Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Preservation commission. It is Thursday, March 5 at 6PM. May we have a roll call, please?

Yes. Commissioner Rogers? Here. Commissioner Baker?

Laura Here.

Laura Commissioner Rivas?

Laura Here.

Laura Speedy: Here. James?

Laura Here. Laura We have a quorum. Laura Great. Thank you. I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. At this time, please be sure your phone is on silent. Tonight's agenda includes a citizen comment period at the beginning of the meeting. You're welcome to speak on any topic. Please be advised. However, if the topic you speak about is not on tonight's agenda, commission members cannot respond due to requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act, which requires the topics of discussion by the commission be posted seventy two hours in advance of the meeting.

If the topic you wish to speak about is listed as a public hearing, you are welcome to speak for or against any against the item during the public hearing. If you speak during the citizen comment period about a public hearing topic on tonight's agenda, I ask that you not repeat the same comments again during the public hearing on the same topic. When speaking either during the citizen comment period or during a public hearing, you will approach the podium if in person or unmute yourself if virtual. State your name and address. You're allowed to speak up for up to three minutes.

When you begin speaking, the timer will start. When it turns yellow, you will hear a bell and have twenty seconds left. A bell will ring, the timer will turn red when your time is up. Is there anyone signed up for the citizen comment period?

We did not have anyone signed up, but there might be somebody in the audience tonight who wishes to speak.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that'd like to speak during this time? All right.

Do this as a comment or after the maybe after the presentation for

the agenda? All right. Sounds good. Doctor. If you're here for a specific agenda item, that would be a good idea. All right. So, moving on to our first item, consider approval by motion of the 02/05/2026 regular minutes. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

I heard Rivas.

Thank

you. And is there any discussion? All right. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner James?

You can say yes or no.

Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Rivas?

Yes.

Commissioner Rogers? Yes. Alright, that passes.

Okay, we're moving on to item number two, our public hearing of HPC 26 Dash 03516 West Hopkins Street. Hold a public hearing and consider a request for a certificate of appropriateness by Ryan Hildebrand on behalf of Britney Ferguson to allow the installation of a six foot tall wooden dog eared privacy side yard fences. May we have a staff presentation?

Yes. Good evening. Commissioners, Allison Brake, historic preservation officer. This property is located within the Hopkins Street Historic District just south of Moore Street. It is a recorded Texas historic landmark, and it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984.

It was evaluated with a high priority high preservation priority in the recent historic survey in 2019. The structure served as the first American Lutheran Church, then the Pentecostal Holiness Church through the mid twentieth century. And it still has the two octagonal towers, octagonal, oh my gosh, I can't speak, Towers, wood and decorative wood shingle siding, and Gothic arched windows. In the '90s, it was converted into office and residential space. It is architecturally and historically significant for its style and association with the early Presbyterian church congregations here in San Marcos.

Because the property lacks a traditional backyard, the applicants are looking to create usable outdoor space for guests, and provide increased privacy by installing a six foot or two six foot tall dog eared privacy fences along both of the side yards. The south side, which is the side here let me get my laser pointer. Okay. On the south side, the the fence will extend approximately 17 and a half feet from the structure to the interior side property line, and it will be located approximately 35 feet back from the sidewalk in front of the house. This line, this 35 foot, this red line here just shows the distance from the sidewalk to the fence itself.

On the north side, the fence will run 29 feet to the interior side property line and then turn the corner and continue an additional 31 feet to the rear property line. This fence will be located approximately 56 feet from the sidewalk, which is behind the parking space there. A fence permit will be required to be submitted for review prior to the installation of the fences, and the proposed fence must meet the requirements of Chapter seven, Article two, Division six of the development code. Wood is a common fence material in the Hopkins Street Historic District, and there are several dog eared privacy fences within proximity to the subject property. While the south side fence might introduce somewhat of a wall like appearance because it is closer to the sidewalk, both fences are proposed to be located at or behind the front plane of the home which is recommended by the historic district design guidelines.

The fencing material could be removed in the future without impairing the essential form or integrity of the property. Therefore staff finds requests consistent with section four five two one I one G. Of the development code and standards one three five nine and ten of the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Staff also finds a request neutral regarding section four five two one I one E. Of the San Marcos development code and standard number two of the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. The applicant is present online if you have questions, but that concludes my presentation.

Okay. Great. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

I don't think so. That was very thorough.

Okay. Great. Thank you. And do we have any public speakers for this agenda item? Sure.

Remember to state your name and your

address. Yes.

Name is Elizabeth Emberson. I reside at 503 Harvey Street, just about a street away. Good evening, esteemed Historic Preservation Commission. Thank you all for your time, energy, and hard work that you put into keeping San Marcos marvelous. I'm excited to be here this evening for the first time, so I'm so nervous to give my thoughts on tonight's hearing request.

Myself with my husband and our two sons, Forrest and River, call 503 Harvey Street Home. Emailed some photos, I don't know if they'll be included, but just of the property kind of where the fence would be on the south side of the property. Let's see. There is a zero lot line setback for the back house unit c and the neighboring property on the south side of our subject property. There's also a raised cement wall between the two properties.

So I don't see how a fence could be installed. I mean, maybe just right in front of there, but I I don't think that this approval or denial kind of speaks to any other construction of fences directly in there. I I would like to know. It just says that it's behind the front facade of the building, which is about 10 feet kind of closer to the street than most other things, probably because of the initial use of the building as a church. Let's see.

Jeff and Ria Kester were the proud rehabilitators and stewards of this property since the nineteen seventies until just before the current owners took possession and converted it to a short term rental. In all of their years here, Jeff and Ria did not see it fit to build a fence that separates them from their neighbors. And I don't see any reason except for profit driven ones to build one now for owners that don't even call San Marcos home. The subject property has a front facade that's at least 10 feet closer to Hopkins Street then its neighboring homes. Let's see.

This coupled with the fact that as far as my eye could see, the street in front of 516 West Hopkins, there are no other properties with fences other than backyard fences. There's one notable exception on the corner. It's a corner home on the Southeast Corner of Hopkins And Blanco. So I don't know. I don't understand or I do understand that by adding outdoor space for their short term rental tenants pleasure would almost certainly increase their profit margin.

In addition to being historically inappropriate, I believe that outdoor space would add to loud late night hangouts with the single pane windows of the surrounding historic homes. This would be yet another negative to the neighbors and residents of our sweet town. It's clear to me that this out of town owner's only objective with tonight's certificate request is to make more money off of this beautiful historic building and our community that surrounds it. Please deny Downtown Abbey LLC's request for a certificate of appropriateness. I think it's important that we maintain connections with our neighbors. When they're walking by, we can see them. We can wave to them. I know that this is not an owner occupied home, but I still think that that is an important element to keep going in the historic neighborhoods and any neighborhood. Thank you for your

time. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on tonight's public hearing? Okay.

Good evening. I'm Jan Emberson, and I live next door to the property at 524 West Hopkins. I would love some more visual information about this. The fence that was shown here during the presentation is not in keeping with my concept of the historic district. I, of course, personally agree that part of the charm of an historic district is not like we see in so many suburban neighborhoods.

We're just walled off from each other. I think that is a consideration. I I really enjoyed hearing that. I I hadn't really reflected on that before. But I do believe there's not enough information for me

to be for

this proposal. It seems quite large and not in keeping with the architecture that we see in that beautiful building and the surrounding buildings. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this topic?

My name is Don Ewalt. I live at 524 West Hopkins. Jan Emerson is my wife. My concern is with the drainage on the south side of the building. Currently, it has not been set up to drain adequately.

And as a result, part of our driveway has kinda washed away in attempts to redirect the the water that is coming off of the building's property, putting it over where it drains on their side of the property continually gets put back so that the water continues if we don't notice it down our driveway. If you put a fence up there, of course, that is going to impede the water flow entirely unless adequate provisions are made so that it would have a way to get to the street.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Hi. Forrest Fulkerson, 415 Harvey. I used to work there on that property a lot with Jeffrey Kester, the architect, before, you know, he sold it. And I've done many projects there. And I I knew Frank O'Million, the architects there, and I'm pretty familiar with the whole property.

There's a tall fence that separates the three 4 52652524 next door on the uphill side. On the downhill side, it's I think it's flat. But the the those privacy fences are a different function than the older style fences that you'd see on historic houses, like the picket fence with spaces in between, like four foot picket fences whitewashed with, you know, a bullet top. They had you know, they were there to see you can see through them. So you can see you know, people were more neighborly, and that was the historic lifestyle back then.

It goes along with the architecture. Especially with a church, you'd wanna be able to see it from the street. And you may miss out of that if it turns into a, you know, a kind of a suburban style walled in structure. So, anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

Okay. Thank you very much. And do we have anyone else who you'd like to speak on this agenda item? Anybody online? No, ma'am. Okay. Well, with that, I will close the public hearing. Is there a motion? We have to have a motion and a second for us to discuss. Correct.

STEINER: I'll make a motion for the purposes of discussion.

VANILA Second.

VANILA To pass.

VANILA Okay.

Okay. Right. We've got a we've got your motion, and we have a second. So is your motion to approve or deny?

I think I'll make the motion to deny.

Can you, in your motion to deny, is there a particular standard? Is there a particular

do think I I do think that the, the speakers were correct. In the old days, things were much more open, and I think this fence, this type of fence may go up too high, and it may not go correctly in the neighborhoods. In the old days, they didn't have big fences. Everything was much more open.

We're we're diving into discussion here.

So I just so my motion is denied.

I'm looking for a den if you're denying, it should be based on a a fact a finding. One of the findings.

Like Okay. The finding was a that it would disrupt the motion the, rhythm of the street.

Okay. Thank you.

Do we have a second on that motion?

I second.

Okay. Now we're open for discussion.

Okay. Well, I just wanted to say that things were much more open in the old days. A a picket fence would be more much more, correct. Something that's a little bit more transparent instead of this just wall of wood that's gonna go six feet higher on top of everything else. You know, I I can understand why he wants, you know, to put a fence up, but there were picket fences that were a little bit more transparent, and I think it would serve, just the same purpose. That's my opinion. I

had a question about picking the dog eared fencing as opposed to something more appropriate to that building. I did my own research, and there's a French Gothic picket fence that's much more in style with that particular building with the pointed turrets. There's an example of it at 1104 West Hopkins. They currently have that fence in a similar setback to surround their pool. And there is a little bit of spacing between each picket that allows for more of the openness.

And with your building being so prominent on that street, anyone who's driven down that street and were stopped at Moore, I mean, you you get a good look at the building. I agree with one of the other commissioners is putting a solid six foot dog eared fence is really going to change the architecture and the flow of that building. Have you considered some other design?

Part of me, if I I'm speaking out of turn, I'm a little bit new to this process. I I also met mister Keister who had worked there and spent a lot of hard hard labor hours taking care of the place. And and maintaining the, you know, historic significance of that building is is important to us as well. We have considered the the French Gothic style, which is a little more open and sound sounds like there's some other examples there in the neighborhood. Mhmm.

And and we're definitely open to to different designs of fences. Having a space outside where guests can enjoy themselves without, like, the constant observation of of of people walking up and down that street is something that that we thought might benefit might benefit our guests. I I also did wanna speak to somebody mentioning that the the fence is running along the south side. I mean, according to the drawings, specifically in regards to that drainage portion, that only fence would be running along the front face. So in terms of, like, going up and down, like, where the where the drainage is, there wouldn't be a fence there.

And and as far as the drainage goes, I'm I'm also, like, on a totally unrelated note, happy to workshop some ideas on how to make it better for everyone.

K. Alright. More discussion from our commissioners.

Yeah, I just have a couple issues. One, I think that it would be I would like to see some sort of visual representation of the fence and the way it would look when it's done. I just it's very hard to imagine, given the information that we were given, that it's so that's one thing. The second is that I think that it would be good to consider maybe Gothic fence or something. Because if this were traditionally a house, then I think the fence would have less of an impact on its historic nature.

But the fact that it was traditionally a church, putting a big six foot fence, particularly one that comes up to the corner on the right hand side there, would, I think, really alter its appearance quite a bit. And it would take away from its historic qualities for me visually. So, I mean, maybe a slightly lower fence or one that's, you know, a little light, a little finer, I think would help. And maybe on the one corner, which is again on the right of the plan there, if you could just drop it back a couple feet rather than having it come up to the corner of the building. And that's how I'm reading that, is that it comes up to the corner of the building there.

If it could be just dropped back a little bit, then I think it would have less impact. That's the main thing. I just wanted, again, to kind of reiterate that because it's a church, the fence would have more impact on it, I think, in terms of its historic kind of presentation from the street. And also, that would be it would be good to have more you know, a little more information about how it would actually look.

Allison, will you pull up the picture where you can see the sides? This picture? Mhmm. And so the way it's proposed, it's the fence is pretty much coming up to where that sidewalk ends. Correct? Yes.

Yeah. I believe so. I might ask that of the applicant just to confirm.

Yeah. So you can see on this slide on the the the picture to the right, there's the first corner you see, and then as you go back towards the Drawing Room Unit C, you'll see the second corner. So it's basically in between that AC unit and the first right hand corner is where it'll begin. So it's just further towards the door on that sidewalk. So a portion of that sidewalk will have to be demolished.

Did you say it had to have to be demolished? Is that what is that what I just heard?

The sidewalk? Yeah. I mean, it it would have to be, like, re redone in order to

The concrete sidewalk. The walkway. Right. Mhmm.

Right.

Just that that piece there.

And why why the need to have it so so close to the front plane of the building? Am seeing that little apartment there in the back. I'm pretty familiar with the property. That's an awfully big space just when you're having, you know, your tenants or your your guests wanting to sit outside, you know, getting fresh air but with a little bit of privacy. I don't understand why it needs to be so deep.

For me, it was as simple as, like, how it's set, like, symmetrically, like, with the corner of the building. I I thought that that made the most sense in terms of, like, a division between, like, the parking lot and kind of the entrance to that unit that made the most sense to me. But I'm definitely not not dead set on it being right there.

Allison, we go back to the drawing that shows the distance. Okay.

Are those circles representative of the, like, octagonal spires?

I believe so. Okay. Yeah.

That's correct. Mhmm.

Would you be willing to put it back into right in front of the air conditioner? That's back halfway about. Right?

Yeah. I'm not opposed to that.

Okay.

I I just wanted to express concerns that I think that it does. Both the height of the fence and the solid nature are not compatible with the historic character. I would rather not speculate on the owner's motives or profit or neighborliness, but that building did stand with space around it, and that's part of its distinctive character. And running a six foot, essentially a wall against it on both sides really does change the spatial nature of the property. Its appearance from the street, how it affects the people who use it is different, but I don't think that it's compatible in keeping the historic character of the house.

Someone else said it wouldn't have had a fence around it as a churcher. I think it's more typical to have fences with openings. Again, regardless of neighborliness, that's strictly the appearance of it, the historic character of it. So those are my concerns that it does not maintain that it alters the historic appearance of the property in a significant way.

Commissioner Rivas?

Ditto what commissioner Speedy said.

Okay. So at this time, we're we have a motion and a second to deny based upon the spatial disruption.

Right. It did not meet the rhythm or it doesn't it's inconsistent with the rhythm of the street.

Right. And the rhythm of the streets is is valid because, like us, one of the other people who spoke earlier said, most of the houses on that street and this is not a house. This is a church. But most of the houses on that street do not have six foot fences.

Alright. So can we get a a vote on this?

Yes. So a vote for yes is to deny. Correct? Okay. Commissioner James? Deny. Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Commissioner Rivas? Say. Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Baker? Yes. And Commissioner Rogers?

Yes. Okay. That is tonight. So

can we invite the applicant to resubmit their application with taking into consideration the feedback that you got here tonight with the depth of the of the fence and then the styling of the fence?

Sure. You could. There is also, an appeals process that he has the right to go through, so I will be contacting him within the next few days to go through that process. Okay. Great. Alright.

Alright. Moving on to our next item, number three, updates from staff who will provide updates on the items listed on the agenda.

I don't have anything this month. It's been a busy month with the preservation plan being adopted and getting it finalized. It's great getting off lucky tonight.

Allison, may I say a word? Sure. Just a procedural note after talking with the city attorney about a couple of things. It's minor. But number one, I wanted to point out so we've talked about the motion to deny, and you've done that again. Technically, under the rules of committees for it, it's I would turn it more as a postpone indefinitely. You can postpone to a certain date or you can postpone indefinitely. I haven't mentioned this before, but I just wanted to do it Okay. Because something a little more important came up last meeting. And again, there was no harm to it, but potentially there could have been.

So we had an unusual lack of a full board last time. We had five members. And we had a vote that passed with three votes. And technically, again, under the city rules, you can't pass anything without four votes out of seven. Fortunately, was not a and it was my fault for not telling you that. But part of it was that it was not a motion to approve. So it was not a harm, in a sense. Okay. But it would definitely be outside our powers to approve something with just three votes. That's three out of five. It's never happened with this committee before. I just mentioned that just for your edification.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item number four, election of the following officers. We need to elect our officers for the year, and we'll start with the nominations for the Historic Preservation Commission chairperson. Is there a motion? Oh.

Yep. We'll take nominations at this time.

Can I nominate Rogers again? Is there

a Sure.

No. I mean, this is up to the will of the commission.

Alright. I nominate, Commissioner Rogers as chair.

Second.

All right.

Is there anybody

else who Any wants discussion? Anybody else want to? I don't have a problem serving, but I'm also happy to share.

I think she's done a great job thus far in my short time with this commission.

Thank you. This will be my last year.

Finishing strong.

Go with a flash, you

know.

All right.

Yes. No, we want everything smooth and calm and no bumps.

All right.

May we have a roll call vote? Yes. Commissioner Baker?

Oh, I saw a yes,

but I didn't hear it. Can you unmute yourself? Can you unmute yourself, Commissioner Baker?

Hang. There we go. For me. Thank you. Commissioner Rivas? Yes. Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Hayes?

Yes.

Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. And commissioner Rogers? Yes. Alright. That passes. Congratulations. Thank you.

Moving on to five. Next, we will take nominations for the Historic Preservation Commission vice chairperson.

I nominate commissioners Beed.

Any other nominations?

I second it. Okay.

Alright. Any discussion? Any other nominations? Alright. She

knows how to talk.

Yep. Very articulate. Love it.

May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner Rivas? Yep. Commissioner Rogers? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Awesome. Congratulations.

Okay. The Jennifer's. Yeah. We're eventually gonna take over the world. This is an opportunity for the press and public in the audience to ask questions related to only items on this agenda. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to ask a question? Anyone online? No, ma'am. Alright. Seeing none. And hearing none, we'll move on to the next item, which is adjournment. May I have a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

And a second?

I'll second it.

And a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Diedek? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Rivas? Yes. And Commissioner Rogers?

Yes. Okay. We are adjourned at 06:31. You all so much.