Board of Adjustments sides with hotel operators, grants appeal to revoke HDRC approval for new Riverwalk terrace

The San Antonio Board of Adjustments on Thursday voted to grant an appeal and revoke the Historic and Design Review Commission—s administrative approval for a proposed terrace at 235 East Commerce Street, a development on the Riverwalk that drew sustained opposition from nearby hoteliers and neighbors.

Edward Hall of the Office of Historic Preservation presented the HDRC—s findings and said the commission had issued a certificate of appropriateness based on its review. Hoteliers and neighboring property owners told the Board the terrace—s size and location would alter the Riverwalk—s character, obstruct historic views and carry amplified sound to adjacent hotel rooms.

Ken Brown, who identified himself as representing Brown McDonald—s (the intervening parties described themselves as hotel operators near the project), asked the Board to "protect the environment of the owners" and expressed concern that the structure could be installed and later used by operators the community cannot vet. "Nuestra gran preocupación es que se ponga ahí y que no va a funcionar," Brown said, adding that the addition could bring louder uses and uncertain operators above street level.

Rusty Walles, general manager at the hotel and spa Brown McDonald—s, said the terrace would be visible from guest rooms and raised noise and view concerns; Brian Davis, another hotel-affiliated speaker, echoed worries about aesthetics and parade routing on adjacent streets.

Representatives for the applicant — including Marco Barros, who said the project intent is a restaurant and that similar structures exist nearby — argued the design team seeks a compatible façade and that the structure could be refined through further review at HDRC. The applicant—s representative and owner said the terrace element has precedents and that the owner intends a restaurant use, not a late-night music venue.

After discussion over design compatibility, mitigation (including sound limits) and whether the HDRC—s findings sufficiently considered neighborhood concerns, the Board—s mover read a motion to grant the appeal, finding that the project as approved by HDRC would be detrimental to the Riverwalk—s historic character. Several commissioners supported the motion and the Board voted to grant the appeal, effectively revoking HDRC—s administrative approval and sending the project back for redesign and additional review.

Why it matters: The Riverwalk is a heavily visited historic corridor whose riverside character is central to downtown tourism and hotel businesses. Local hoteliers said the decision protects long-standing design patterns and guests—quiet enjoyment; the applicant said the design can be revised and resubmitted.

The Board did not record an exact roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt; several commissioners voiced public positions during the read of the motion, and at least one commissioner said they would deny the appeal. The Board did not adopt specific operational conditions in the hearing; the applicant will need to return with revisions and may pursue further HDRC review or a revised application.

The record shows extensive public testimony and staff presentation; the Board—s action reverses HDRC—s prior decision and requires follow-up filings by the applicant.