Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is now 3 p.m.

I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission meeting for Wednesday, July 15, 2026.

May I have a roll call, please.

Mammon Seveno here.

Velasquez?

Here.

Galloway Mazuka Guevara.

Group here.

Travieso Holland Fetzer.

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please.

Yes, yes.

Thank you.

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

I am J.

Maurice Gibbs, Chairman, and the Vice Chair is Jeffrey Fetzer.

It is a 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 and a river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

And considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's unified development code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by City Council.

An appeal of a decision by 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 a 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 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 proprietors has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation.

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I don't believe we have any comments uh prior to getting started today.

Um, as well as there are no uh no individuals signed up to speak on general items.

Uh so if we want to move forward with meeting minutes, and then we can look at the consent agenda.

Mr.

Chairman, I move for approval of the July 1st, 2026 meeting minutes.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Is there any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please.

Savino.

I'll yes.

Givada.

Aye.

Group, aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commissioners, if you could direct your attention to the screen to the consent agenda, you'll see that there are uh a number of letters and messages that you'll have in your packets uh in support of opposition or just general comments for items on the consent agenda.

Uh, we also have uh in-person speakers for item number six, item number eight, and item number nine, and so I can call those up now.

Uh for item number six, one ten Mary Louise, Bianca Mondo Maldonado is here in person.

Uh, she'll receive four minutes as Tom uh Simmons has yielded time.

Good afternoon, Bianca Maldonado and president of the Monitello Park Neighborhood Association offering comments uh after the review of our architectural review committee evaluating the property at 110 Mary Louise.

We appreciate the property owner seeking to invest in this multifamily property located at 110 Mary Louise.

We note that the current owner acquired the property in November of 2025.

The previous owner who acquired the property in April of 2024, presented plans to restore this property.

However, those plans did not materialize and the property deteriorated substantially and became a haven for vagrants.

We look forward to the new property owner executing their restoration plans to bring housing to the community.

We support staff's recommendations for the historic tax credit application.

We note that it is important for the property to be secured during renovations and for the roll top dumpsters to be serviced promptly.

We request that the current owner file a no trespass affidavit with SAPD as the last one lapsed with the prior owner.

If you look at the pro uh picture that's been submitted in the packet of the front, you'll see the roll top dumpsters.

Um, up until about two weeks ago, there were three roll top dumpsters on this property.

So maybe in consideration as the city offers a tax incentive that they put a requirement that a no trespass affidavit also be filed.

We're obviously just suggesting that they file one.

We're highly excited to see this property move forward and are supportive of the historic tax credit.

But we believe that when you have an open uh property like this and there's no fence around the rolltop dumpsters, I drove by on the way over here and it's six feet tall, and they won't service it when it's that high and overflowing.

So in historic districts, this is right next to one of Via's biggest uh on and off stops in their entire network with over 4,000 people getting on and off the bus.

On our way over here, we saw a bus patron grab something out of that dumpster, carry it across, and they're carrying it actually into HEB.

So anything we can do to you know be supportive of this moving forward and also ensure that if they something is seen on the property and the c and the neighbor calls SAPD that there's a no-trespass affidavit that could give somebody a warning and further protect these vulnerable properties as they go through the renovation within our community.

So thank you for consideration of our comments, and we are in support.

Thank you.

Uh next is item number 8302 North.

Um Bianca Maldonado is here to speak in opposition.

She'll receive four minutes.

Uh, Tom Simmons has yielded time to her.

Bianca Maldonado, president of Monticello Park Neighborhood Association offering comments on behalf of our architectural review committee who reviewed this.

We appreciate the owner seeking to invest in their historic home.

However, this is an incomplete HDRC application and is not an application for a pergola.

There are no photos of the existing conditions of the rear of the home detailing the overall site and setting of where this new structure will be installed, nor are there dimensions regarding the heights of the home's roof in comparison to the massing of the proposed structure.

If you'll see the excerpt from OHP's website and the letter that we submitted, it states gathered materials photo requirements, and those requirements were not met in the application.

Only a northern elevation photo, the front of the home was provided, and the overall height of the highest roof point was provided, and that's 20 feet.

What's missing is the height of the roof in which this structure will abut.

Also, there's no detailed information on the sizing of the new structural membranes, the support columns, the beams, and the trusses.

Without this information, we do not have a structural massing comparison for the new structure with respect to its proposed relation to the existing home's roof height at the 13-inch separation and its relation to the garage.

Specifically, what is the roof height of the overhang and the highest pitch of the adjacent roof?

We recommend the case be continued with the requirement that additional information be provided as mentioned above, and in accordance with OHP's HDRC application requirements to properly review the context of the installation site and the proposed structures massing and materials.

And if you'll see the image that I put up on top, you'll see that the elevation from the shear perspective, the public right-of-way.

This is a corner lot.

So we know the highest roof point is 20 feet in height, but what's the height of the roof of where this structure is actually going to abut?

And the image that I'm showing you on Google Earth here, there's also been a dish an addition onto that garage.

So, what's the spacing between whatever that overhang is on the garage to this proposed structure that's going to be placed between the main house and the garage because it is highly visible from the public right-of-way.

Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Next is item number nine, four fifteen fur drive.

Bianca Maldonado is here to speak in support.

She'll receive four minutes.

Tom Simmons has yielded Tom.

Bianca Maldonado, President of Monticello Park offering comments after a review of our architectural review committee.

We appreciate the homeowner seeking to invest in their historic home.

We support staff's recommendation.

We respectfully ask for the inclusion of a stipulation that a gutter be added on the eastern elevation of the proposed carport.

This stipulation is being requested to prevent runoff from having an adverse effect to the adjacent property owner as the proposed carport location abuts the property line at 411 fur drive.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the entire Monticello Park Historic District is in a mandatory detention area.

Mandatory detention requirements do not adhere to residential.

However, when we have an opportunity to provide public comment in an area that was platted before there was lot to lot drainage requirements, we just ask for sensitivity when a structure is on a property line.

So if you could add that stipulation, we would greatly appreciate it.

And it's only on that elevation that faces 411 fur drive.

Thank you.

Commissioners, that uh concludes public comments for the consent agenda.

Thank you.

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

Mr.

Chair, I would like to pull item number three.

Item number four, number eight, and number nine.

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion for the balance of the consent agenda.

Minus number four, number eight, and number nine.

Is that correct?

Uh it was Commissioner Sabino.

Three, four, eight, and nine.

Three, three, the those that are three, four, eight, and nine.

Yes, all with staff stipulations outside.

So restate your motion, please, sir, including audit, please.

Uh motion to approve consent agenda with staff stipulations minus three, four, eight, and nine.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Is there any further discussion?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I do want to say that I'm very excited to see so many tax certification verification cases and designations this time around.

Um I just uh applaud all of the applicants who are whose cases are up for those um requests.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino, aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Ms.

Youka?

Hi.

Kivata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

All right.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is North Main Avete Avenue between East Cyprus and East Ashby, 601 Delaware, 102 Thrain, 110 Mary Louise, 318 Divine, and 323 Bustillos.

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 email to you within 10 days.

Commissioners, we'll jump to item number three.

These are the uh via um cabinets uh for the green line.

Uh and Christine Via uh is here in person.

Good afternoon.

Christine Vinia with Via Metropolitan Transit.

I'm a special project's manager in our uh advanced rapid transit green and silver line office.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino.

Yeah.

Um staff had uh one of their stipulations for the two cabinet boxes of wiring infrastructure for two of the stops that you're proposing.

And um there was a request to reduce the size, reduce the visibility, and relocate, correct.

And um so there were some late documents that came in.

And I was wondering if you could just confirm the the new locations versus what they originally were.

And then the changes that you made from the original proposed that shows up in the public portal or shows up for the public versus what you've submitted for late design.

Okay.

What I submitted for the late was the same.

This top information we had submitted the bottom um images here for in the packet um showing that the general carter stations have the larger or the taller cabinet, um, and then we were asked to look at the downtown stations to pull those down.

So we we looked at those.

Uh they pulled them down about a foot.

They're six foot four on the uh corridor.

We pulled them down a foot, and then we asked them to um the consultants to look again to see if we could pull them down even further.

And so they have reduced them a full two feet, so now all the downtown stations are four foot six.

Um then the top image is basically the inside of the cabinet to show the number of components.

Um I know there was a question.

Do you want me to address like the Conservation Society?

From the uh conservation society had similar questions.

And um I've got a statement from our our um consultant engineer that uh the communication electric enclosure is a secured space that will be accessed only by via and CPS.

The enclosure box is required to provide both electrical power and communications to the ticket vending machine and validator, and those are the two components that will be accessed by passengers.

Um the wireless antenna, security video camera at each station, and then the electronic messaging board that goes across that tells passengers exactly how many minutes till the next bus arrives.

Um an electric meter is also required at every station, and CPS has specific standards as to the placement of this meter in terms of the height above the sidewalk.

Um additionally, the router and switches that operate the TVM, validator, camera, and message signs must have sufficient airflow around them as to not overheat, and the fan ventilation is provided, but there's no air conditioning within these enclosures.

Um lastly, the electrical power panel.

Um it contains the power panel which connects all of the electrical equipment devices to the CPS meter.

So that's why the uh we have reduced the ones that are downtown by there's no irrigation on those.

The irrigation components have been pulled out to be able to pull them down.

Um on the locations, uh, we were asked to look at uh those two locations to see if we could revise them.

Um the northbound Navarro station there, the CBS.

Um it was formally at the the original location was close to the curb.

So what we've done is we've pulled it back in line with the benches, um, kind of where that dark object is next to the trash cans.

That's where uh we're proposing that it be uh relocated, so it's out of kind of line of sight of the the curb line.

In the in an original application or documents.

Excuse me.

It was sitting probably a couple of feet from the building, but it looks like it's snug up to it a little bit more.

Yes, there's a there's a minimum dimension that we have to be from the building.

Um looks like eight eight to ten inches, but um that's generally it I do not believe it would be stick out uh in or encroach any further than the trash receptacles.

And then the Saint South St.

Mary's station was originally one, yes, and originally um on the curve.

Our location we thought it would be best to pull it out of the uh uh I guess pat the pedestrian path in line with the existing benches, but from the line of sight from the river up to the box, um so we were asked to move that.

And so what we've done is um from left to right, if you see in the blue dotted line, it's the fly uh fly line, which is uh the pylon component that has all the uh the route information, the ticket validator, and then the box is the TVM, and then the along and elongated um cabinet, electrical cabinet.

So all of those kind of go in line.

So if you're a pedestrian walking from north to south on the sidewalk, you would first come and see all the bike racks that are there.

Uh you can see a little bit of them in the photo there.

Then you would hit the tree, and then you would hit the equipment.

So those would all be in line to keep the pedestrian path behind there uh clean.

To the building, towards the building or towards the river.

I'm sorry.

Yes, that's so the pedestrian away from the river and then yes.

Okay, thank you.

And then the second question about the color, if we could change the color to be a little less subtrusive, absolutely, and the archaeological investigation.

Yes, we're following all federal requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the topic?

Um Mr.

Chairman, I'll make a motion for approval as presented with the late drawings and the stipulation for the paint color and archaeology.

Second?

It's been moved and properly second.

Any further further discussion?

I think I think uh VIA and their uh consultants have uh done a decent job on addressing concerns about size, location, um, orientation and all that.

So uh that's why I made the motion.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right, hearing no other further comments.

May I have a roll call, please.

Savina.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

Item number four.

Commissioners, this is item number four for 1841 East Houston.

The applicant, Matthew Rodriguez is here in person.

And then I do want to note that besides the letters, there are some updated documents in your late folder.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record, please, sir.

Matthew Rodriguez.

I'm the owner of 1841 East Houston.

Thank you.

Can you pull the mic up closer to you?

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabina?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Questions for for you.

Mr.

Rodriguez.

The community, the neighbors had sent in a letter and some comments, and they were concerned about the corrugated roof over the patio.

And so I would like to ask staff, how do you how does staff see corrugated metal?

How are you how are you defining it?

How do you talk about it to this specific building?

Well, to this specific building.

Well, I guess I'll back up.

For a building that was uh more of um age of the typical development pattern within the district, uh Corrigated would be out of place unless it was found originally on that building.

Uh in this application, we find that it's not uh portraying or or misrepresenting an original detail, and so generally we find it to be appropriate.

Um if this were original, it may be uh, or if this were dated to 1920, 1930, we may find a standing seam metal roof here.

Uh but we find the corrugated metal to be an appropriate application.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have a question about what okay, what is the the um the function?

This is a food service.

This would be a restaurant, it's a new concept for convos tacos.

It's already established in the neighborhood.

Right.

This will serve more lunch and dinner as their original location serves breakfast.

Is this a commercial kitchen?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um where does the trash go?

The trash right now is handled in the alleyway.

Uh it's done with uh separate containers, I think about three or four city containers.

Mm-hmm.

And so but that's a public right-of-way.

Yes, but I'll uh how does that how does that work with your your zoning then or with TSD?

Typically we'll have and why I'm asking is typically a building or a function like this has a dumpster, has a separate place outside of the building for trash, especially food, grease, things like that.

Um and it's usually on the property.

And as such, it is screened from the right of way as well.

Right now it's just trash cans.

Uh we could add a screening element there to when a dumpster is placed there, but we just haven't gotten there, nor is it shown on the site plan at all.

But it is a part of the good old alley, uh kind of just outside that door and AC unit.

Okay.

Um, I'm just not sure how that that works code-wise.

Um but anyway, that's some a different department.

Um also your uh do you have a landscape plan in your original file?

Should be on the last place, last sheet.

Last sheet.

Proposing about eight different trees, uh, mountain laurels, Mexican white oaks, and we've got an established desert willow in the corner.

Okay.

And you're you're labeling your concrete.

You also label in your site plan the black gravel around the building.

Typically, um the black the black gravel is not conforming in the historic district, even for commercial.

Would you consider a more natural great thank you?

Thank you.

Other questions?

Yes.

Um on your uh the public restroom unit, which is a standalone structure.

Yes, sir.

Um is that intended to be secured at the building wall or just the two doors locked?

At the building wall.

Uh when the restaurant will shut down, it'll it'll be closed with a gate that's not shown but at the building wall, and then also the doors of the of the water closets themselves.

Okay, so that will be secure after hours.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Unique and creative design there, but challenges of the site.

Did you have other questions, sir?

No.

Thank you.

Any other questions for this applicant?

Do you accept all the stipulations in the application?

Absolutely.

I have removed them.

Uh we went over the and I submitted some late drawings for the um doors and windows.

Those will be steel and inset six inches from the front facade at minimum.

Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a motion.

Please.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh request with the added stipulations of stipulation five to utilize a natural color brick or gravel in lieu of the black gravel.

And stipulation number six to provide screening and coverage for uh garbage and trash receptacles from the public right-of-way.

Absolutely.

Second stance.

It's been moved to improperly second.

Any further discussion.

Mr.

Chair, I just think that um in order to better ensure the success of a business that we know where the garbage is going where it's and where it stays until somebody needs to pick it up.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino?

Aye.

The last guess?

Aye.

Ms.

Yuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

Gibbs?

Aye.

And then Commissioner Galloway, I see you if you would like to vote on the motion.

Abstain.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Item number eight, please.

This is 302 North.

There is an item in your late folder.

And the property owner, Grace Pedrosa is here, and you can come up.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

May I you can pull the mic down towards you and then state your name for a record, please.

Grace Pedrosa.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino?

Fred Pedros was here too.

My husband.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um Mr.

Chair, I'm responding to the neighborhood's comments of completeness for the package.

Um the pergola is a significant addition to the backyard.

And it would be uh really helpful for us to understand a little bit more if we um could see it in relation to your rooftop of the main house where it is in uh in the elevation with your garage, etc.

Sure.

So the the deta the garage is detached and it's quite a ways away, so I'm not sure how that applies.

But I sent in a late photo of the back of the house where it shows what it looks like.

And if you look at it, that square area in front of the that partition or that stroke square structure is where we want to put the pergola.

So the garage is further back on this side, so it's not as close to it.

And so I think uh we didn't understand that the I guess the the elevated structure could not surpass the peak of the house, but is it the lower part?

I guess I'm not clear about that.

But we are preferring to have a gazebo just because it's a nicer look than just a flatter pergola.

So whatever we can go with is what we'd like to get, right?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for this applicant?

Good question, sir.

Please go ahead, sir.

So the the drawing that's on the screen right now, that's a gable and a pergola, uh, or at least the way I was understanding here was flat.

Sure.

So e either is because you're looking for shade or you're looking for water.

Oh no, it's definitely for shade.

Those look nicer from our perspective, and we saw the plans that were online.

So that's what we started with as a as a starting point, because everything is a process here, right?

I couldn't just expect this to be done.

And we're not going to order anything without having approval.

And with contractors, they're getting to the point where they want to charge you for just an estimate.

And I don't want to have estimates for something that's not going to be done or that's not going to be approved.

You good, sir?

Thank you.

Other questions?

I have some questions.

Please.

And to staff, um, this is not a detached building.

It's something freestanding, right?

So kind of applies different, right?

Um what is your how did you see the height?

Oh, how did you end up?

Um, you know, the ultimate ridge height of the primary structure is around 20 feet.

So this does remain technically subordinate to the primary.

Um the applicant has provided additional information indicating that the eve in which this structure would um a butt, not it's not attached, but would a butt, um, is uh 10 feet.

Um and then from there I would estimate that that adjacent uh hip roof is 14 maybe.

Um alternatively uh the applicant has presented alternative um roof configuration as you can see here on the big screen.

Okay, so you don't mind if it's flat.

I prefer not because those are uglier, right, in terms of the way they present with the house, right?

Our house has the the peaks, right?

So it would have we thought it went in line with the rest of the house versus a pergola, but I mean we're just wanting shade out in the yard.

I don't have further questions.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

We have a motion, please.

Um I'll make a motion, Mr.

Chair.

I'll make a motion to umide a conceptual approval with staff stipulations and additional stipulations to provide a line drawing elevation showing the side side elevation of the house, the pergola, gazebo covering where it should be, the garage where it should be, as well as dimensioning the um structural members of what of the structure.

Okay, meaning the column width and sizes, the beams.

Do you all have guidelines for those?

I can provide it.

Well, Mr.

Chair, I'll second but with comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, I think the structure and the spans guide determine the talking about dimensions.

Are you talking about the boards and what you use to fabricate it?

But just a conceptual approval with staff stipulations, adding the line drawing, the elevation with the accurate heights and what that looks like, as well as fully dimensioned structure.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um I want to make some comments.

Sure, good, sure.

Um the um and to the commission.

Um the building roof is a hip roof, so it's it's hard to imagine a gable junctioning with a hip, just to those of y'all that are with draw these things.

And unless that intention is for that gable to attach to that hip, in which case that's a totally different thing.

It's not.

Okay.

So then is a pergola it makes more sense because when you look at the picture of the back of the house, the eve is high.

So at the ground level, there's a lot of space underneath that pergola, and pergolas are really pretty if they're done right.

So the it would seem that the gable would look weird because it would create a massing on the land that would look real weird.

Would look real heavy, unless the intent was to connect it and then later on fill it in.

There's no intention that you're ma'am, ma'am.

That makes sense.

So just so as we to the conceptual as you get to to that end, um that if it's about really the aesthetic value that the I would just submit that the flat version would really look like an asset versus this alien gable.

But but of course that's just an opinion and the said in my comments.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

One moment, please, ma'am.

Other comments from the commission?

I would like to make a comment, Mr.

Chair.

Um go ahead.

I don't know if you want to go in order on that.

Um, we're we're fine on this part.

Um so I mean I'll I'll uh uh agree to the motion, but I I have a little bit of a concern here.

The applicant is coming here today, and she even offered also the option of doing a flat roof.

Um I think the application with the stipulation staff could have probably worked with the with the applicant.

This is a pergola, it's not a fixed building, it's detached, it's removable.

Um think we could have, you know, maybe helped the applicant.

I think we're putting a lot of uh requirements to an applicant just for a pergola.

Um because at the end of the day, if if the applicant did state today that she would be willing to do even a flat option, um that would be less visible, correct?

I mean, so that would be you know kind of a little line, probably a better option, even.

Um so just want my commissioners to make sure that we also just fully hear and fully see that before adding, you know, more stipulations and more costly you know, drawings to a project that should not, you know, something is removable and it's not permanent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr.

Chair, one more sir.

Commissioner Mizooka?

No.

No.

No comments.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

Mr.

Chair, I just it in terms of the conceptual just want to note that it's a very kind of a sensitive suggestion.

Because there is a critical value to the size of the member.

The location of a flat pergola is if it's too low, it would look weird.

If it's too high, it would definitely look weird.

So there is something to giving the applicant the opportunity to produce more detailed drawings that give the thickness in the of the of the boards of the members and the columns, because it it and and I agree with Commissioner Grooves that this is an extra step that might be also save some time for the applicant.

But it's this little critical detail that I think is important for them to take the time to um to present the size members property, but particularly that they understand that the eve of the existing house is what's going to represent uh where their aesthetic value rests for the rest of the life of this house.

So they really should produce something that ties them to making the right decision, not for us but for themselves.

Thank you, sir.

Um Commissioner Holland, Commissioner Galloway, any comments from you?

No comments.

Thank you.

No comments.

Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Thank you.

Ma'am, I'm uh do you have something else?

Okay, go ahead.

Um I think conceptual approval with stipulations is appropriate in this case.

Uh again, so you can uh determine what the member sizes are.

You can uh take into account the discussion today about whether the gable roof is appropriate or whether a a flat roof or uh that and uh conceptual approval doesn't dictate one way or the other.

So you could come back to us with a uh flat roof if you wish or if you want to stay with the McGable.

Uh it the conceptual approval basically says that the the uh the roughly the size and location of the structure is um acceptable to the commission.

So um I think there's enough unknowns here that the conceptual approval is is appropriate.

Thank you.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Yeah, so does that mean that we come back?

Are we gonna have to come back a month from now, or do we work with Patlin and then y'all can approve it offline, or do we have to come back next month, or what does that mean?

You'll come back for final approval in front of the commission.

Okay, all right.

That completes your questions, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

I.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Yevata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, item number nine, please.

Um did you want me to read it into the record, Mr.

Chair?

Okay.

Um the applicant's not here.

Uh he indicated that he would be here virtually, but he's not present.

But if staff can answer any questions that the commissioner commission may have.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino.

Um, I'm taking my um thoughts from the neighborhood association about the water runoff onto an adjoining property.

In the site plans provided, there is nothing to mention.

So if this would be a situation where you could work or staff can work with the applicant before the next hearing to resolve that by putting a gutter on the east side of the carport.

Um I think that would meet uh the neighborhood's goals as well as the adjoining property owners' goals.

Sure.

So would that uh just for clarification, would that look like a stipulation um to add a gutter on that on that portion, and then we can uh work with the property owner towards the appropriate place.

Thank you.

All right.

So um are there any other comments, please?

Just question before next hearing, which means we can't do a motion because the applicant is not here.

We can do a motion.

I think maybe we understood Commissioner Savino as that would be a stipulation within a motion.

It would.

It could be a stipulation within a motion.

I could go ahead and make the motion.

One moment though, please.

Um Commissioner Mizuka.

I just had a quick question about the garage.

Does it still exist?

Or is it has it been demolished?

Yes, thank you thank you.

This was my fault.

I didn't add a case history finding, but the garage that's there currently was approved by the HDRC for removal.

So for my understanding, the garage is still there, but it will be removed before it's before this carport is constructed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So my stipulation is to approve the request with staff stipulation, including to add a full-length gutter and downspout to the east side of the structure.

Second.

Any final discussion.

I do have a question of staff.

Whether an accurately dimensioned site plan would be appropriate here.

We've got some sketches on a plat and some freehand drawings.

But to know exactly where that structure is going to sit on the on the property, is that something that should typically be submitted?

If if if it needs to be stipulated, we can work with the applicant on providing uh dimensions and note setbacks on the site for the structure.

Thank you.

And I can modify the motion to include a stipulation for uh accurately uh dimensioned site plan.

Second step.

Second still standing yes, thank you.

Commissioner Group.

I mean the applicant will be needed to accord at the Board of Adjustment to get adjustments for the right.

Well, it's not determined if they need a variance.

If they're within their rear yard setbacks, uh then they wouldn't need a variance.

Um if they do, then yes, they would they would need a uh dimension site plan for that.

I can just to my previous comment, you know, we're adding costly expenses to a project.

That's probably you know just want to make sure we're aware of those things when we add stipulations like those.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

I Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Colin.

Aye.

That's here.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Can have item number eleven, please.

Uh agenda item 11, HDRC case number 2025, 250, 932 Burnett.

Uh the request is item number one, the consideration and approval of a waiver pursuant to the unified development code section 35608G to accept and review the application submitted for the request noted below in item number two.

Item number two is uh a certificate of appropriateness request to construct a rear uh approximately 1,725 square foot, one-story rear accessory structure uh featuring a wraparound front porch.

Um sorry, commissioners.

Staff recommends approval of requests item one, the approval of a waiver to accept and review a subsequent application under the unified development code section 35608G based on findings B and C.

And then staff recommends conceptual approval of the rear accessory structure uh with the following stipulations.

Stipulation one is in regards to staff standards for material specifications, standing seam metal roof, et cetera.

Uh number two, that the applicant submit additional detailed drawings of the porch railing design and window and door trim surrounds to staff for review and approval.

Three, that the applicant revisit the proportions of the primary facade, specifically the front facing gable to better reflect the vertical proportions characteristic of the fault victorian style.

Four, that the applicant include additional finestration at the northeast corner of the structure at both the northern and eastern facades and feature a six-inch mullium between any ganged window configurations.

Five that the applicant submit all final material specifications to include windows, doors, siding and roof based on findings J, K and L.

Six that the applicant submit any material specifications and drawings for all site elements, including landscaping, fencing or flat work as an additional request for consideration.

And seven that the applicant meet all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment if applicable.

I can hear you fine.

All right.

Otherwise, uh you could take uh any questions uh from commissioners if needed.

No, that's fine.

I I don't have anything to say.

I don't I don't really like whatever whatever you guys need me to do, I'll do it.

Um I've been trying to get this thing done for uh many number of years now, so just just trying to do whatever you guys want.

So are you basically agreeing to all the stipulations that we have in the case here?

So when you say you have nothing to add, is are you agreeing with all of those?

I I I haven't even looked at this stuff.

I'm agreeing to whatever you guys put on that paper.

Um I had a I got a bearing to years ago before this process even started, I have my barrier.

So if I'm understand this is your case, but you said you maybe haven't looked at it.

So if you're are you interested in the case or you were just pretty much washing hands off it, so whatever happens just happens.

Is that your your position right now?

My position is I like to build a build um what I have there um what I submitted.

So to be clear, so you want to bill what submitted.

So we um staff has provided you um items that um they want to be able to see, and so if you haven't looked at it, then can you you know confidently state that you agree with all of those because if you're saying that you are, then we're gonna move forward with what we feel is the best.

Yeah, it all matters whatever they put on that paper.

All right, sir, thank you.

Um questions for the applicant.

Um Mr.

Chair, um since the first item of order is the waiver, uh, can staff talk about the difference what uh you find is substantial design difference from the first uh submittal to this one?

Yes, absolutely.

Um the first submittal that you saw um ten or so months ago uh was a two-story volume with a three-bay garage on the first floor and living space on the second.

Um so uh uh Natondo did take into account some of the feedback he received at the hearing um and made changes, and I do believe that they are significant enough.

Well can we make a motion to accept the waiver?

So we can hear the case?

Spend more than properly second further discussion on that.

All right, may I have a roll call, please.

Savina, aye.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Muzuka?

Aye.

Givana?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

That's it?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Um questions uh from the commission on the case.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question for staff.

Um one of the stipulations, stipulation number three that the applicant revisit, revisit the proportions and primary facade.

Um, would you venture to be a little bit more detailed?

What does that mean?

What kind of guidance would you would you give?

Sure.

So we um specifically talked about the proportion of that front gable.

Um I think that the proportion as uh the composition as a whole of the primary facade exists now, uh, reads uh quite contemporary in terms of kind of how all these separate elements are existing in relationship to each other.

Um and so that could result in a considerable redesign of the primary facade.

Um and we have to be careful to not um be the designer here.

Um but we would like to see a better relationship, I suppose, pro as it regards proportions in relation to the rear accessory and how it speaks to the primary.

Okay, that's uh specifically what I was looking for because parts of that hip roof are fine, but it is that gable end.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

Um I'm understanding that that um which the comment you made about being careful to not design stylistically clearly is a different house.

So if there's not a if there's not a blatant guideline.

Then you we can go back and forth a hundred a hundred times to to try to say something that perhaps is not in our purview, which is the question of stylistic.

Um, but I think at the same time, um correct maybe I'm wrong here.

You're uh probably recognizing that with respect to finestration that we are usually more restrictive of blank walls.

All right.

So is that included in what you what you would be saying in what you are looking at?

Yes.

Um one of the findings and stipulations does um specifically address finestration on that primary facade, you know, even just the inclusion of a window just to the right of that front door.

Um but that northeast corner in general does require some more work.

So would would you agree that that it moves the applicant's agenda forward even as a conceptual approval?

Yes, I would.

Okay, thank you.

No more questions, sir.

Thank you.

Other questions.

I'll do a motion if there are no other questions.

Please, please go ahead.

Um move to approve the staff recommendations, conceptual approval, all staff stipulations.

Second.

Further discussion.

Sir, you have any further comments?

No, sir, but I would think that uh perhaps the I don't know if it's in in a necessary emotion, but that a DRC should definitely be offered to this gentleman.

It's always offered.

I don't think it needs to be in the motion.

Okay, Commissioner Sabina.

Yeah, I would say take um I would like the applicant and his design team to take special attention to the floor plan and the elevations because they're not coordinated at all.

And it made it a little difficult to imagine what certain elevations or fa building faces would be like.

Uh uh the north and the south elevations are a little are are just not coordinated.

So and I would encourage a DRC too before a final hearing.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mazooka.

Uh my only question is the uh the uh house on the left, the new one.

Um I guess there is a an opening for the fence, and is there a sidewalk that's not indicated on the plan?

Um I don't recall, but we can have a look at the photos.

It does look like there is a sidewalk on the Willow Street side.

Um, there was a stipulation saying that any sort of site work, flat work fencing would need to be submitted as a separate request and is not being reviewed today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gabata.

Nothing right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland.

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Galloway.

I'm questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fetcher.

No comments.

Thank you.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savina.

Aye.

We'll ask us.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mizuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 12, please.

Agenda item number 12, HDRC case number 2026-165, 2018, San Pedro.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one reface and existing pole signs cabinet.

The existing cabinet features an overall height of approximately five feet and an overall width of approximately 10 feet.

The sign features an overall size of approximately 100 square feet, including both sides, but not including the message board beneath the logo sign.

Two to install an internally illuminated drive-through cabinet pole sign at the north property line adjacent to the right-of-way at West Mistletoe.

The proposed cabinet will feature an overall height of five feet and an overall height of eight feet for a total size of approximately 40 square feet.

And three, to install an internally illuminated wall sign on the west facade of the existing structure.

The proposed sign will feature an internally illuminated cabinet, internally illuminated cabinets and facelit channel letters.

The proposed sign will feature an overall height of approximately three feet four inches and an overall width of approximately twelve feet for a total size of approximately 40 square feet.

Staff recommends approval of item number one, the reface of the existing pole signs cabinet based on finding C.

There is to be no increase in size of either cabinet.

Staff does not recommend approval of item number two, the installation of a drive-through cabinet sign.

Staff recommends the applicant applicant explore alternative signage options at this location, including the installation of a monument sign that would be consistent with the UDC and the guidelines for signage.

Staff does not recommend approval of item three, the installation of an internally illuminated wall sign based on finding E.

Staff recommends the applicant install a wall sign that features indirect illumination that is to be backlit or halo lit, as well as aluminum faces would be appropriate and consistent with the UDC and guidelines for signage.

Sir, before you get started, can you state your name for the record, please?

Ricky Ortiz.

Appreciate you, sir.

Go ahead.

Option number three that was uh denied is just um a rebuild of something that's already there.

There's already channel letters there that are already installed in the building.

We just changed the name of the restaurant.

So what was proposed was new signage, the same type of sign that's already there, just with the current name, with the new name.

There's already internally illuminated channel letter signs installed on that place from the previous business.

So, sir, question.

So um you uh you jumped into three and and forgive me if I missed the earlier part, but um so staff is recommending approval of item one, but um not approving items two and three.

So yeah, so your position is that um is basically are the same type of sign is already there, and now they're asking you to change that.

Um but you and you're saying why can't you just change the name and that's it?

Is that what I'm saying?

Why can't we uh install the same type of sign that was already previously approved to be there for the previous business?

Um because we're but I I'm not arguing option number two because there was no drive-thru there before.

So option number three is uh the denial of a channel letter sign when there's already a channel letter sign there.

We're just changing the name of it.

Got it.

Thank you, sir.

Um anything else you'd like to add, sir?

No.

All right.

Thank you very much, sir.

Um questions for this applicant.

I'll start um start with my virtual applicant.

So um Commissioner Galloway, questions for the applicant.

No questions.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Holland.

No questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazooka.

Thank you, Commissioner Gibota.

No questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

I guess I would like to hear from staff about what's the existing right now.

Sure.

So um here's a a pretty good uh idea.

Um the uh poll sign that you see to the right, uh, that's what the app the top cabinets with the applicants proposing to reface.

Uh that's fine and appropriate with the UDC.

Uh the only comment on that is staff is saying that the message sign below and the existing cabinet cannot increase in size.

Um with the applicant stating uh where you see the the facelit channel letters that say Mexican Mexican restaurant, um, those facelit channel letters are internally illuminated.

Uh those are inconsistent with the UDC and the guidelines for signage within a historic district.

Um in the event that the existing sign, like the cabinet is being refaced with no removal or introduction of new signage elements, that would be eligible for approval.

Um, however, the channel letters that are there will be removed.

Uh and then a new channel letter sign, the features of cabinet will be installed.

Um that's what's going to trigger the need for review and a new sign permit.

Uh the applicant would then need to comply with the UDC and historic district s standards for signage.

Uh so um I guess to the to the point the applicant's making.

Right now, these these have a green plex face on them.

If the green plex face was coming off and there was going to be a blue or a red plex face go on there, that would generally classify for for a reface.

Uh anything other than that, removal of these enlarge, remove this wording, put a new sign up, new logo, new design.

Also another question.

If you were to approve it, but not internally lit with um with the um indirect light, would that um size be acceptable because we already have the other signs?

Generally the size is okay.

Size is is relatively scaled appropriately to the facade.

Um this the design of the sign would it generally be okay if the faces were metal instead of plastic, featured some type of reverse lighting, halo lighting, uh a soft glow and didn't have an internally illuminated to where the face of each letter was lit and then the entire cabinet itself was glowing.

Uh so there are there are a handful of options.

Uh there may not be a handful of options with the Plex face type of sign that the that's designed here.

Thank you.

Is this something you would like to explore?

Yeah, can we get an approval for this sign?

I mean I I didn't have enough time to work it out.

Um the type of sign that you're asking for, which is a reverse lit channel letter.

And I guess what we could do is um is make a stipulation that just has those guidelines.

So uh what what the applicant is showing here is a halo lit channel letter sign, and this is consistent with the guidelines in UDC.

So um if the applicant could install something like this, then that 100 percent would be fine.

Um the only thing I want to note is the design that was submitted had like the crown logo as well.

So we wouldn't be able to do the logo.

Okay, okay.

Well then um this right here, what's on the screen now, staff would issue a certificate of appropriateness for this.

And Mr.

Chair, we're gonna continue right going down the we will, sir.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

Commissioner Rupton.

No, I was just if there was no further questions, I would do a motion, but I see.

Commissioner Savino?

No questions.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh well, Mr.

Chair, because I'm the last over here, I was gonna uh suggest a motion, but but uh mainly I wanted to just appeal to the aesthetic value of the uh original request.

Uh I don't know if that's appropriate outside of a motion, because it's not a question.

But um in order to have the conversation about that, the motion would have to be framed in in that way, in which case I would make a motion to approve as submitted.

But before you do go to that route, sir, so we are still in questioning, but you're not the last one.

We still have vice chair.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fester.

Um you showed us a uh halo lit sign that you could do.

Uh if you wanted to uh stay with your current design for the space, could that be modified to be halo lit?

Yes.

Our our original you see the bottom is the nighttime picture, it already has the halo lit.

So the the difference between that design and the one that we just showed on the camera is that this is a front lit and a reverse lit channel letter sign.

Okay.

And the front letters are acrylic, they're 316 white acrylic.

So they obviously light to the front, and then we install lights on the back side of it to give the halo against the wall as well.

Okay, so if you wanted this particular design, you could accommodate with the halo lit letters.

It's it would essentially he just have to put a metal face on each face of each cabinet.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

And we wouldn't be able to use our logo as the the biggest thing because you can illuminate the logo with the reverse lid.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I have a motion, please?

Mr.

Chair.

I I'd like to make a motion for the more than anything to have a dialogue about it.

For as submitted, uh, which is the one that we saw on the on the wall there with the front lit, I guess it is.

So just just for clarity on the motion so we could see the picture.

There's three items on in of the application.

This is zoning starting one.

Yes, and the that the one that he agrees to, the one that he agrees not to do, and this one as is submitting, which is the front, not not the menu.

Yes, the other one, and yes to the front lit uh uh logoed sign.

So um to be clear, because I'm I'm a little confused.

So your motion is what are you recommending approval?

You say estimated says of the one that he showed us today, or and that one there.

So can you clearly state that?

So I don't you recommend item one.

Do you don't have to do that?

Yes, sir.

Um approval for our item item one.

Um item two as denied, right?

And item three as pres as originally presented by the applicant.

So the halo lit that he presented to presented today.

Is that what you the first one?

The the one that was on the screen.

Basically, can you put it on the screen?

I understand what he's saying.

So he's basically asking for the one that's in the one that's on the application that is on the screen now.

This one in hopes that we can have a conversation about the aesthetic value.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, it's been moved in properly second.

Good, sir.

Okay, Mr.

Chair, uh I I know the rules exist for for us to give uh good consideration to what it is that we're looking at here.

The the letters that are just the backlit letters, uh, they present a very typical sign, but it it seems that it in a way it downgrades the improvements that are going on here.

This image would seem possibly that uh uh that there would be some ability to control the lumen as opposed to just saying no to a front lit situation.

The logo adds a lot to what what might appear to be the success of this restaurant.

And if the restaurant is successful, it would be successful for everybody there, and a sign has a lot to do with that.

So a simple building with a beautiful sign, it adds value to the streetscape.

I don't I really seriously doubt, even if it's the prescribed sign style uh that the code or that the guidelines call for.

I seriously doubt that that that that sign is accomplishing anything but a but but achieving what the generic guidelines says.

The sign that we see in front of us uh it's enticing and maybe it it it asks for additional consideration, but it I think it it it it's a circumstance where in this case it makes perfectly good sense.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Um other comments.

Yes, sir.

I don't agree with the motion.

Can I do an amended motion?

You by all means can do an amended motion.

I move to approve item one with the added stipulation that mean no increase in size, denial of item number two, and then uh approval of number three, no uh comments on the design, just that the sign be um featured indirect lightning, light illumination, back lit or halo lit, as well as aluminum as per the guidelines.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second discussion.

Yeah, and I don't think um our purviews whether you know the design, and I think the applicant is is moving forward with something and for his business.

I think the um the comments to Commissioner Velasquez are valid, but I also we already are approving a sign in the existing poll that includes the the logo and and there's a and you know lighting there too.

So I do feel like uh we have to stay consistent here with what we usually do and and by the guidelines for this type of signage on the building.

Thank you.

Did you want to make a comment?

Sorry.

Thank you.

Um I'll start off with the virtual applicants.

Um Commissioner Galloway, any comments.

No comments, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Holloway.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Halley.

No comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazuka.

No comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Guevara.

No comments, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Sabino.

No comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Pelasquez.

Yes, sir.

I I just like to say that you you know, in any circumstance, an applicant brings before well thought-out design.

It could be like the pergola in the previous uh situation where it makes a dis uh uh uh puts in our purview the difference between a flat uh cover or an uh a gabled cover.

And it's very hard, like like with respect to the last uh case where we're looking at um an accessory dwelling that matches the original building or doesn't match the original building, and it is hard to say that we're not making an aesthetic uh decision, which yes, it's a very difficult situation that it puts us all in to try to decide what is right.

I think this is this is equally as important because somehow the sign is a is a fundamental element to what brings people in the door and when they looked at designing their building and they put that sign there, I want to be very sensitive to what the gentleman here said.

He says, yes, we we'll do what you want, but it will be without the logo.

And we had uh signage downtown that is an art project that was uh massive LED signs, and they had to have their logo on there, which really kind of downgraded the the the LED sign, right?

But the companies had to have their logos there.

This is equal to that.

So this is the applicant bringing something that the applicant has already decided is vital to their to their project.

And I think in them looking at that, that they know what will work for them.

And and I just think that that sometimes it's appropriate to really look at this and to say um not like we like to say that staff has it right, but but in this case, it seems that the applicant has it has it right, has what what they think is gonna work.

So I uh if I'm not in support of this motion, is it I just want to make it clear it's not that I'm not in support of the applicant.

If if I'm not in support of the motion, it's because I'm in support of the applicant.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Vice Chair Petser.

I support the motion.

Um the guidelines for new signage, I believe are fairly clear.

There are options for new signage that are allowed, the halo lit, the backlit.

Um I think working with staff, there may be other options as well, such as if the logo is important to your image and for uh your business.

Uh I believe there's an option for a uh an externally mounted light that shines on to the face of the logo, uh like a picture light.

Uh so if there's something like that that you feel is important, that'd be uh you could come back with another application for that sign.

Uh so you might explore with uh staff what other options might be for signage if uh the what is approved today uh doesn't meet your uh guidelines.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Another question.

Sure, push your question, sir.

On option number two, which is the drive-thru.

If we created a front lit uh I uh indirect lighting menu, would we be able to do a drive-thru with that?

I'm sure if you present that to staff and they can work with you.

Generally, um if if there were some type of cabinet uh that were indirectly lit, um at that point it essentially may function as a monument sign, but have a menu or whatnot that's indirectly lit.

Um I think that that potentially could work.

And so uh we can review options from the applicant, and if it's something that we believe we can approve administratively, we will.

Um if it's something that we find needs to come back to the commission, then we can schedule that.

Thank you, sir.

To answer your question?

Yes, perfect.

All right.

So first we're gonna have a roll call on the um amended motion.

Savino?

Aye.

The last guess?

Nay.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Now I'm going to link to legal for this, so we're now going to vote on the motion as amended, correct?

Or we okay.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please, on the motion as amended.

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Uh I'm not sure what we're voting on.

Can I can I get if that's it, right?

It's not.

So what did we just vote on Alma?

All right.

And so what's your vote, sir?

A.

Thank you.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Colin.

Aye.

That's her.

Aye.

And guess.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Item number 13, please.

Agenda item number 13, HDRC case number 2026, 167103 East Mulberry.

The applicant is requesting conceptual approval of a site plan regarding the construction of two two-story single family residential structures at 103 East Mulberry, located within the Monte Vista Historic District.

This slide currently features a two-story historic structure.

The applicant is currently requesting to divide the lot into three separate parcels, two of which would feature the proposed new construction.

The applicant's zoning request is pending to be heard by the zoning commission on July the 21st.

Staff does not recommend conceptual approval at this time.

Staff recommends the applicant provide additional information regarding setbacks and building orientation as noted in findings ENF.

Staff recommends that the southern structure should feature a front setback that is equal to or greater than the front setback of the historic structure at 103 East Mulberry.

Uh this does not include the front porch.

And the side setback from North Main that is greater than the side setback of the historic structure at 100 East Aguarita.

The proposed structure should be equal to or greater than that of the historic structure's primary massing, not only the porch massing.

Additionally, staff recommends that the southern structure feature an orientation toward East Mulberry is a north-south orientation is consistent with the existing orientation at North Main and East Mulberry.

And for the structures on the north side of the 100 block of East Mulberry.

For the northern structure, staff recommends an entrance orientation toward North Main to be appropriate and consistent with the existing historic examples on this block of North Main.

Architectural details, landscaping, hardscaping, and massing and scale should all be consistent with the guidelines.

A complete infill design application supplement is required when submitting an application for a certificate of appropriateness.

So I'm just gonna uh if you leave and then rejoin briefly, I'm gonna see if that changes anything.

Sorry about that.

All right, that seems to have worked.

Uh Robert, you should be on now.

Um it looks like you've unmuted.

So um Robert, I've read every the request into the record, see you there now.

Um if you want to uh provide the commissioners with the general overview of the request, um do so.

Um currently I have the original site plan uh on the screen.

If you'd like me instead to uh display the site plan that you sent earlier today, just let me know and I can do that.

Uh yes, please.

If you could uh display the uh updated site plan that we sent to you uh earlier today, please.

All right, all right, perfect.

Uh Robert, if you want to present, uh you'll have 12 minutes.

I'll start the timer.

Uh and then commissioner, so that I don't forget we do have uh citizen to be heard, Mr.

Ryan Reed, who signed up to speak.

So uh after Robert, we can hear from public comment.

Sure.

Uh so currently uh at the moment, um we are proposing is to subdivide uh the property into three separate parcels.

Uh one with an existing structure and the other making for uh for both single family residences.

This project first started out as just a uh simple uh flat um with concerns with not making a net acreage uh in a R4 zoning.

Uh we decided to move forward with the rezoning.

Um of course with the rezoning that um caused uh a little bit of chaos within the neighborhood association.

Um they were we're uh with the rezoning.

Um they believe that we're not following any of the historic guidelines, so then that uh resulted us into submitting the uh application for appropriateness.

Um so the goal here is to possibly get an approval on just the site layout um because the original intent is just to subdivide the property.

I currently don't have any architectural plans, you know, landscape plans, I don't have any elevations.

I don't have any idea what exactly uh how the holder or the way they're gonna look.

Um I can see the footprint to show you know how the possible way the houses can be laid out.

That is all right, all right.

Thank you, sir.

Um see.

So you have no other comments.

That was it for you.

Perfect.

Um what we do have a that's what I thought.

Do we have um comments?

Yes, uh, we have one citizen to be heard, Mr.

Ryan Reid, he'll receive two minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh my name is Ryan Reed.

I live at 242 West Limwood Avenue, and I'm the current chair of the Monte Vista Historical Association's Architectural Review Committee.

So I'm speaking on the association's behalf in opposition of this conceptual site plan for 103 East Smallberry.

Um, and we ask that you concur with the staff's recommendation.

Uh the applicant's proposing to subdivide this corner parcel into three lots.

Um the site plan has changed uh since what I last saw, and I would say it's an improvement.

Um what they're proposing still directly conflicts with section four of the historic design guidelines, uh, which requires new construction to align with the established setbacks along the street fundage and to orient facades and entrances consistent.

Now that latter one seems to have been addressed here with this corner lot facing uh East Mallberry.

Um concern still exists about the setback of this corner lot.

Um if you look at the average of the setbacks on this block, it would still need to move back about 10 feet, it looks like, and I'm not sure how you can do that with this proposed um replant.

Uh I'll note that the replant has not been approved to our knowledge as of Monday when I spoke uh with Nicole Salinas.

Um they're also proposing IDZ zoning in order to get the reduced setbacks, which is unprecedented in the historic and the uh residential area of Monte Vista.

Um so we're not opposed to developing this parcel.

Um we're actually going to meet with uh Mr.

Laihat tomorrow evening, or we're scheduled to uh to discuss some alternative proposal, specifically instead of three lots having two with that page left here, um, being a single R4 with conditional use for a second structure in the rear.

Um that would allow it to push back to keep that setback, but also keep side setbacks that are consistent with the historic district.

Thank you, sir.

Um would the applicant like to address the comments mate.

Um I would say the only findings that we had was that um with the uh R4 is clean and our current layout, uh we may be able to make the uh minimum net acreage and we may not have to rezone to uh IDV.

Um so if it remains our core um implementing those setbacks, um we're we're gonna try to make it work within those uh setbacks of R4 and historic district.

Thank you.

I had one more thing if your time is up, sir.

I mean you can have seen it.

I mean you can have seen it and I'll have if application if commissioners have questions, we'll uh bring you back up for that.

Um I'll start with questions for the applicants for we'll start off with our virtual app virtual commissioners, please.

Um Commissioner Galloway.

No comments or questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Holly.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazooka It it seems like there needs to be uh some discussion about between the owner and the a neighborhood association about changes, possible changes.

I don't have any questions because I think there still needs to be some discussion between them.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Gabada?

No questions right now, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Uh just have a few questions.

So does the applicant need this approval for the zoning hearing next week?

Uh generally a recommendation from the HDRC to zoning um is more or less the process that's followed.

Um it's not necessarily required, but um a recommendation from HDRC to zoning would benefit the applicant.

Okay.

And then um we're we when we're looking at this as if it was uh approved, right?

As three different lots, then um based on your comments, you have an East Mulberry facing property, but then now you're gonna have a North Main Avenue address, and I guess that would be considered then the front facing um I I wouldn't say that staff is is basing um basing our recommendation off of that.

Uh primarily, let me um this is helpful.

Um so uh the guidelines know to follow the standard or the historic development pattern.

Um if uh you know the southern side of East Mulberry at the corner, there features a structure at 102 that faces fate features a north-south orientation.

Um that would be the appropriate or what staff finds to be appropriate orientation here.

Um I think primarily what staff is concerned about is um should the proposed lots or division of lots move forward.

Um staff doesn't find that there would be the like I don't know how staff doesn't know how the applicant could address having appropriate setbacks and orientation to also have a massing width, height, et cetera, that's consistent with historic design in the neighborhood that would fit within the the lots that that they would wind up with.

Uh so that's staff's primary concern.

And then um would also place the applicant kind of in a hard place, right?

It would because it wouldn't be able to, I mean it could come back, right, with a big design, or should we um well uh uh this is a conceptual review.

Um and so um if this wasn't approved, then uh yeah, in theory the applicant could come back with different layouts.

I mean we've seen two uh one that's maybe a little more responsive to the guidelines than the other.

Um but yeah, the the I guess the difficult thing is is that the applicants moving forward to zoning commission prior to being able to get some type of resolution here at the commission, then um uh it may lock them into having to work with a certain lot layout that may not result in a design that's consistent with the guys.

That's gonna be my last question.

Was there a request for a DRC or anything pri previously?

Uh no, and and and a DRC could be an option.

Um obviously that would the applicant would need to figure that out with their timeline, but um we could schedule this for a DRC if that were the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

Um yes, Mr.

Chair, I have a question for um the neighborhood representative.

May we call him up?

Absolutely.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Blaskes.

Staff, um Edward, I'm looking at the I was looking at the first one that's in the file.

And um just trying to understand that one and then the next one that came up, the representative from the neighborhood referred to it as having improvements.

But uh it it not having a plot or a plat.

It you know, and from what you just said, um I'm I'm hearing that y'all looking at it, it seems like an impossibility.

And I really say that because I'm looking at it and I really don't uh it we have to think within the const within the construct of UDC and all those things, and it it it would throws me for a curveball that the UDC would allow either one of the the other two.

Um well I guess I guess I'll start with zoning setbacks, whether they were the setbacks that are applied to RM4 or no setbacks for IDZ would or wouldn't allow certain things.

So the applicant can work through in theory a zoning process to allow for certain setbacks that would result in what we maybe see here on the second plan or what may be on the first plan.

Staff's concern is that when you apply the guidelines where you wouldn't have a front setback of one structure that exceeds the side setback of another, or in considering what the guide historic design guidelines say for setbacks of what's appropriate and the placement of massing for new construction.

Staff's concern is that within the setbacks that the guidelines would dictate, you would maybe wind up with a footprint of a house that's like maybe what's drawn in the blue box there.

Uh so that's that's what staff's concern is, and that's what our based on what our guidelines are recommending, um may or may not be possible.

Um, obviously the commission is in place to review each application on a case-by-case basis, and there may or may not be uh flexibility from the commission standpoint on uh working within a certain lot configuration um that may be the result of uh zoning or the subdivision of these lots.

Uh but based on what's been submitted to staff, staff doesn't find current configurations to be appropriate or consistent with the guidelines.

Well that being said, just to try I'm trying to uh figure out how to think about this now.

If it doesn't have a zone yet, I mean it may not a zone.

If it doesn't have a plat yet, then it would be totally appropriate for us to consider whether or not the plat is appropriate.

The division of lots is appropriate because even in an infill development zone, infill development zone isn't necessarily, at least in spirit, intended for existing property that is a thing in itself.

And to lax code in environments where uh say there was street front parking in the 1920s and now this building has street front parking where code would prohibit it, and IDZ would enable uh certain things to continue.

Uh uh my understanding is not necessarily intended for uh you know, to build a granny flat.

Um although I can see how it could be taken advantage of.

But since neither exists, would it be appropriate to say that the redevelopment of the streetscape falls in our purview?

Which is planning.

I mean, the the guidelines do apply standards for setbacks, orientation, architectural design, massing, etc.

Um all of those things fall within what we would be reviewing for for new construction.

Um I would also say that um the commission's decision or comments uh could uh help inform the applicant moving forward of what may or may not be a potential avenue to move forward.

Um certainly uh from a staff standpoint, we're you know, concerned uh and we don't want to uh negate to inform the applicant what's realistic in working with the guidelines.

Uh so if you look at our recommendation where uh we also comment on architectural standards and whatnot, um that's more of an FYI for the applicant that uh whatever the result of the site plan moving forward, there's still going to be additional things that need to comply with the guidelines, uh as well as the in-field design application supplement, um, which is going to then inform the applicant on more so on setbacks, more so on massing, more so on overall height and what would be appropriate based on what's in the district.

Uh so um all of those things in combination, uh, but it is important and and it is good that the applicant is here so that he can hear feedback from the commission uh before continuing and and maybe um having one thing or the other approved that that may not be as uh conductive to getting the result that they want.

Thank you, Edward.

Thank you, sir.

Vice Chair Fesser.

This is a tough one.

The um it's hard to evaluate.

Well, I guess I'm into comments.

Uh there's no more questions, I can do a motion.

Just a moment.

Um question to the applicant, would you be willing to uh pull your request to HDRC until you've had a chance to uh talk to the neighborhood uh and their suggestions that that they have been proposed today and maybe others would come out of your meeting since you are planning to meet with them tomorrow.

Uh yes.

If uh if there needs to be some type of time certainty for that, uh commissioners, the next hearing is on Wednesday, August the 5th.

Um there also would be the opportunity for the applicant to meet with the subcommittee, the design review committee, which is a subcommittee of the HDRC on Tuesday the 28th.

Uh so the applicant could do whatever they need to do in the next week or so, meet with the subcommittee to have more feedback from this body on the 28th, and then return to HDRC uh to a formal hearing on Wednesday, August the fifth.

Uh so uh Robert, if if that timeline kind of works for you or you think that's fine, then just say that.

Um yeah, that that's fine.

Um I did want to ask a question if possible.

Go ahead, sir.

Um so let's say uh we're we still plan to subdivide the property into these parcels that are shaped here currently.

Um and we don't use all the properties ID Z, we keep them on for uh when we decide to reply the property is a historic or OHP review gonna be done.

Um I if I'm understanding your question correctly, are you asking that if you do or don't move forward one way or the other, will you still need a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction?

Just to replatt the property.

Um, there's not a certificate of appropriateness isn't involved in the plotting process.

Um there's an archaeology review that that is involved in the platting process.

Um but I will say that if you know the properties are replatted, um, then in the future if somebody submits an application for a new construction, um there would be a review that would take place uh for that new construction.

So it's just one thing to be mindful of of uh when they are being subdivided or replatted to have in mind that um I I guess what I'm saying is you may want to be careful to not divide the lots or go through a plotting process that may make it more difficult in the future to redevelop the property or to build new construction.

Okay.

So one more question for the applicant.

Uh we can my understanding is we could do this in two ways.

Uh we could uh make a motion for continuance with time certain for him to come back, or the applicant can actually withdraw his application and come back at hit on his timeline.

Is that correct?

Um that's correct.

I'll let the the applicant speak to that, but um we've we've got time within our review.

Um so the 60-day review for this is August the 25th.

Uh so there's actually two additional hearings between uh now and the 60-day review.

So um I probably the easiest thing to do for now would be for um for this to be continued to August the 5th and then allow the applicant to meet with the neighborhood and then have a review um meet with the neighborhood if they want to and then have a review by the subcommittee uh and then come back to the commission at the next hearing, which would be August the fifth.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um may I have a motion, please.

That was gonna be my motion.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

I'll move for a continuance with um uh to come back on August 5th, unless the applicant requests a further postponement.

So um in your motion, so we're um since he asked for or is amenable to a um a subcommittee hearing, we're just gonna leave that to him.

We're not gonna include that in your motion.

I'll uh revise my motion to include a uh DRC second.

Thank you.

So we have moved them properly second further discussion.

I think there needs to be uh some more dialogue with the neighborhood and find out and possibly with uh OHP and find out what the uh opportunities and limitations are for how the uh the lot is uh subdivided.

Thank you.

Yes, sir and go ahead, sir.

I just uh want to for for just for to try to kick the ball as far as possible with respect to what is being proposed.

The um particularly with respect to the second layout.

It seems very problematic, particularly to figure that you're gonna get a 2600 square foot to 2600 square foot uh situations here.

Now I might be a dinosaur because when I look at the site and I look at the the land around uh the proposed projects and the prevailing patterns in that neighborhood, it seems very unlikely that there would be an approval of a design that attempted to push itself on the main side and and to get itself behind the elevation on the on the um what is it, myrtle or street is uh mulberry side.

Um so in that in the first iteration, it it it seemed most possible and almost impossible.

And on the second one, it it I just I mean I I'm I'm really baffled by the comment that says that that's an improvement.

And I don't mean that in any way to shoot your project down.

I I I mean it just in the sense that once you plat, now you're stuck.

You you you did what they call a um you you made a choice limiting decision where now all your regulations are going to rely on this this decision that somebody made to get uh three pieces of property out of the one.

Um you know maybe two properties with a granny flat or something, but um it's just that they've got to take the planning part very seriously with respect to the decisions that are going to be made that it's in a historic district.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thanks, sir.

Appreciate you, sir.

Um around one more for final comments.

Um Commissioner Galloway comments.

My only comment is that I echo the uh need for continued dialogue with the neighborhood association.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland.

No comments, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mizuka.

No comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Guevara.

No comments, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Group.

No comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Sabino.

No comments.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fetzer.

No further comments.

Thank you.

May I have a roll call, please.

Civino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

I.

Group.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Hi.

And Gibbs.

Hi.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Can have item number 14, please.

Item number 14 on the historic and design review commission agenda, case number 2026-151-353 Quinton Drive.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new approximately 2,017 square foot one-story single family home on a vacant lot in the Monticello Park Historic District.

This lot is a voice void of existing structures.

Staff recommends conceptual approval to construct a new two 2017 square foot one-story single family home on a vacant lot in the Monticello Park District with the following stipulations.

One that the applicant cite the proposed structure behind the front setbacks of both adjacent structures and provide an updated site plan indicating the proposed front setback, the front setbacks of the adjacent properties and the rear setback of the proposed design.

Number two, that the applicant reconfigure the design is necessary to simplify the composition of the primary facade, resulting in a design that better reflects the simple massing and restrained facade articulation characteristic of homes within the subject block.

Three, that the applicant simplify the roof composition of the primary facade, perhaps by exploring a shed roof over the porch and primary entry.

Number four, that the applicant update the proposed finestration to feature traditional proportions and window configurations commonly found in the district, as well as submit product specifications for both the doors and windows.

Five, that the applicant provide a detailed drawing of the porch columns and provide all material specifications to include the sighting and roofing materials.

Number six, that the applicant revise the floor plan as necessary to result in a garage.

That is recessed behind the front facade wall plane.

Install a garage door that is paneled to resemble wood construction that does not feature a faux wood finish or texture and submit product product specifications of the garage door.

And seven, that the applicant meet all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtain a variance from the board of adjustment if applicable.

We have applicant Fernando and the homeowner here as well.

You guys can approach.

And I believe we also have public comment for this one.

Hi, Fernando Leon, 1650 with we such.

Thank you.

Please state your case, sir.

Yes, this is a brand new construction that we were working with staff and uh to uh uh provide a good design to meet the guidelines and we're uh we uh submitted the site plan, we submitted the uh elevations and the floor plan and uh and we read the comments back from uh from staff and we agree with what what they want and we're willing to uh provide that information.

Thank you, sir.

So to be clear, you're agreeing with all staff stipulations?

Yes.

All right, thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Anything else you like to add?

No, I'm okay.

Well, I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Appreciate it, sir.

Any other um public comments?

Uh yes, uh Bianca Malinado, she'll receive four minutes.

Uh Tom Simmons has yielded time to her.

Good afternoon.

Bianca Maldonado, President of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, offering comments of our architectural review committee that reviewed the design.

We're supportive of new housing in our historic district.

However, new design should seek to complement and harmonize, not be incongruent.

We support staff's recommendations, and we requ respectfully request that our following 11 comments be added to a motion as the applicant seeks to address these as they work towards final.

Number one, the hip roof is inappropriate for this block as the pitch of the roof is greater than the prevailing pitches of the neighboring homes on this block.

Number two, the saddle roof over the entry door between the two gables buries the front entrance and does not provide prominence that the front door should have.

Number three, the focal point of the front elevation should be the front door and it should project more like other homes, possibly with a stoop.

We support a cleaner, more streamlined shed roof over the front porch.

Currently, the emphasis of the front porch and the roof is centered on the bedroom windows, not the front door.

The garage door should be subordinate to the front door.

It needs to recede as it is too prominent in its current form.

Number seven, missing are the details which provide character and defining features.

For examples, details such as trim, brackets, moldings, shutters, and gable vents.

Number eight, the picture frame trim around the windows needs to be revisited.

Details such as having an offset, layers, caps, cornices, returns, molding, none of this is present.

Number nine, the exposure of the siding should be smaller than proposed.

Number ten, the finestration pattern on the front facade is the case of one.

Everything is a case of one and does not have a compositional rhythm.

There is only one bay, one saddle, one window, and it lacks rhythm.

Number 11, we're in a mandatory detention area, and our neighborhood association advocated for a million-dollar project to improve the drainage directly behind this property.

This property would not be buildable without that drainage project being executed, as there was a river that run ran through this property.

Uh the city invested over a million dollars uh to prevent uh stormwater runoff up to a 50-year event from crossing this vacant land.

So we asked that that be mitigated also with the evaluation of gutters on this property to ensure that that is uh continued to be successful.

Um we asked before final approval, we request the applicant, we welcome their opportunity to meet with them uh to respond to their design to their their uh see how they respond to our comments and hopefully have a continual dialogue.

We didn't have the chance to have that before it got presented here today.

We also specifically ask this is not about stipulations as staff has noted.

Rather, there are several design elements which need to be resolved, not simplified.

So we hope that you take our considerations into concern and and as in incorporate them in your motion as we work towards final with this applicant.

Uh we are excited to see new build.

This is our third new home in less than four years.

So uh to see a boost of housing when we haven't had a new home built in so and so long.

Um we're very excited to see this happen and just hope that you're supportive of our comments and your motion for conceptual approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can the applicant come back up, please?

First, I'd like to offer you the opportunity to um to make comments based on um what the um the association has stated.

Do you have any comments, sir?

Well the comments were received, I think uh just before this meeting, so we hadn't have an opportunity to go over all the comments, but uh we could work with uh with the neighborhood association and and uh and uh and come up to an agreement with with uh with a design of the house.

So to be clear, you're meanable to meeting with them and and working working through those situations and with these stipulations that she is requesting um be added to any motion we have here.

Do you have any concerns or any problems with any of those?

I gotta review everything they're saying and see how that affects our design, but definitely we have been working with staff and we on the subcommittee too uh to come up with an uh uh a design that fits properly.

Uh so we will look at their comments and then if we could incorporate that into our design sure, we can appreciate you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh questions from for the applicant.

I'll start with our virtual commissioners, um, Commissioner Galloway.

No questions, Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Holland.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazuka.

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Gibata.

No questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

No questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Velasquez.

No, sir.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fetzer.

Uh question for the applicant.

There are quite a few stipulations on staff's recommendations for the certificate of appropriateness.

Plus, we've all heard uh you just before the meeting and uh publicly uh several stipulations that the neighborhood would like you to consider.

Uh so instead of a certificate of appropriateness, would you be willing to accept a conceptual approval with staff stipulations and uh work with the neighborhood association and then come back for a final uh where you've had a chance to determine whether you can how much how uh those stipulations from the neighborhood could be uh reviewed and possibly incorporated?

Yes, we can.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Would you like to make that into a motion, sir?

Yes.

Uh conceptual approval with all staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second discussion.

Okay, sir.

I think uh getting the applicant and the neighborhood association together.

I think they're uh it'll be uh a better project will become uh apparent after that discussion and you having the opportunity to review and uh just want to allow that to happen before we give you a before COA is issued.

Thank you.

Um I'll go down for further comments.

What did you say that okay?

Second go ahead.

No, and I just wanted to con you know really reiterate the comments from the neighborhood about this being the third new build in this neighborhood.

So I think we're gonna be a little bit more detailed and strict on it, but I do um which is one of the reasons that I think that you um you do you do have to consider all these stipulations before final and even consider working with staff if there should be uh a design review committee that's optional for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um more time um for final comments.

Um Commissioner Holland.

No comments, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Galloway.

No comments, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazuka.

No comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gibata.

No comments, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Saveno.

I just want to say I appreciate the efforts by all parties, all stakeholders.

I look forward to the outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Velasquez.

Yes, sir.

I uh just to the applicant, you know, I I like uh to think that there's an opportunity on that front porch to look at the other houses, they're real simple, but they're also real real nice looking.

You have an opportunity for a nice possibly longer, simpler porch.

Thank you, everyone.

Appreciate it.

May I have a roll call, please?

Savino.

Aye.

Aye, excuse me.

The last guess.

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Muzuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That was the last case on the agenda.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.