OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/San Antonio, Texas/Boards & Commissions
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Historic and Design Review Commission Meeting - October 7, 2026

Boards & Commissions — Wednesday, October 7, 2026
BodySan Antonio, Texas
SessionBoards & Commissions
DateWednesday, October 7, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:58:11

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:01

I'd like to call to order the Historic and Design Review Commission for October 7th, 2026.

0:06

May I have a roll call, please?

Speaker 2

0:08

Mammon.

Speaker 1

0:10

Present.

0:11

President.

Speaker 2

0:13

Garcia.

Speaker 3

0:15

President.

Speaker 2

0:16

Velasquez.

Speaker 3

0:17

Present.

Speaker 2

0:18

Galloway.

Speaker 4

0:24

Here.

Speaker 2

0:25

Givata group.

0:27

Here.

0:28

Chevioso?

Speaker 5

0:30

Here.

Speaker 2

0:30

Holland.

Speaker 5

0:32

Here.

Speaker 2

0:33

Davis?

Speaker 1

0:34

Here.

Unassigned speaker

0:35

And

Speaker 2

0:35

Fetzer.

Speaker 1

0:36

Here.

Unassigned speaker

0:37

We

Speaker 2

0:37

have a quorum.

Speaker 1

0:39

May we have translation services, please?

Speaker 6

0:53

Good afternoon, everyone.

0:55

Buenas tardes a those.

0:56

Las personas que preferen escuchar la audiencia in espanhol.

1:06

Muchas gracias.

1:07

Thank you so much.

Speaker 1

1:08

Thank

Unassigned speaker

1:09

you.

Speaker 1

1:10

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

1:15

I'm Jeffrey Fetzer, acting chair.

1:18

It is the function of the Commission to advise the city manager and all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties in historic districts, for landmarks, on city property, in the river improvement overlay, and for demolitions.

1:33

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

1:48

An appeal of a decision by an administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's Unified Development Code.

1:56

If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to any item on today's agenda, please sign up on the public comment sheet.

2:04

It is not necessary to sign up if you are the owner of or representative for a project on the agenda.

2:10

You'll be called on as the case is called.

2:12

Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments.

2:20

Speakers for or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each.

2:24

Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who has signed

Unassigned speaker

2:29

up.

Speaker 1

2:30

Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon.

2:35

Speakers will be called upon in the order in which they signed up.

2:39

Following public testimony, any commissioner may call upon any speaker to respond to further questions.

2:46

Approval by the commission does not take the place of any type of permit.

2:50

Permits must be obtained for all work.

2:52

Certificates of appropriateness for work approved by the commission will be emailed to you within 10 days.

2:59

No work of any type is to be started without obtaining the appropriate city pro permits after a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation.

3:10

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Unassigned speaker

3:24

Mr.

Speaker 7

3:24

Chair, I make a motion to approve minutes

Unassigned speaker

3:27

from

Speaker 7

3:28

the date that Corey mentioned.

Speaker 8

3:30

September 16th.

Speaker 1

3:32

Yes.

3:32

Do we have a second?

Speaker 9

3:34

Second.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Historic Preservation█████████████████████████████████████████████54%
Signage Regulations█████████████████████25%
Procedural████████9%
Zoning and Land Use███4%
Public Engagement███4%
Public Comment███3%
Accessibility█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Historic and Design Review Commission Meeting - October 7, 2026

The Historic and Design Review Commission (HDRC) met on October 7, 2026, to consider 12 consent agenda items and five pulled items, including demolitions, additions, modifications to historic buildings, and signage requests. The meeting was chaired by Acting Chair Jeffrey Fetzer, with Commissioner Luke Holland elected as presiding officer for recusal items. Key decisions included approval of a demolition at 250 East Grayson (8-2), approval of a second-story addition at 301 Barrera (8-1), approval of modifications to the natatorium and sports court at 509 King William (8-1), approval of stone wainscoting at 201 North St. Mary Street (unanimous), and approval of signage replacements at 1103 East Commerce (9-0-1) and 3406 Roosevelt Avenue (unanimous).

Consent Calendar

  • The commission approved 12 consent agenda items (1, 3-7, 10-12) with staff stipulations after pulling items 2, 8, and 9 for discussion. Items approved included addresses at 326, 330, and 350 West Jones, 115 Plaza de Armas, Alamo Plaza phase seven, 415 Wix, 824 West Magnolia, 2051 West Magnolia, 125 West Ashby, 523 East We Satch, and 2321 North Main.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Item 9 (509 King William): Deborah Walker opposed the proposed pickleball court, stating it would be too close to her living space and requested its removal. She welcomed the new neighbors but emphasized the court's impact. Jill Popovich expressed strong support for the Conway family's plans, noting their consideration of historic character and community.
  • Item 15 (3406 Roosevelt Avenue): Jane Henry, president of Mission San Jose Neighborhood Association, opposed the proposed internally illuminated sign, citing the need for high-quality materials and authenticity in the historic district. Rosemary Yangiana Zunaga, a descendant of the missions, opposed the applicant's prior permit violations and urged adherence to historic district regulations.

Discussion Items

  • Item 2 – 250 East Grayson (Demolition): The applicant requested demolition of a 25,000 sq ft former garage/warehouse at Pearl to build 85,000 sq ft of retail. The applicant argued the building was not adaptable for pedestrian-friendly retail due to grade issues, narrow sidewalks, and structural constraints, despite attempts at adaptive reuse ($28M and $23M projects proved economically infeasible). They committed to salvaging brick, trusses, windows, and other materials for reuse. Commissioner Garcia opposed, stating demolition set a poor precedent and the new facade's arched windows were inappropriate. Commissioner Velasquez expressed concern about precedent but acknowledged the project's economic importance. The motion to approve with staff stipulations passed 8-2 (Garcia and Velasquez nay).
  • Item 8 – 301 Barrera (Addition): The applicant proposed a two-story addition to a one-story historic home to add two bedrooms and bathrooms. Discussion focused on breaking up the massing of the second-story horizontal siding. Commissioner Group suggested adding a visual trim band below the clerestory windows to separate the floors, which the applicant accepted. The motion to approve with staff stipulations and an additional stipulation for a trim band passed 8-1 (Garcia nay).
  • Item 9 – 509 King William (Natatorium & Sports Court): The applicant sought to deconstruct three facade bays of the natatorium to open it to a pool grotto and install a pickleball court. Commissioners who attended the site visit supported the plan, noting the facade is not visible from the street. Commissioner Garcia expressed grief at the loss of historic fabric but acknowledged the design was beautiful. A stipulation required further landscape and lighting plans for the court. The motion to approve with staff stipulations passed 8-1 (Fetzer no).
  • Item 13 – 201 North St. Mary Street (Stone Wainscoting): The applicant initially proposed cast stone wainscoting but agreed to staff's recommendation for smooth ashlar stone matching the historic finish. Commissioners Velasquez and Galloway suggested pulling the wainscoting further from the corners and aligning with architectural elements (sign, light). The applicant accepted. The motion to approve with stipulations passed unanimously.
  • Item 14 – 1103 East Commerce (Signage Replacement): The applicant sought to replace existing Aiden Hotel signs with larger St. Paul Hotel signs (127 sq ft south facade, 776 sq ft west facade) and reface two monument signs. Staff recommended scaling down to match existing architectural bands. Commissioners Group and Galloway proposed reductions of approximately 30% and 20% and alignment with brickwork and banding. The applicant agreed to work with staff. Motion to approve with stipulations passed 9-0-1 (Velasquez abstained).
  • Item 15 – 3406 Roosevelt Avenue (Signage): The applicant proposed a 46 sq ft internally illuminated wall-mounted sign for Joel's Collision. Staff recommended indirect lighting and individually mounted letters (no raceway). The applicant agreed to indirect lighting but requested a raceway to avoid drilling into the new facade. The commission approved the sign with indirect lighting but allowed the raceway as proposed. Motion to approve with stipulations passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

  • Minutes Approved: Minutes from September 16, 2026, were approved (8-0-1, Davis abstained).
  • Item 2: Demolition approved (8-2) with staff stipulations, including salvage plan.
  • Item 8: Second-story addition approved (8-1) with additional stipulation for visual trim band.
  • Item 9: Natatorium modifications and sports court approved (8-1) with stipulation for landscape/lighting plan.
  • Item 13: Stone wainscoting approved (unanimous) with stipulations to align with architectural elements.
  • Item 14: Signage replacement approved (9-0-1) with stipulations to scale down and align with building bands.
  • Item 15: Wall-mounted signage approved (unanimous) with stipulations for indirect lighting; raceway permitted.

Meeting Transcript

I'd like to call to order the Historic and Design Review Commission for October 7th, 2026. May I have a roll call, please? Mammon. Present. President. Garcia. President. Velasquez. Present. Galloway. Here. Givata group. Here. Chevioso? Here. Holland. Here. Davis? Here. And Fetzer. Here. We have a quorum. May we have translation services, please? Good afternoon, everyone. Buenas tardes a those. Las personas que preferen escuchar la audiencia in espanhol. Muchas gracias. Thank you so much. Thank you. The Historic and Design Review Commission is an advisory board appointed by the City Council. I'm Jeffrey Fetzer, acting chair. It is the function of the Commission to advise the city manager and all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties in historic districts, for landmarks, on city property, in the river improvement overlay, and for demolitions. In considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's Unified Development Code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by the City Council. An appeal of a decision by an administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's Unified Development Code. If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to any item on today's agenda, please sign up on the public comment sheet. It is not necessary to sign up if you are the owner of or representative for a project on the agenda. You'll be called on as the case is called. Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments. Speakers for or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each. Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who has signed up. Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon. Speakers will be called upon in the order in which they 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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com