[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6598663,"mediaKeyId","3032437-f623a089a5c9b7181203e6037d9752df","parentId",3032437,"title","Votes at a glance: Historic Design Review Commission — April 16, 2025","audioSeconds",6643,"startMs",3000,"endMs",6646000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3032437-f623a089a5c9b7181203e6037d9752df&start=3&end=6646","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3032437-f623a089a5c9b7181203e6037d9752df/thumbnail_3000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6598663/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Historic-Design-Review-Commission-April-16-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598663-f5865461bdb8bf53a5e12ec713ddbce1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157549&Signature=D8ZF7T9LtJGoDJYWQwxeL~ouQD1VCGXCzvbvJ2gr0f1UqwEY2p1NdGu2qQ~KNNwITr9l79S7poe0NLEKc63ZJaGWs93VgAMBUcaOfAgj2sWJQISD2NDmP6v3Dzq2J96uEdVcR2jxM866kDsvU7NiJqkU0Ri1qiBdUuoefCiR3S9pq3lrvSzVbNkZmejn3BgfUYzV~a4bnbX7CeRAV7yC4pzsXs5-hJM0BijOs363tfgGg8U5lCnCyDmj2F~gSTqZe4vtQ~GhGMZQ851-c4DMbEhM7HwG1IfgqvCLrGGcX6zHOH-v1aDjJG2GN2FOL2t1Q2O4qOKEouPHA1ot0KYvNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Antonio","date","2025-04-16T00:00:00Z","article","The Historic Design Review Commission took the following formal actions on April 16, 2025. Items are presented front‑loaded by outcome and public impact.

Key decisions

- Motion to approve staff recommendation on case 2025039120 (120 Callahan, Lavaca Historic District): carried (see separate article). The staff recommendation resulted in no approval of the current submission; the applicant may return with revisions addressing staff findings.

- Consent and minutes: the commission approved the meeting minutes from April 2, 2025, and approved consent items (cases listed on the consent agenda). Commissioners approved consent items 2, 3 and 4 with staff stipulations; item 1 was pulled for discussion.

- Approved with stipulations: Case 1 (Lagoon Bar patio expansion at River Center Mall) — the commission approved a certificate of appropriateness after the applicant agreed to pull the west edge of a proposed patio back to the tower column and to install landscaping along the east side of the public sidewalk. The motion passed on a roll call with unanimous affirmative votes from commissioners present.

- Conceptual approvals with stipulations: 418 East Locust (Tobin Hill District, case 2024‑407) — conceptual approval with staff stipulations including a greater setback than adjacent structures, a foundation inspection and submittal of material specs; 118 Parkview (Mission Historic District, case 2025073118) — conceptual approval with required setback diagrams, height measurements and landscaping details; 2011 West Summit (detached garage replacement, Monticello Park, case 2025053520) — conceptual approval conditioned on deconstruction ordinance compliance, footprint and height limits, and submittal of material specifications; 238 Lavera Boulevard (accessory structure) — commission continued the item for further review and scheduled a Design Review Committee (DRC) review to allow staff and the applicant time to reconcile a revised design.

- Alterations and additions: 124 East Wesach (case 2025082124) — the commission approved construction of a small second‑story rear addition, chimney modification and a rear open deck and granted the applicant the option to use a standing‑seam metal roof, with the commission asking the applicant to coordinate final material specifications with staff.

- Sign permit: 1815 Fredericksburg Road (landmark) — the commission approved a single backlit sign reading “Uncle Maui’s,” 24 square feet, on the southern facade; neighborhood association voiced support with a request that the old sign be removed without damaging the stucco facade.

Vote records (selected items)

- Meeting minutes (04/02/2025) — motion carried (unanimous roll call).
- Consent agenda (items 2, 3, 4) — motion carried (unanimous roll call).
- Lagoon Bar patio (case pulled from consent) — motion to approve with staff stipulation to pull patio edge to tower column and add landscaping: unanimous yes (10–0 recorded roll call).
- 418 East Locust (case 2024‑407) — conceptual approval with staff stipulations: roll call passed (10–0 yes).
- 124 East Wesach (case 2025082124) — approved, including allowance for standing‑seam metal roof coordinated with staff: roll call passed (10–0 yes).
- 118 Parkview (case 2025073118) — conceptual approval with stipulations: roll call passed (10–0 yes).
- 1815 Fredericksburg Road sign (case 2025085) — approved: roll call passed (10–0 yes).
- 2011 West Summit (accessory structure replacement) — conceptual approval with stipulations: roll call passed (10–0 yes).
- 238 Lavera Boulevard (accessory structure) — commission voted to continue and requested a DRC review; motion to continue carried (unanimous roll call).

What this means

Most items received either consent approval or conceptual approvals conditioned on staff stipulations requiring follow‑up materials (setback diagrams, measured heights, product cut sheets and landscaping plans). The most substantive contested outcome of the hearing was the denial of the two‑story new construction at 120 Callahan after commissioners concluded the submission did not adequately address setback and massing concerns for that lot.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Antonio - Historic and Design Review Commission - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A summary of the commission’s formal actions on April 16, including approvals of several conceptual applications, a sign permit and the denial of a proposed new house at 120 Callahan.","taxTitle","San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas","taxId",2771,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6598668,"Historic-design panel denies new two-story house at 120 Callahan after debate over height, massing and driveway",2596,759000,3355000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3032437-f623a089a5c9b7181203e6037d9752df&start=759&end=3355","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3032437-f623a089a5c9b7181203e6037d9752df/thumbnail_759000.jpg","/articles/6598668/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Historic-design-panel-denies-new-two-story-house-at-120-Callahan-after-debate-over-height-massing-and-driveway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598668-ab55340046c31142d4310728e3eeb7b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157549&Signature=mO0qbbd4PMGu5apAcD0k37el85LocltMrb5~8aSq821xTSgmA-iEo~bmzTzDS8koysB2Q4IeqYtGKW6Theke3igZjea09OzCdGkXhC55Hf0tQtR5Skw1aW5Id8UuhAA7SFUJ2ZnwBUIO8-iH~B2wzxi0uW~edwKWF9iXVn9OjGZR~MYMHrAheCtex~ocQhJzhkB8QlMg~r02VvHWkJi9AivwWWIUldNShk4JGt0Bqn9V88cffrG6USUMY0rI7q12RWsLqfNfJfcnyG7YVqqmuIbtn02jHnIeS0XV~rST~rVyZ8NAOKdUryh-~Q9jTJfyeTH94QQhJ4yKkbU1pa6fuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Design Review Commission on April 16 declined to approve a proposed two‑story single‑family house at 120 Callahan in the Lavaca Historic District, voting to adopt staff recommendations after more than an hour of testimony and commissioner debate.

Staff recommended denial based on a long list of findings (a through w) and requested the applicant address setbacks, height, porch design, siding and fenestration, eliminate a front‑loading garage, retain the existing driveway location, and submit a detailed landscaping plan before returning for approval. The applicant, Daniel Cruz of Design Coop, presented revised plans and told commissioners he had moved the primary façade back and replaced a large stucco wall with a more traditional porch and vertical siding. Cruz said the project remains a contemporary interpretation of historic forms and that he had reduced some window sizes and would use a galvalume standing‑seam metal roof per the guidelines.

Commissioners focused on scale and siting. Several members said the house’s combination of a full 9‑foot plate on both floors, a front‑facing garage and a shallow lot made the design out of scale for the immediate block face. Commissioner Grupp (calling for restraint on massing) and Commissioner Sabino (on setting back the structure further) both said the height and placement together created an overly prominent presence when viewed from the street. Commissioner Sabino said the accumulation of “outlier features” made the design unlikely to conform to the district. Commissioner Castillo and others also said the lot’s shallow depth and neighboring building lines constrained the applicant’s options.

The property owner, Corey Neal, spoke in favor of the design and described his desire to live downtown with a floor plan that accommodates his family and business schedule. Neal said he and the design team had tried to balance program needs and historic context and added, “I want to create a lifestyle that we can enjoy, walk and and and do that.” The commission repeatedly discussed whether modest reductions in plate height or an increased front setback would sufficiently address visual massing; staff noted that the guidelines allow a two‑story structure only if it does not exceed adjacent heights by more than 50 percent and recommended the applicant supply measured heights of nearby structures.

Two motions reached the floor. An initial motion to approve the design as submitted failed on roll call. A subsequent motion “as recommended by staff” (which, per staff recommendation, resulted in no approval being granted) carried on roll call, effectively denying the COA for the current submission and listing the staff findings as items the applicant must address before returning. The final roll call on the staff‑recommended action recorded eight yes votes and two no votes.

The commission and staff said the decision does not prevent the applicant from returning with revised plans that respond to the list of required changes. Staff also confirmed the city’s unified development code process allows the applicant to request postponements, but absent such a request the commission must take action at the hearing. The applicant acknowledged he could revise plans and return and that additional documentation (surveyed setbacks, measured adjacent building heights and a finalized site plan showing driveway and walkway details) would help the commission evaluate future submittals.

Clarifying details captured at the hearing include that the applicant reported 9‑foot floor plates for both the first and second floors and a total proposed building height of about 27 feet 9 inches (chimney excluded); staff asked the applicant to provide measured heights of adjacent structures. Staff’s list of design items to address before a future approval included at minimum: increased setback relative to adjacent historic structures, revised porch/porch roof consistent with district examples, vertical siding made up of individual boards (not panels), window sizing and separation to match adjacent historic patterns, elimination of front‑loading garage or design that places parking in the rear or side yard, a concrete walkway centered on the front door, a front yard fence not exceeding 4 feet, and a detailed landscaping plan submitted to the commission.

Outcome and next steps: the commission carried a motion to follow staff recommendations (denial of the current application). The applicant may return with revised drawings that specifically address the staff findings and the commissioner concerns about scale and massing.","The Historic Design Review Commission on April 16 voted to follow staff recommendations and not approve a proposed two‑story single‑family house at 120 Callahan in the Lavaca Historic District, after lengthy debate over height, setback, fenestration and a proposed front‑loading garage and driveway.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Historic Design Review Commission — April 16, 2025

Historic-design panel denies new two-story house at 120 Callahan after debate over height, massing and driveway