do not require review by the Historic and design review commission, but they may be found in the in the documents.

Um if the applicants would like to come up, you have 12 minutes to discuss the case, and then commissioners will ask their questions.

Hello, everyone, my name's Heather Keenan, and I'm a consultant at Crass.

We're a luxury design build remodeling company.

And I am here on behalf of our two clients, Stephanie and Jacob Abrami, who are the owners at 145 Thorrain and Almost Park Terrace.

They had a previously booked vacation for this time, or they would be here as well.

Just wanted to give you a brief um view of who they are.

They're both from San Antonio and they met working at Bill Miller in high school.

They've been together for 30 years.

Jacob is a veteran, recently retired from the Army and served our country as an army pilot in multiple overseas diplomatic posts on multiple continents.

They purchased this home 10 years ago while they were still living overseas, with the long-term dream of making this their forever home.

So they've really carefully thoughtfully been planning exactly every element that would serve them in their daily use.

So as Brian said, no original windows existing, they were replaced with cheaper vinyl windows that are not historically historically accurate.

They have their backyard and garden are very important to them.

You can't really see in the shot, but they have raised beds and are planning a garden expansion, grow a lot of vegetables back there.

So truly the goal for the primary bedroom windows is to remove those and create a larger picture window that allows them further enjoyment of the beautiful backyard and garden.

That's that's their primary uh goal here.

And then the primary bathroom window, they're asking to change that to a casement window.

They've had that in other properties overseas before and just enjoy greater airflow and opening that up to nature while they're in their primary bathroom.

Um the windows we've selected for the project are high-quality pillow wood and aluminum cloud windows in the same current exterior and interior trim colors.

It's our opinion that these windows will look more historically accurate than the existing vinyl ones there currently.

The two windows in question are not visible from the road and should not stand out.

Changing these fenestration areas will not impact the struct structural integrity of the building and would both be done on the non-original edition portion of the house.

Thank you so much for your consideration of these fenestration changes.

It's truly our intent and our clients' intent to make this home as beautiful, functional, and in keeping with the neighborhood as we can.

Thank you.

Uh we'll start with questions.

Commissioner Groove.

So I understand the memos.

I don't have any questions.

Um I can do a motion ready.

Okay.

We'll come back to you.

Commissioner Gruvaro.

No questions right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis.

No questions.

Commissioner Mazooka.

None right now.

Commissioner Travis, so none at this time.

Commissioner Civino.

Yeah, a couple questions.

Just for clarification, it looks like you are replacing a number of windows.

All of the windows.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so staff is the uh the concern obviously is the size of the opening and the type of windows, correct?

As it relates to the original house, right?

It does, yes.

So the historic design guidelines recommends that uh traditional um window profiles and sizes be used, even for rear editions.

Um, however, we are sympathetic that the actual request is for this rear edition.

Um, it's not on the historic footprint.

Okay, and are you in supportive of the window product?

Um yes, so the window um the applicants provided window um specifications, and it does appear that the windows fit the um window specifications outlined in the policy documents.

The standard so the window product is is acceptable.

It's the question is how do we modify, if at all, some of the existing openings?

Correct.

Right.

Because it looks like, yes, somebody took out the original windows, and what often people do will be to block in that space, that remaining space that doesn't fit a standard window time, right?

Is that what's happened?

We believe so.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

That's the extent of my questions.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh no, sir.

Okay.

Um I don't have questions at this time.

Commissioner Groove, you're gonna make a motion.

Okay, I'll make a motion um to approve as presented.

Second.

Thank you.

I'd like to clarify.

And I I want this to go to discussion if I may say some comments.

Certainly.

Okay, and it's it's difficult.

One is we're I am very consistent, right?

Modifying windows and all that.

These have been modified.

The applicants, I mean, it's almost like an upgrade, right?

Um, I just want to make sure I'm also totally clear.

We're we're talking about enclosing this rear window, right?

Which is non-original opening.

Correct.

Um, combining those two and creating a new opening there, as one large picture window rather than two existing.

And the non-historic 101 in the on the west facade with a new casement window, are you modifying the opening?

Currently, the opening is very small.

We have it, we submitted a picture, but um so we would be making it a little bit bigger, but um not as much of a change as the back primary wall.

But is it as big as what was there originally, you think?

Uh originally consistent with some of the original openings.

Is it gonna like you're you're changing all the windows, right?

Correct.

So actually this window is smaller than all of all I believe all the other windows, existing original windows in the house.

The one that was on this edition on the side of the bathroom is very small.

Yes, I can uh chime in too.

So the both windows, including this casement window on the west elevation is on the previously or on the constructed rear edition, so um it's hard to tell what was original and what wasn't, as as everyone said, the windows have all been replaced.

And I guess I was gonna repeat are you replacing it with a window that's comparable in size from this windows that are on the original part of the home that you're changing out, or will it still be smaller?

Um I would have to look at the specs of the casement window there.

It would be i if I could chime in a little bit, the it would be thinner, um, but generally speaking, it's pretty consistent with other casement windows of its of its design.

Okay, it's a small bathroom.

Uh uh further comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Guevara?

No comments right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis.

No comments.

Commissioner Mazuka?

No comment.

Commissioner Travieso?

No comments.

Commissioner Savino?

No comments.

Commissioner Velasquez?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I just uh would like to say that the proposed um enlarged window and the inclusion of the other window, I think would define uh what is appropriate.

They seem that they would be appropriate for this, and just making the comment that um that I hope that it creates a uh a category of appropriateness.

Those are my comments, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Um please.

Savino?

Nay.

Velazquez.

Yes, Mazuka?

Aye.

Yvada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Treviaso?

Aye.

Davis.

Aye.

And Fetzer.

Nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

That is the last agenda item.

So we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.