Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

So welcome to the regular meeting of the historic preservation commission. It is Thursday, May 7 at 6PM. May we have

a roll call, please? Yes. Commissioner Rogers? Here. Commissioner Baker? Here. Commissioner Dinek? Here. Commissioner Rivas?

Here.

Commissioner Speed? Here. Commissioner Hayes?

Here.

Commissioner James? Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. I'd like to

welcome everyone to tonight's meeting. At this time, please be sure your cell 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 the 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're welcome to speak for or 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 and state your name and address. You're allowed to speak up for up to three minutes. When the 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, and the timer will turn red when your time is up. Is there anyone signed up for the citizen comment period?

No one has signed up, but if somebody is in the audience and wishes to participate, they may do so.

Okay. Would anyone in the audience like to speak? Sure. Go ahead and, go to the podium and state your name and address.

My name is Grady Early, 214 Triple Crown Run, San Marcos. I am interested in general Ed Burleson, who was of great service to Texas in three of its five incarnations and to Hays County in San Marcos. He lived the last four or five years of his life in San Marcos in a cabin on the ridge overlooking the Springs. That site has fallen into considerable disrepair, and I wonder if something might be done about it. In a perfect world, I'd like to see a reconstruction of his cabin, but we could at least stabilize the site perhaps and put up some of those information signs like you see around or at least a Texas historical marker noting the site and adds value to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Alright. We'll move on to item number one. Consider approval by motion of the 04/09/2026 regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. And a second?

Second.

Any

discussion? Alright. May we have

a roll call? Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Rivas?

Yes.

Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Hayes?

Yes.

Commissioner Speed?

Yes. Commissioner Rogers? Yes. Alright. That passes. Alright. Moving to item number two, public hearing, 510 North Guadalupe Street demolition review, permit number 2026Dash58958. Hold a public hearing and consider whether the structure holds historic significance warranting a ninety day extension of the demolition delay period and discuss alternatives to demolition as well as methods for preserving the historic character of the property. May we please have a staff presentation?

Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Allison Brake. I'm the historic preservation officer. This property is located South Of East Wood Street. It's south of the Texas State Campus. The demolition permit for the structure was submitted for review on April 13. This here is shows the site plan. The structure is shaded in red. The building itself is evaluated with a high preservation priority in our historic resources survey of 2019.

This triggers the demolition review for the historic age resources found in our development code. And the demolition permit cannot be issued until at least ninety days after the date of that filing of the completed application. In this case, that would be June 20 06/24/2026, unless the commission determines that the structure is not historically significant. If the commission finds that there is historic significance, the demolition period may be extended an additional ninety days, which would delay that issuance of the permit to 09/22/2026. If the commission finds that there is no historic significance of the structure, the permit could be released, say, tomorrow, pending other applicable ordinances.

In 1950, the Saint Mark's Fest Street purchased the former East End School property on East Wood Street, which is the subject property. The original school building at that point had been destroyed by a fire, and then the property was vacant. In 1954, a parish hall was constructed on this site, and the congregation relocated there after its original church on West Hopkins was deemed structurally unsafe. And in 1966, a new contemporary sanctuary that was clad in native stone was completed, and this is the picture of the cornerstone that was submitted by the applicant. There was a fire that gutted the building in 1996.

However, it was rebuilt in 1998, which allowed the congregation to return to the church. The staff reports state that the stained glass rose window that formerly occupied the front of the church was existing when it that was what was existing now. However, the property owner shared information with staff on May 6 that the window was actually removed in the February and relocated to Saint Mark's current location on Rancho 12. The altar and historic stained glass there in the picture in the chapel were were also removed and relocated. The organ and bell also were relocated when the church moved the locations that left the space where the organ the organ was was vacant, as well as the bell tower.

In 2010, there was a kitchen remodel that was began, but asbestos was discovered in the flooring that which required the kitchen to come into full compliance with city code. An applicant states that the ministry has no functional kitchen due to this and cites that it's a significant hindrance to the ministry and community activities. Staff reviewed the request using the criteria for local designation and found the structure is consistent with sections two five four five, numbers five, eight, and 12. And I just wanna provide a few notes about the property that in February, there was a rezoning a zoning change from public to character five character district five. I'm sorry.

That was approved and adopted in February by city council. There's proposed mixed use with the ministry, retail, and multifamily uses proposed for this site. And the Texas local government code states that a property owner property owned by a religious organization may not be designated as a local landmark without the explicit approval of the property owner. That concludes my presentation, and the applicant is here or the property owner is here should you have any questions.

K. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good

evening, commissioners. My name is, the reverend doctor Todd Salmi. I am the pastor and executive director of the United Campus Ministry located at 510 North Guadalupe Street. And before I begin, I just wanna say I appreciate y'all for your service to our city, and I appreciate the city staff for helping us in this process.

Real quick. Can you state your address, please?

Yeah. 510 North Guadalupe Street. Yeah. In San Marcos, Texas. We come before you tonight as part of the demolition permit process as we are seeking to build a new building that will help support and expand our ministry.

First, I wanna emphasize that we intend to remain an active ministry in this location, and our church will own this property land. We'll own the land that's there. The United Campus Ministry was founded in 1963 by five denominations, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Disciples of Christ Christian Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Lutheran churches. Many of these churches have deep and historic ties to the city of San Marcos, some of which even from its earliest days. And as downtown continues to change, we are committed to staying in ministry at this location.

Second, as we look forward to the future, we're committed to carrying forward meaningful elements of their past. We plan to incorporate the sacred features such as some of the stained glass into our new space, and we're exploring additional ways that we can honor the history of the space in our in our new facility. Third, it's important to note, I think, that through that staff highlighted that many of the historic items of this building were removed in the February. The organ, the church bell, the historic chapel, the altar, and the stained glass was removed, leaving those spaces empty. And they were taken with them, which totally makes sense.

They took many of the important and historic items with them when they relocated their ministry. And when the United Campus Ministry purchased the property in 2010, the building had a lot of deferred maintenance and required significant repairs and upgrades. The roof had to be fully replaced. A slew of AC tabs AC units were replaced. The foundation will need major attention if it's gonna be occupied long term.

And as was mentioned, the kitchen renovation that was started did not get completed. Our ministry, the UCM, invested nearly half $1,000,000, a large portion of our endowment, into the repairs and the updates. And even with all this, we don't have a functioning kitchen, which is kind of important in ministry. Because of the constraints of the current structure, which basically make it prohibitively complex to bring it into current code compliance. Also, the existing ministry building has limited the ministry work that we can do, the programs that we can offer, and it's also limited the number of community events that we can host as well.

It's simply a very, very costly and complex building to maintain. I see that my time is up, but let me just close with this.

I I am okay with you to continue if the commission is k.

Please. People enjoy seeing a preacher on a timer, so I I will keep it let me let me finish up here. We want you to know that we come here this evening as part of a deeply intentional, locally led process. This has been a process that has been grounded in prayer, has been grounded in study, has been grounded in discernment and community input. We've engaged students.

We've engaged neighbors. We've engaged our partner churches. We've engaged faculty, community members, and city staff along the way. We're not some fly by night developer coming in to make a quick buck on this property. We are a historic nonprofit with longstanding roots in this community and with a long term commitment to the flourishing of San Marcos.

We believe that this project that we are embarking on will activate this part of town, will make it safe, will make it welcoming, will make it vibrant, and provide an important connection between campus and the community. We also believe it will provide an important buffer between the campus and the community to have our nonprofit ministry space there. We love this location. We love and honor our traditions and our history. We will bring those forward and honor honor that.

We don't want this to become a darkened space. We don't want this to become an empty building that is no longer able to serve our community. So we look forward to doing what many churches have done throughout the history of San Marcos, which is to update our spaces so that we can continue to serve the community and continue to meet the generations that come for decades to come. Thank you. I appreciate your service, and I ask you for your support in permitting our request. God bless.

Thank you. Alright. Do we have any public speakers for this agenda item? Anybody? That's it. K. I'll now close the public hearing. Is there a motion?

We Go ahead. I think you're going.

Okay. We are the motion would be to recommend an extension.

I would say that the motion would have to, you know, that the commission finds that there's historic significance warranting the ninety day extension or the commission does finds that there is no historic significance that, you know, something along those lines.

We need to make a motion and then a second, and then we can have discussion.

Alright.

I make a motion that we consider the building to have historical significance and that we support the extension of the ninety day delay.

Got it. I'll second that.

Okay. All right. Now we can have our discussion.

You had mentioned that you were going to incorporate some of the stained glass windows that are currently there. Are are some going to be demoed if you go through with the are you gonna try to save all the stained glass windows or just some of them?

I mean, our preference would be to save all of them. They're gorgeous, and they're beautiful. We haven't gotten the final plans of where everything fits in all the designs, but we would love to incorporate them. And if we're not able to use them, then we have we're connected to many of our church partners and would look for ways to either preserve them or preserve them in the community.

So one way or the other before it's demoed, you you is the plan to save those windows as much as you can so they're not

demoed? That's that's our plan.

And then what about there's some hanging lights from the ceiling. They look were they original to the church, or were they Had they been taken out? Are they still there?

They're still there. There are lights in the sanctuary. I've seen various photos Yeah. Of the sanctuary It's

hard to tell which

lights And it looks like the lights have changed. So I I don't know when and where those are. So for example, the window that we have, which was labeled the rose window, that was installed in twenty ten ish, the twenty tens, I'll say. I I arrived at the ministry in 2017. So I don't have the full history of of every part of the building, but

I mean, I would just be more comfortable knowing that there is a plan at least to take those windows out and not have them destroyed. Yeah. Whether they go into your church or they are repurposed somewhere else.

I mean, I fully agree with that.

Okay.

Yeah. I have a question. I mean, new construction is expensive. And one of the justifications they're using to not to to to demolish this building is is expense. And my question is, why not just rehabilitate the building and then add to it, you know, put an addition on it?

Yeah. As I mentioned, there are some concerns with the foundation that if we were to do if we were to even stay in the building with no additions long term, there would have to be some serious costs and time just in getting the the foundations. There's been some shifting in parts of the building.

But I'm just pointing out that building a new building is also really expensive.

Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, when we look at what we're doing with our new building, it is going to allow us to be able to expand our ministry programs. And we have other ways, as was mentioned there, we have there'll be a multifamily residence, and there'll be retail that'll be part of it, while our ministry will still occupy a primary section of the Ground Floor. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you.

I can't help but think about, like, the church we looked at. I don't know if it was last month's meeting or the meeting before that that eventually turned to, like, this Airbnb and kinda lost some of that historic value of I don't know really how how to say that, but I do worry that by, I don't know, knocking down this building that's been around for so long, we do lose something there. But I also could see that if it's not being used in the way that best serves the community and everything has to change at some point, I I don't have any questions, but I'm this is something things I'm thinking about.

I mean, there are ways of adding to buildings or reusing historic buildings that maintain their character pretty well. I mean, yes, everything changes, so they're not going to be exactly the same. But there have been many successful projects where existing buildings that have historical significance have been altered, adaptive use. That's part of the one of the major activities of historic preservation, actually. And even additions can be added that are quite compatible. So it's not, you know, it's not necessarily gonna diminish the building, particularly to preserve it.

I would share that I understand the congregation's position and desire for a better space. But I think historically, the evidence says that this is it's recommended for for being distinctive. It has possible eligibility for net listing on the National Register. It's a special example of mid twentieth century architecture, so I think we need to find that it's historically significant regardless of whether or not we think it should be taken down. I think that's the sort of the facts on the ground based on what we know of the code and what we've been presented here. So that's my my perspective on it.

Thank you. Commissioner Baker, commissioner Rivas, do you have any comments?

Well, I mean, I think it's a shame to tear it down, but I understand that the asbestos is a real problem. And, there's probably, you know, other problems. But, boy, I wish we had a way to incentivize people to, to help, you know, fix these things rather than tear them down. I would like to see the owner use as much if he if we pass this or even if we go for the extra time saying that it is historically important, which is I agree. I think that we can't not say it's historically important.

It is. But I would like to see the the developer or who whoever's gonna be fixing it to use as many of the materials as possible, including, you know, the brick and whatever, you know, the as much as I would like to see you keep as much of the the original as possible. I understand that the asbestos is a real problem, though. But, you know, I I don't think that there's any way we can deny it's not historic.

Commissioner Rivas, do you have any comments?

I feel this building is of historical significance that, the owners should take into it, take all measures possible to expand, to rehabilitate it, whatever is possible. I also worry that if this building were demoed, it's gonna be sold off to probably will be sold off to outsiders, and we get another condo, another apartment. I really don't like that idea of potentially sacrificing our history for another 10 story abomination. That's all I got. Is

the intention I I heard you say the intention is to continue the ministry in that same spot. And is that in perpetuity, or is this kind of like a let's get a a next great project and be able to sell that?

Yeah. I mean, when we when we looked at what we could do with this, one of the options was to simply sell the building and the property as is. That's what the previous congregation did when they found that the building was no longer meeting their needs. But we decided to stay there, and we have made a commitment that we are going to own the land as the church. And we we are our primary ministry is with college students, and it's right next to campus.

It could not be a better location for what we do with students, with staff, and with faculty. We have bus drivers that come in frequently throughout the day because they don't have a place to to to take a a a break, and so they'll come into our ministry space and hang out. So a lot of people in the community are able to use that, and we plan to stay there. I I would say in perpetuity. I mean, that's we don't we don't plan on leaving.

So yeah. Is there any kind of time line for that? Like, for, like, how long are y'all in stages of planning, like, what the new building would look like, okay, if this demolition goes through? Is there any plans like that already in place, or is this is this the first step?

No. We're I mean, we've had conversations. We've been having and conversations about this for about three to three to four years to the point when we realized that we simply could not continue to put more money into the property. We could not put more money into the building because it was it was in it was just taking all of our resources. And this is not even to talk about property insurance and all the other things that are just just the ongoing care that has to happen. We don't have specific details just yet on timelines or anything like that because we have to understand, you know, some of the timelines and respect what we wanna do here with our community and hear those voices.

I just have a question. Do you have an approximate approximation of about how tall the replacement building would be?

So we have been we've gone through the rezoning process, and the rezoning process can gives us by right up to five stories in this space. Okay. Thanks.

Any more discussion? Alison, can we get will you please rephrase how we are? Yes.

The motion on the floor is that the structure has historic significance which warrants the ninety day extension of the demolition delay.

Okay. Can we get a roll call on that, please? Sure. Commissioner Rivas?

Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Commissioner Hayes?

Yes.

Commissioner Diedek?

Yes.

And commissioner Rogers? Yes. Alright. That motion passes.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Moving on to item number three, our public hearing 217 Stillwell Street demolition review permit number 202659303. Hold a public hearing and consider whether the structure holds historic significance warranting a ninety day extension of the demolition delay period and discuss alternatives to demolition as well as methods for preserving the historic character of the property. May we have the staff presentation?

Yes. Allison Brake, historic preservation officer. This property is located West Of South Guadalupe Street. It's in Barrio Victoria or Victory Gardens. The historic resources database notes that it was a dupe it is a duplex or what had previously been a duplex.

It has side gable a side gabled roof, a front gabled porch, vinyl siding, and original wood multi light windows. It does the historic resources database notes that there is a rear addition, along with a side garage addition. Oh, sorry. The building itself was evaluated with a medium preservation priority, which also triggers this demolition review. The initial ninety days for this permit is July 15, if the commission doesn't find any significance.

If the commission finds its significance and extends that delay, that goes to October 13 this year. Again, if no significance is found pending other applicable ordinances, the the permit can be issued. The photo on the left is the current photo. I took that this morning. It does not appear on any Sanborn map, but that was also because it didn't extend into that part of the city.

There is a structure or a grouping of structures on a nineteen fifty eight aerial. It's kind of hard to see because there's a watermark. It is one of the few remaining structures located in the southern boundary of Vario Victoria that retains a fair amount of historic integrity and reflects our mid twentieth century development. The storage structures that are on the site plan were not mentioned in the historic resources survey. Staff reviewed the request using the criteria for local designation, and found it consistent with section 2,545, numbers five and thirteen.

That concludes my presentation, and I don't think that we have the applicant present tonight.

Okay. And do, are there any public speakers for this agenda item?

Nobody's signed up, but if somebody is in the audience and wishes to speak. Okay.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this topic for this hearing? All right. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? This is finding historic historically significant and extending the ninety day delay for demolition.

I'll move to extend the ninety day

Yeah. Demolition.

Demolition.

Delay for

Delay of demolition.

Can we get a second? Second. All right. Do we have discussion? I Allison, is this home occupied right now?

I don't believe so. I think it has gotten caught up in the code compliance. They've they've done the the property management code says that a property can't be vacant for over a year. Looking back at this home's history within our permitting software. It looks like it's been vacant for probably or at least under code compliance for either property upkeep for a number of years. But I think it is vacant, and I think it just received its final notice of violation from Okay.

Demolition by neglect.

Potentially. That's a different that's a different process. Mhmm.

But yeah. So they've received citations?

I don't think that they've received citations yet. They did receive a final notice in January. So I think if they weren't meeting by a certain date, then they probably would receive citations. K.

Is there any, like, process that they the city can work with the owners to help them, you know, cut get to code get, you know, get up to code and preserve the building?

Well, the issue is that the property management code, the international property management code states that a property cannot be vacant for over a year. So if it remains vacant, it remains in violation of that particular section of the property management code, which is in kind of in conflict with this demolition. Because one of the solutions is to demolish. That's it's spelled out in the code. So a lot of these folks are are just going that route. But that would probably be a question for code compliance that we can look into. If it is still if, you know, if this is extended, then we can look into it. But

Yeah. I mean, I guess what I'm concerned about is if we delay the demolition of this building and if the owners are already having problems and they're being basically told by the city that they have to demolish it, it puts them in a really tough position.

Yeah. We would work with code compliance officers to say, this is the outcome of this meeting. And they could, you know, maybe not issue citations until it does get extent, you know, or until that extension is expired. But that and that's really on us to work with code enforcement staff. We've done that in the past.

Having conversations with the with the owners and the applicant, do they have the ability to do any repairs?

They they could probably enter into that artistic board up program that we have where they work with code compliance officers to make I think you all were here when code compliance came to give that presentation. You know, they make it look a little better where windows look like windows, doors look like doors. It doesn't look like a vacant house. They could probably enter into something like that. But that's, again, you know, code compliance officers working with the property owner.

And that's just continuing the deterioration anyways even though it may look nicer from the outside

if they they don't

have the ability to do a a full rehabilitation so that it can be occupied Mhmm. Or planning to sell it. Do you know what they are planning to do with their property?

I don't. Okay. Know.

And, really, only thing that we can vote on is delaying it.

There's Whether or not it has historic significance, would then extend the delay. Correct. And then we would staff would work with contacting, you know, the property owner, explaining what happened. Then I would probably work with our code compliance officers to really figure out, the best path forward for them.

Well, in delaying it may it gives the opportunity for those sorts of things to happen. Mhmm.

I would be concerned about I would be concerned about the president that something like this would set. You know? I mean, it will you know, the domino effect could happen. You know, people because, I mean, they're in a neighborhood here, you know, and then they're we're gonna have a bunch of vacant lots then. So I I would be a little bit concerned about that.

I did hear from, some, one prop, a neighbor across the street who was concerned they with, I don't know if somebody was squatting in it or, you know, there was also raccoons and possums that were and rats. So, you know, the things that come along with a vacant property, maybe.

I would say my response is similar to the other one. If it has rats and possums, that's not good, but that doesn't change the historic significance of it. So I would encourage us to remark on that part of it, understanding that there's some follow on consequences of that.

Commissioner Rivas, did you have something you wanted to say?

No. I don't have anything to say. K. Thank you for asking,

though. Anyone

else? Alright. We get a roll call, please?

Yes. And this is for this that the structure has historic significance, which warrants the ninety day extension. Commissioner Rivas.

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Baker?

Yes.

Alright. Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner, Hayes? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Commissioner Dedek? Yes. Commissioner Rogers? Yes. Okay. That motion passes.

Alright. Thank you. We'll move on, item number four, updates. Staff will provide updates on the items listed on the agenda.

Yes. Okay. So the I've been talking about having a rededication ceremony for the Dunbar School Building, and we have one on the books. It will be next Tuesday at 9AM, May 12. It will be on-site at 801 West MLK. It should be a show I said it should be. We have it scheduled for nine to 09:30. Hopefully, we'll have some coffee and some pastries, and would love to see whoever could come out. I've already posted for a potential quorum, so don't be afraid for that. Yeah.

It would just be nice to come be able to see the the hard work, and it's I won't say it's complete. We still have phase three, which includes reaching back out to the public for its final you know, what does the public want to see as its final use before we get working on interior stuff. And just real quick, I figured this was a good place to put this under the updates. We did not receive any certificate of appropriateness requests. And since I am working on getting the historic preservation plan oversight committee established, we will not have a June meeting.

So there will be no meeting in June. There will be a meeting on July 9. So I will see you all after the July 4. But that concludes my updates. And

and you said that's at 9AM?

Yes. 9AM on May 12.

What's the address again?

801 West MLK, and you can park at the Dunbar Center. There should be plenty of parking. I put it for 9PM. Yeah. Nine 9AM. Mhmm. Don't be home.

Why are all these cool events you invite us to on Tuesdays in the morning?

I know. We all work. Mhmm.

Yeah. It's field work. You can come

in after. You don't miss all the Austin traffic.

We will now, make an opportunity for the press and public and the audience to ask questions related to only items on this agenda. Do we have anyone wishing to ask questions about items on this agenda? Anyone online? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to adjournment. Can I get a motion?

We'll make a motion to adjourn.

And a second? Second.

Can we have a vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Rivas?

Yes.

Commissioner Hayes?

Yes.

Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Speed? Yes. Commissioner Baker?

Yes.

Commissioner Rogers?

Yes.

Alright. We are adjourned at three 06:37. Alright. Thank you. Thank you all.

You all have a great one.

See you in July.