The Brownsville preservation commission on May 16 declined to approve plans for a two‑building infill on a 25‑foot‑wide lot at 1051 East Polk Street, citing incorrect site dimensions, potential parking and alley‑access conflicts and missing landscaping plans.

Commission architect and reviewer Roberto Ruiz said the site plan submitted for the project contained measurement errors that must be corrected before approval. “There are dimensions that need to be tied down,” Ruiz said, noting the rear parking depth and the narrow side yards on the 25‑foot lot. He recommended the application not be approved until those issues and landscaping are addressed.

Why it matters: commissioners and staff said the property sits inside a historic district where demolition, setbacks and facade materials are evaluated under the city’s preservation review and the Uniform Development Code. Small errors on a very narrow lot can create safety and functional problems—particularly for vehicle access to rear parking from a 20‑foot alley.

What the commission discussed: staff described the project as two narrow, two‑story residential buildings—one larger in front and a smaller unit in the rear—on a 25‑foot lot. Ruiz flagged a likely typo on the site plan showing only 9 feet for a vehicle dimension where 18 feet is required, noted inconsistent labels (7 feet vs. 14 feet between structures) and expressed concern about roof overhangs shedding water onto neighboring properties. Commissioners and staff also discussed that, because the site is inside the historic district, parking requirements can be reduced (historically by half in this district) but functional parking dimensions and alley turning radii still must be met. Staff noted the alley width at the rear is 20 feet, while typical two‑way circulation standards call for 24 feet, and suggested adding gutters and downspouts and reducing roof overhangs to avoid water problems on adjacent properties.

Applicant response and outstanding items: Kimberly Trevino, representing the applicant, said some of the plan errors could be typos and noted the project team had met multiple times with staff. She said structural engineering had recently been completed and that redesigns would impose further cost and delay. Staff and applicants agreed to correct the dimensional discrepancies, submit a revised landscape plan and clarify parking layout and setbacks.

Decision and next steps: the commission closed the public hearing and then voted to authorize the ARC committee (the subcommittee charged with architectural review) to meet with the applicant and city planning staff to resolve the listed issues and return with a recommendation. The motion passed by voice vote.

Implementation notes: staff indicated some corrections could be handled during the building‑permit plan‑review process if the ARC and planning staff agree; however, commissioners insisted that the corrected site plan be produced and that parking, setbacks, drainage (gutters/downspouts) and a landscaping plan be resolved before final sign‑off.

The commission did not take a final approval vote on the East Polk application; the item remains pending until the ARC subcommittee and applicant complete the agreed revisions.