 the preservation officers reading into the record agenda item number 23 hdrc place number 217534 address 433 Nantle and Avenue and 437 Nantle Avenue request for review by the hdrc regarding eligibility of the property located at this address for land or designation staff does not recommend approval of the request staff lives of the property does not meet the 3 of the 16 criteria for evaluation required by the UDC and is not eligible for land or designation based on findings F3H if the hdrc approves the request the commission will become the applicant and will request for resolution from the city council to initiate the designation process generally works representing the manky park and is the applicant for this case and she is with us today as well as the property owners good afternoon my name is Joan Brooks and I live 134 days called the manky park and I am the president of the manky park neighborhood association board of directors and we initiated this historic designation process for 433 437 Nantle and this 8 plex along with the entire street of Nantle and contributes to the historic significance of the neighborhood and supports the guiding principle of the san Antonio comprehensive plan to maintain the character integrity of existing san Antonio neighborhoods this 8 plex at was built in 1958 it's a classic mid-century modern very design with a flat roof with extra wide overhang over the front facade and modernist standing ladders in the front which has been adapted to central texas with stone wall planning also there are mature trees as you can see on the site along with many of the other homes on Nantle and the structure contributes to the post-war war two housing that is very distinctive in character the historical heritage and culture monkey park in our city of San Antonio for our neighborhood plan page 2932 we recognize and promote existing character of neighborhood housing through home ownership home improvement and maintenance rehabilitation historic preservation and discourage incompatible development this 8 unit apartment represents a significant stage in the neighborhood's evolution during the mid 20th century choosing rehabilitation over demolition would provide an excellent opportunity also to promote affordable housing while preserving the character of the street demolition of post-war multi-family housing has occurred on Nantle and adjacent street of Claremont and we the neighborhood association wanted to stop the demolition that is drastically changing the context of the block and streetscape of the neighborhood I was able to attend the kickoff meeting of the mayor's housing task force and at that meeting Trinity University professor Christine Drennan she actually launched the meeting and she stated that San Antonio is losing this diversity in housing affordability and she used our neighborhood and this area as a the example she stated that these apartment complexes are being demolished and are being replaced with structures that cost over 300,000 dollars so we the board the directors of the department are urging each DRC members to consider 433, 437 and as a historic and health reserve the historic fabric of our neighborhood and that we're promoting that this should property should be rehabilitated and not destroyed in addition I think you've got a copy from Councilman Shaw supporting preservation of existing housing stock and the historic fabric for linking our neighborhood thank you very much we actually have somebody sign in Mr. Brooks you had a question for me how do you count the the structures have been demolished so far in Madeline and Claremont? I don't have that at all but I was here two months ago with one and so I don't have that but there's been many that have been demolished on Claremont and getting ready to on these are three of the structures that are out today and there's going to be I know at least maybe three or two or three more thank you and we actually have somebody sign in just in case John please comment I have a question here it's my name's John Brooks I'm from Madeline and Claremont we're the owner of the property the Aplex here I've been out for a few months and the picture is I've been cared for the picture on the rear the balconies there are deteriorated the interior of the units have not been maintained for how many years it's a cause for his process to try to rehabilitate the structure bringing the electrical, the plumbing everything else the building in below the windows is launched up to the current new codes that is why we are proceeding to demolition of the building to replace it with some new duplexes no built to meet all the modern codes the energy star is certified and built into the building certified as well thank you I'll pose the same question how many structures has your company applied for demolition for the last two years on between Claremont and the Dallas streets we have brought my date and out of the structures being demolished how many have been erected newly we have built on the sites that have been demolished but definitely the teams it sounds pretty conservative for a money assessment that's on the sites we've demolished there were some big blocks would you say that your projects have transformed yes most of the many of the properties that we demolished have not been inhabited there was a lot of debris we talked to the police officers in the area we cleaned up a lot of the neighborhood taking care of some beginning drug activity thank you very much for the benefit of our new commissioner and welcome to the club could we understand a little bit better what the difference is between the historic districts and the designation of the making park and so on certainly welcome to the board commissioner so currently these properties are located within the making park neighborhood conservation district and so what that means is that the city does have districts where there are sign standards in place and if someone would like to modify a structure or build new within a neighborhood conservation district they simply come to the one stop when they request that permit providing that they meet those standards which are noted in the UDC then they are at issue of permit if they do not meet the standards then they can seek a variance to the board of adjustments this is a new special review for demolition within the neighborhood conservation districts assigned from the authority that OHP has to review city-wide demolitions of properties anywhere within the city limits of San Antonio regardless of the age of the structure and how does the neighborhood conservation district come to be a neighborhood conservation district is it a historic district in Whiting or is that some other consideration I think they used to say that neighborhood conservation districts was a historic district light or perhaps a district that didn't rise to the level of a historic district that is not the case neighborhood conservation districts is a zoning tool it's a way to regulate development within the district but in this case the way it works is administrative approvals so the involvement by the community is at the development of the district and the fleshing out of those standards before this is all adopted by ordinance once it's adopted by ordinance then the community's role in that stops at that point and these requests are reviewed by staff and an approved industry which is different from the historic districts which staff reviews best practices that is Development Services staff and the zoning section and do we know if this structure was contributing structure when the survey was made for the proposal of the historic district before? Yes it was So how can a structure be eligible or be contributing structure but still not be saving? Certainly that's a good question and these cases are difficult for staff because we're looking at a structure that does have characteristics of architectural style and are of an historic age and do contribute to a district however what we're being requested to review is the standings of the structure by itself and evaluating it on its own according to the criteria in the UDC we found that it only met two of the criteria and the UDC requires that it need at least three to be considered eligible for individual landmark designation I understand but in this case there are a number of structures that are disappearing I'm concerned that the estimate is eight on two blocks so doesn't this call for more review on holistic level rather than individual level? So the regulations that would be applied to this property if it were designated as an individual landmark would be restricted to the modifications that happen within the site so let's say for example an individual property designated in demolition happens next door the zoning requirements for the landmark aren't necessarily going to impact the request of the non designated property next door so when we're evaluating these we're also considering what those recommended treatments would be which is related to the difference between looking at the impact to a district as opposed to impact to an individual structure so that's where I think because I don't see that we're looking at this issue holistically we're looking at individual applicants rather than the district so it's not in the historic district it's in the neighborhood conservation district so staff's responsibility is to review these requests by property as they're submitted to and I would just add that one of the findings by staff is that it is eligible to become a local historic district and we do believe that that is an appropriate tool but so far there hasn't been the support in the neighborhood to create a local historic district there are no citizens from the neighborhood that want to speak about this just the applicant from State Association what's the neighborhood association I guess I'll go ahead and move to approve the request for landmark status sorry I didn't hear a second there is no second when a motion dies from a live report but I'm waiting here if there might be a person sharing any questions last second no motion at the second is there further discussion commissioners just to clarify the motion is for a landmark destination right? yes that's the motion of the commissioner what's your opinion so we have a motion and a second is there further discussion commissioners so I'm going to elaborate on the two criteria they found in that in staff's recommendations if we look at finding F of the property although the applicant proposed three criteria for eligibility which included criteria 10 that's characters established geographically defined neighborhood united by culture, architectural style or physical planning development criteria 11 it's distinctive in character, interest or value which strongly exemplifies cultural, economic, social, ethnic or historical heritage in Antonio or the United States and criteria 12 it is an important example of a particular architectural type or specimen staff conducted its own evaluation rating this property against all 16 criteria and determined that it is consistent with UDC criteria 5 which is its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of the period type or commitment of construction or use of indigenous materials because this property reflects the proliferation of post-World War II multi-family housing which happened in San Antonio and the structure is a typical example of a post-World War II multi-family housing it is although it is of appropriate age and displaced characteristics as I mentioned earlier such as the mid-century modern architecture, horizontal massing composition, low-pitched roof large windows the style does not meet additional criteria required for landmark studies pretty great we have an emotion in our sightings I have all those particular emotions simplified by saying hi hi those opposed the same sign hi we'll have technical voice for that can you agree on what you're doing this morning uh, the vice chairman of the semantic post did you say nay, I'm sorry nay let's see, uh, commissioner Fisch nay commissioner Lathring hi commissioner Groening nay commissioner Paul nay commissioner Garcia I believe the majority is nay and therefore commissioner Fisch I'm not sure if I did it out based on staff or communication all right, I just mentioned in a second is there further discussion from the chairs all those in favor signify by saying hi hi those opposed the same sign hi hi so we'll have a voice book commissioner chairman Graham what I'm doing vice chairman of the semantic hi commissioner Fisch hi commissioner Lathring nay commissioner Groening hi commissioner Komal commissioner Garcia hi agenda item number 24 HRC case number 2017-535 property address is 445-447 Madeline Avenue a request for the HRC regarding eligibility of the property located at 445-447 Madeline Avenue for landmark designation staff does not recommend approval of the request they find that the property does not meet at least three of the 16 criteria for evaluation and is not eligible for landmark designation based on findings at your age if the HRC approves the request the commission will become the applicant and will request a resolution from the city council to initiate designation process Joe Brooks, Nanking Park Labor Association board directors is the applicant for this case and the property owners here as well my name is Joe Brooks and this property 445-447 is right that's the one we just reviewed and we are requesting a historic designation process for this property we have found the reasons number 10 about this character as established in geographically defined neighborhood united by culture architectural style, physical plan it's located in Nanking Park which is a suburb established in the 20th century by a leader of Nanking and is part of Madeline Terrace which was platted by E.G. Irish Company in 1927 we also feel it's distinctive in character interest or value and strongly exemplifies the culture economic, social, ethical or historical heritage of San Antonio, Texas is an important example of a particular architectural type or specimen these homes predate 1951 and they are craftsmen style bungalows similar to those found throughout Nanking Park, further to the east and we believe they actually predate maybe back to the 20s they are in very good condition now and the bungalows are not only historic in Nanking Park but other neighborhoods of the Midtown region again along with many of the other homes on Madeline the structures contribute to the post-world to housing, distinctive in character and part of the historic heritage and culture of Nanking Park in San Antonio again are urging to have a rehabilitation instead of demolition for these structures and and keep the affordable housing that we have now and preserving the character of the street which has kept much of this historic housing stock so we are urging the HDRC members to look more holistically at our neighborhood and what's happening with all of these homes and that's changing the fabric of our neighborhood and we strongly recommend and ask that this property be considered so that hopefully it can be rehabilitated instead of destroyed and I already made the case about being at the mayor's housing task force and about the support from County Shaw so thank you very much thank you and that was the only citizen we've ever heard she's the applicant correct so we have the owner who is cited to see if there's a citizen who's in here again these two structures when we were here previously we heard the commission was about looking for opportunities to relocate these houses and so we did we actively saw several moving companies to look at these properties we heard about Stony discussed this with Miss Brooks about a neighborhood association asking if they had anybody interested in these houses and we were willing to help pay to relocate the homes we've published and they're too tall so the roof would have to be partially removed and secondly the the structures have not been cared for so there are rotten spots in the floor and the red structures and the sound as well but I understand the desire to maintain Florida housing but the reality is that with the cost to rehab these would not be as affordable to work to remain in place that is that's just the fact of it so we would still be willing if there's somebody interested in these homes to help pay for the cost to help relocate these too if I may I'm going to ask you a question about variation in the previous how many more how many more things are you going to demolish in the future we have worked it right now for two other duplex structures that we were moving and at this time that is all that we we're not actively seeking additional properties but we have property owners current residents in the neighborhood calling us and asking for their properties we have a met with the neighborhood of course the neighborhood association board and their land use committee and we hold both groups that if there's properties that they are adamant that we should stay away from not entertaining to I don't think it's fair to the other property owners in the neighborhood of the association just to say we don't want any demolition we have property owners contacting us trying to sell the property the plan is traditionally their property will it be reflated will it be replaced for the NCD which you know said it's not for the NCD the minimum to replace 50 foot wide so these are all plated as 25 foot wide lots you cannot build over the property line therefore there is a plan in process to plant these two 50 foot wide homicides to build new plots we have followed the NCD the NCD 100% we have not asked for any variances of anything that we have constructed everything and through planning department review as well as through planning department review without any variance but there are not a variance to have the property to be reflated to a very old 25 foot 25 foot we have not reflated anything less than 50 foot there is an original plan from 1927 employees with 25 foot wide and that's what you're using to construct some of the elements to grow no variance requested or issued by the city but existing structures on those plots were not 25 feet wide no they built over the property line they were many of those properties were built on a multiple of and partial plots and so with the current UDC it's the only you're not allowed to build over a property line a single family can't build over a property line if it's in the original configuration and since these were a lot of these were old duplexes we cannot build a new single family house over the property line so if you reply to anything it's a mental effect to put a lot and reply with the UDC and in the UDC just for clarification that's what you're saying that for this particular house as A is a demolition being approved and you're going to have new duplex constructed just a lot well these 25 foot logs would be replanted into as it's it's a total of 200 feet with property next door and this property but there's two partial plots that can make up the insects of each of those without getting additional people involved in that they're forced to do a full replant so they'll be replanting a floor 50 foot by a property which would allow you to build the other property line we would then build within that four duplexes with this property and this property you mentioned something about the cost for rehab, did you do actual cost estimate for rehab if you would have an addition to the house so are you increasing footprint did you do that cost estimate and compared to the construction well, yes, we've reviewed it and with the electrical plumbing and the energy code requirements it would be there's a certain amount to shell the floor part of the floor was rotten and part of the roof was rotten so while they didn't put a firm power figure to it it would exceed the cost to demolish it and in some of these while they're they're old structures they're no closets it's that these properties don't have the character we're looking forward to and just one block over on Claremont talk about reserving some of these houses somebody did that with one of these duplexes they repainted it the new floors new cabinets re-did the house we purchased it and since demolished that structure it's it's just not a feasible it's easy to say rehab these houses but there's not a market for it in the case of these structures there are neighborhoods and there are there are structures that are making part that definitely should be reserved and definitely should be rehab these two streets are not that structure these structures don't exist in most cases on this street there are some houses that rinses down the street I don't know if the cross street connects over to the house in the corner the beautiful ones 20-something years ago it still looks beautiful we're not going to touch that house if that owner called us we're not going to see that house that is the type of home that needs to be reserved in the neighborhood commentary on the thing unfortunately two weeks ago we're stuck in a position where we have an application for an individual landmark destination based on our own position and not in a historic district and certainly I share what I sense to be a lot of commissioners residents see this demolition occur and see this demolition occur over and over and over at the end of the day however we just do not have structures that are unique enough we have a situation where the applicant said that this is a design that is found not only throughout Manning Park but throughout other historic districts and so as a result at this time I'm going to move on to the landmark destination on this side I have a motion and a second is there for a discussion I have to remove all those in favor to get by by standing on as opposed to the same sign I line so let us have a roll call please Kevin Greenham Vice Chairman Mr. Mase Commissioner Fisch Commissioner Lazarin Commissioner Kahn Commissioner Kahn that was not president of the commencement this year and I am present now Commissioner Green Commissioner Kahn Commissioner Kahn Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Woodland Motion passes Thank you and I just wanted to thank the applicant and the property owner for their participation in this process and other pieces that they brought forward and really appreciate their patience The July 25 HDSC case in 2017, 536 540 South St. Mary's The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one install a wall sign to consist of 18 inch tall cut metal letters turned round to Woodland to install three battered awnings of section 411 to install three battered awnings to charge for store-bought system to feature thermal applied white graphics to read SBC law offices and board install a min-set of 20 inch tall cut metal address letters That recommends approval of items 1 through 3 based on findings being through EU and the stipulation