Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation New Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HDRC approves new house at 120 Callahan after debate over height and setbacks
Summary
After extended debate about height, massing and setbacks, the San Antonio Historical and Design Review Commission approved a revised proposal to build a new house at 120 Callahan with staff stipulations.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation New Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Antonio Historical and Design Review Commission on April 16 approved a revised proposal to construct a new house at 120 Callahan after lengthy discussion about the building's height, scale and minimum setbacks.
Commission members voted in favor of a motion to approve the project with staff-recommended stipulations after an earlier motion had failed. Staff had initially recommended denial, citing a proposed minimum setback that exceeded adjacent properties, concerns about porch and roof proportions, and materials and detailing that staff said were inconsistent with the district’s guidelines.
Daniel Cruz, representing the applicant, told the commission the design balances a more traditional front porch with some contemporary elements appropriate to a new construction in a historic district. Cruz said the team adjusted window groupings, materials and porch placement since the prior review and that the proposed structure maintains the front setback consistent with neighboring properties.
Commission debate focused on the house’s height, the visual massing on a small lot, garage placement and whether the porch and roof details fit the street context. Several commissioners said the house appeared large for the parcel and asked the applicant to reduce perceived height or adjust materials; others pointed to nearby two-story examples and said the proposal could be compatible with the block.
An initial motion to approve the design failed on a roll call vote. The commission then considered an amended motion tied to staff stipulations; that substitute motion passed. The final vote on the substitute motion was recorded as: Castillo yes; Sabino yes; Velázquez no; Masuca yes; Guevara yes; Cervantes no; Holland yes; Fetzer yes; Gibbs yes. The commission instructed staff to work with the applicant on final details noted in the stipulations.
The commission noted that issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness does not waive any required building permits; the applicant will need to obtain permits before construction begins. The office of historic preservation will email the certificate to the applicant within 10 days, per the commission’s standard procedure.
