HDRC denies conceptual approval for 622–626 Nolan Street infill after commissioners, neighbors cite density concerns

The Historic Design and Review Commission on May 7 denied conceptual approval for a proposed infill project at 622 and 626 Nolan Street that would have introduced multiple new two‑story houses and accessory structures on the two deep lots.

The applicant, represented by Adano Choa, presented a concept for three structures facing Nolan Street and two or more structures to the rear, explaining the lots extend to Booker Alley and noting the design intent to preserve the historic primary structure at 626. Staff recommended conceptual approval of the general lot layout and orientation with numerous stipulations (detailed site plan showing setbacks relative to block, heights of adjacent historic structures, foundation heights, window and siding specifications, landscaping plan, and a required infill design supplement at final review).

Neighborhood speakers submitted a voicemail and letter opposing the project. Valerie Cortez, speaking for the Dignowity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee, called the proposal “not needed nor wanted,” argued the plan would “heavily impede the privacy of the neighbors,” and noted the applicant had been told at a neighborhood meeting that the design would not be supported.

Commissioners engaged in extended discussion about process and sequencing: whether conceptual review should precede zoning/platting and how HDRC findings would inform zoning. Several commissioners said conceptual review can be a useful nonbinding early step, others said the application lacked the level of detail (site plat lines, infill supplement, lot coverage metrics) necessary to evaluate the proposal and that approving a concept could preempt or unduly influence zoning outcomes. One commissioner observed that if the applicant proceeds to replat into multiple lots the design and review dynamics would change substantially and that the current submittal does not provide the necessary plat/site detail.

A motion to deny conceptual approval was moved and seconded; roll call recorded a majority in favor of denial and the motion carried. Commissioners and staff suggested the applicant pursue a Design Review Committee (DRC) consultation or revise and resubmit with a completed infill design supplement and clearer plat/site information.

Why it matters: The denial underscores HDRC sensitivity to proposals that significantly change lot density or block patterns in historic districts and signals the commission’s expectation that applicants bring sufficient site/plat detail for conceptual review when substantial subdivision or multi‑unit infill is proposed.

Next steps: Applicant may revise plans, request a DRC or return with fuller site/plat documentation and the recommended infill supplement; staff will note the denial in the commission’s findings, which will be part of any future zoning or platting record.

Quoted material below is from the public record in the meeting transcript and voicemails.