The Historic and Design Review Commission for the City of San Antonio on April 18, 2025 voted to deny staff recommendations on two contested applications for exterior changes in the Montecello Park historic district while approving other agenda items, including a landscaping and sidewalk restoration plan with conditions.

The votes followed extended public comment and detailed commissioner discussion about historic materials, neighborhood precedent and the safety or practicality of on-site parking.

Commission business began with routine approvals, including the March 21, 2025 minutes. Public comment then focused on two recurring themes: transparency of case files and the appropriateness of nonhistoric building materials.

"No tener esa información es un archivo incompleto y no muestra mucha civil. Falta transparencia en el proceso," Bianca Maldonado, president of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, told commissioners during public comment, asking that violation records, photographs and any design-review committee reports be included in case files.

Neighbors urged denial of a proposed front driveway at 205 East Rich and of a non-clay roof material at 507 Furn Drive. John Peña, identifying himself as a Montecello Park resident, said the proposed garage opening would "break the historical fabric" of the block and asked commissioners to deny the request. Mickey Connor, who identified himself as president of an architecture-advisory committee, said the proposal would add a nonhistoric feature where none originally existed and noted he had collected signatures opposing the front-drive proposal.

At 507 Furn Drive, commissioners examined samples of a proposed fiber-glass roofing product. Commissioners repeatedly expressed concern that the product would not replicate the appearance or durability of clay tile and that approving it could set an unfavorable precedent across the district. Commissioners discussed cost as a factor raised by the applicant: the applicant reported a quote of about $20,000 for the proposed product versus an estimated $40,000 for clay tile.

After discussion, a motion to deny the staff recommendation for 507 Furn Drive passed. The commission recorded the vote with a majority in favor; one commissioner voted no. Commissioners asked the applicant to work with staff on next steps.

The application for a 12-foot vehicle access and repaired sidewalk at 205 East Rich drew lengthy public comment from neighbors and the property owner. Neighbors and the association argued the proposed curb-cut and front parking would alter the character of the narrow historic lot and lead to removal of trees and yard area. The applicant said the alley is narrow, that on-street parking creates pedestrian safety concerns and that rear access cannot reliably accommodate modern vehicles.

Commissioners considered precedent, whether comparable properties had driveways that entered in front of the house, and the difficulty of maneuvering vehicles in the alley. After debate, the commission voted to deny the staff recommendation in that case as well.

Separately, the commission approved the application for 124 May (case 2025-067) with staff conditions. Staff had recommended restoring a removed sidewalk before demolition and requiring that at least 50% of the front yard be planted with living vegetation rather than artificial turf or full gravel replacement. Owner Allison Sultánian confirmed she will install natural plantings to meet the 50% requirement; commissioners approved the application with the listed conditions and asked the owner to coordinate with staff for compliance and documentation.

Commissioners approved remaining consent items on the agenda (including individual items listed as 3 and 5) and closed the meeting after directing staff to prepare written notices of decisions and to supply case documentation as requested.

What the decisions mean

- The commission’s denial of staff recommendations on 507 Furn Drive means the proposed roofing material was not accepted; the applicant was directed to work with staff on alternatives and compliance steps. The motion passed with a majority vote; one commissioner opposed.

- The denial of the staff recommendation for the 205 East Rich front driveway/curb-cut likewise rejects the plans as presented; commissioners cited possible harm to the district’s historical character and concerns about precedent and tree removal.

- Approval for 124 May (case 2025-067) was granted on the condition that the removed sidewalk be reinstated or replicated and that at least 50% of the front yard be planted with live vegetation rather than artificial ground cover.

Commissioners repeatedly urged staff to ensure case files include violation notices, photographs and any subcommittee (HDRC design committee) reports cited during review. Public commenters and several commissioners said missing documentation had complicated review and public understanding.

The commission’s written decisions will be provided to applicants and posted in accordance with standard procedures; commissioners said staff would prepare formal letters and notices within the 10 days required by the commission’s process.