Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Preservation Commission. It is Thursday, September the 3rd at 6 p.m. May we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Rogers. Commissioner Baker.

Here. Thank you.

Commissioner Dedeck.

Here.

Commissioner Rivas. 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 are 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 72 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 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 the public hearing, you will approach the podium. if in person, or unmute yourself if virtual, and state your name and address. You are allowed to speak for up to three minutes. When you begin speaking, the timer will start. When it turns yellow, you'll hear a bell and have 20 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 there might be somebody in the audience who wishes to speak.

Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak during the citizen comment period? No obligation. No one in the audience wishes to speak. The first item on the agenda is to consider approval by motion of the July 9, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

And a second?

I second it.

Is there any discussion? I believe that there is no discussion. May we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Baker?

Yes.

Commissioner Dedek?

Yes.

Commissioner Rivas? Yes. Commissioner Speed?

Yes.

Commissioner Hayes? Yes. And Commissioner James?

Yes. Thank you, that passes. Item number two for the public hearing. HPC 2607, 207 Herndon Street. Hold a public hearing and consider a request for a certificate of appropriateness by Barrett Barber to allow a modification to the approved design allowing the existing windows to be removed and replaced with vinyl windows. The window layout reconfigured along the side elevations and a 325 square foot addition constructed at the rear of the building. May we please have a staff presentation?

Yes, good evening, Commissioners Allison Brake, Historic Preservation Officer. This property is located within the Dunbar Historic District. It's near the intersection of Center Street and West MLK Drive. It was evaluated with a medium preservation priority in our 2019 Historic Resources Survey. It's not a recorded Texas historic landmark, but it is within the Dunbar National Register of Historic Places District. The house itself was constructed in the 1930s. It does appear on the 1930 Sanborn map. In 2025, a conditionally approved certificate of appropriateness was approved for very exterior alterations to the property, which included the replacement of the metal roofing material with composition roofing shingles, the replacement of asbestos siding material with fiber cement board to be installed vertically in a board and batten style with the batten spaced at 12 inch intervals, installing a new corrugated metal skirting, construction of a new front porch, and it also included the installation of two new windows along the left side facade. Approximately 66% of the left side facade underwent alterations between 2022 and 2025 by a previous property owner, and that included the removal of the siding and three windows. The property was then sold earlier this year and the new owner has submitted a new building permit that shows most elements of the previously approved request remain, which includes the roofing material, the siding, the skirting, the new front porch, and the applicant is also proposing to reuse the original front doors. These are just some pictures from staff's visit showing the existing condition of the property since the last year that you saw it. Some more pictures. The applicant is now requesting to remove all of the existing windows and replace them with six over six divided light windows, specifically the PolyGem 500 series, while also reconfiguring the approved window layouts along both side elevations. The information on the cost of repairing these windows versus replacement was unavailable. However, the applicant did provide information showing that a comparable wood window replacement would cost approximately $970 per unit compared to $218 for the vinyl window. The applicant states that the windows represent approximately 9% of the total rehabilitation cost of the project and that the approved wood windows will triple the project's window budget. As character defining features, replacement of original windows with inappropriate styles or materials over time could lead to degradation in character of not only the home but also the district as well. altering them can significantly diminish the building's architectural integrity. Staff explored whether existing historic windows could be consolidated and retained on the front facade specifically. Preserving original windows on the most visible elevation is typically preferred in preservations when we're looking at replacement windows or material elsewhere. The windows that could be used are smaller than those on the front facade, which would require alteration of the window size, which you can see in the schematic below the picture. The schematic on the left-hand side is what was previously approved last year. The schematic on the right is showing the windows that exist at the back of the building now move to the front. Should the Commission approve new windows to retain historic integrity, care should be taken when installing them so that existing framing is not further changed and that they are installed at the same depth of reveal as the existing windows. especially those windows on the front facade. Incorporating wood window screens could be a way to soften the visual impact and improve compatibility. When I visited the site at the end of July or of June, no, July, it appeared that there were several original window screens that exist on the structure that potentially could be reused or repaired in some way. This approach has been used in the past in other parts of our historic districts and it also can provide a more cost effective option than installing all new wood windows. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation does allow for replacement of historic materials if it is demonstrated that historic material is damaged or beyond repair. Will the proposed new windows include a six over six design similar to the design of the original windows? Vinyl windows are generally not recommended in historic districts and this is due to their incompatibility with traditional detailing and their long-term performance expectations. They provide few options for accurately reproducing accurate historic details. They typically have wider frames. And sash members, they have different profiles, welded corners, and a noticeably different surface texture. It's these characteristics that often alter the appearance of the window opening and diminish the historic character of the structure. Under this current request, two windows on the right side elevation are smaller. You'll notice that they're more rectangular in shape. and they're positioned higher on the wall. And this is different from what was approved. This corresponds to two new shower locations inside the house, which is prompting part of the design change. Staff has discussed alternative replacement materials with the applicant, which also includes aluminum clad wood windows The concern lies with whether the replacement can then accurately replicate the appearance of the historic windows. Aluminum clad wood windows often can be manufactured with dimensions and profiles that closely match traditional wood windows. And any replacement windows should feature true divided lights or a simulated divided light with dimensional exterior muntins and appropriately sized interior spacers to maintain appearance of true divided lights. Many vinyl windows do rely on those flat grids between the glass planes or minimal exterior muttons, neither of which are compatible with historic buildings. I would like to point out that, yes, we're talking about windows, but the applicant is really making an effort to retain as much of the approved design as possible, which includes the siding, roof, skirting, the front porch that was approved, in an effort to retain the structure versus demolishing and going with a new build. He will also be using the original front doors. So with that, staff finds a request consistent with the standards one and three of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff finds a request inconsistent with sections four, five, two, one, I1C and G of the San Marcos Development Code and standards five, six, seven, and nine of the Secretary of the Interior for Rehabilitation. And staff finds a request neutral against standards two and four of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. I'm also going to talk a little bit about the addition. A 325 square foot addition at the rear of the home is being proposed. Only the right side of the addition was reviewed as it's probably the only piece that's really visible from the side of the property. The left side, there's a lot of vegetation and it's not as visible. The applicant is proposing to continue the existing ridge height and shape. The new addition is not going to be any taller than the existing home. The materials for the addition will match those used for the rest of the house, which include the previously approved siding, skirting, and roofing material. And the location of these windows at the rear of the home really lessens that visual impact. Staff finds the request For the rear addition consistent with sections four, five, two, one, I, one, A, E, G and H of the San Marcos Development Code and standards one, two, five and nine of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and staff finds a request neutral against section four, five, two, one, I, one, C of the Development Code and standards three and 10 of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The applicant is present virtually should you have questions, but that concludes my presentation. Oh, and if you want to take separate motions on each part, you can, or you can take it all as one. It's up to the commission.

Okay. Do we need to vote on whether or not to take it separately or just can we discuss that?

Right now you can just have the public hearing and then you can discuss whether or not after the public hearing it's been closed.

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

Hello. My name is Barrett Barber. I live at 224 Iron Horse in New Brunfels. I'm trying to really rehabilitate this house. I know it's been in rough shape for a long time and trying to keep most of it as historic as possible, like Ms. Blake said, without tearing the whole thing down. And just trying to go with more energy efficient vinyl double pane windows instead of the single pane wood windows that was originally on the house. So I know it's a happy medium that we have to balance between the energy efficient and new in keeping it historic. So that's why I proposed the vinyl pane, the six over six still as my first request go vinyl all the way around. Plan B would be to use two of the older windows that are in the back and put those in the front of the house. And those are wood windows. Uhm, everything else is. Staying the same, which was already approved. Think last year and using keeping the same old door. That I know y'all liked before. Anne. Do you have any questions? Questions for the applicant.

You can ask the questions now or once the public hearing has been closed, then you can, if there are any questions, you can call him back to the podium and ask your question then. No, that is new, correct.

Okay, do we have any public speakers for this item? I will close the public hearing. Is there a motion to discuss?

Right, we'll have to have a motion whether it's approved or not. And if you want to take them separately, then we can definitely separate out

Okay, so what is the appearance and material of the front windows?

I think of all the windows because he's asking for replacement of all the windows with vinyl windows. His planning is to use vinyl. His compromise would be to take two from the side and put them up front. I would almost see this as one is the windows and then the second request is the rear addition.

Okay, because what I see with the windows is that it's both the material and also the size and appearance of the windows.

Correct, yeah, so windows in general.

Windows, okay. So help me, so do we have a motion to discuss these two, to approve these two items?

If you want, I don't necessarily think you have to have a motion for that. You can just, if that's the consensus of the commission to take them separately, we can do that. And then we'll need a motion for each to discuss. Okay.

Shall we take them? Do we need a motion to discuss them separately? No. Okay. Should we discuss them separately? I'd like to. Okay. Let's discuss them separately. Okay. Okay.

Great.

There's a lot.

I'd like to take them separately. Yeah, I make a motion that we approve the windows with the... old windows, the wooden windows being used on the front that we approve all the vinyl windows for everything else, but ask that the owner uses the wooden windows on the front versus the vinyl ones.

So that would be approved with the condition that the windows from the side of the house be reused on the front?

Yes, exactly.

Okay.

I would second that.

I wanted to ask, are the windows on the side salvageable? My husband and I just restored two 100-year-old homes, so I know a lot of times there's a lot of dry rot and water damage. And I mean, if you move these two windows to the front, are they going to hold up in the long term? Or is this just kind of a Band-Aid on something that you're going to have to come before us again?

I'm sorry, do I talk?

Yes, I think she's asking you a question.

Okay. They are wooden windows. They're in decent shape. But as y'all know, wooden windows take a lot more maintenance than the vinyl windows will. The vinyl windows would be longer lasting and I can get them the same size as the original plan if that helped.

Is there a way for you to, like Allison was mentioning, trimming out those windows at least with period appropriate trim and then some wooden screens that would shield that they're aluminum?

And this is a discussion amongst either the, if you're asking him that question? Yeah. Okay. Okay.

I think yes, I think we could probably put some wood trim around it and then hopefully use the wooden screens that are currently there.

OK, what I see, though, is every window is going to be a different size than it currently is now.

I mean, that's what it looked like previously approved to what's currently requested. Right.

So on the I mean, every window there from what was like when I see what's there on the left, it matches what is currently on the building. But then this new request, every window on that side of the building would be different than what was there now or what was previously approved. So he's asking to replace and change the shape and material of every window on the side of the building.

let me just say this too vinyl is you know as someone who's lived in old houses all of my life the vinyl does not age as well as the real wood even though the wood does take admittedly takes more maintenance you can put you can put materials behind the wood the windows that will actually make them much more like a glaze type of thing that makes it much more you know good for your utility bill. So vinyl doesn't really work with these old houses as well in the long run because these old houses, especially the wood houses, they breathe and they move around a lot. But that's just been my experience. But on the other hand, I do like your plan B. And you won't see, if you keep the building for a long period of time, you'll see that the vinyl does not work with all these old wood buildings. But I like the plan B and keeping the window screens. I would second a motion for that.

I think we have a lot of possibilities up in the air to consider.

I think his plan B was a good one.

You'll have to refresh me as to what plan B is.

Plan B is to move the real wood windows to the front and then put and also keep the wood screens and trim out with that as well and go vinyl with the rest of the house. Which, frankly, I think is a bad idea, but, you know, I understand your dilemma here that you're trying to rehabilitate a very old house. So, understand.

It would be taking two of these windows along the back end and moving two of them. There's one on this side. Let me see if I can get back to the front. They would then be placed here and here, and the rest of these windows would be vinyl. I think in total there's like 14 new windows that he's going to have to, and Mr. Barber, you can definitely, if that's the, correct me if I'm wrong.

Go ahead, Mr. Barber.

Yes, it is 13 windows total that would need to be on the house. And the reason I went with different size than what was currently approved, because the current size is standard sizes that we can get at any Home Depot or something like that. The old sizes are not.

So that's part of why they're distinctive and of the character of the house is they are not the size that you get at Home Depot. I mean, they're very distinctive to the property. So that's why I would exercise caution and essentially all the windows are gonna be swapped out for new windows in slightly different places of different sizes and of different materials and of different appearance. I know that's a strong way to put it, but they're all gonna be different than they are now.

Are the windows on the side the same size as the windows in the front? Would that require any change in the framing there?

They are smaller. You'll see on the front that those three in particular are These three are smaller than These I don't know what the condition of this particular window is but that when I was on site this one seems to be the most in line and I with the sizing And I don't again, I don't know what the condition of that particular window is and

Those upper windows, I'm sorry, are very rough. They basically have to be rebuilt from scratch.

Those three would require some sort of alteration of that front, I think. I don't know if there's a way to finagle it where you keep the window framing... the same as what exists now and try to kind of build in the other pieces. so that that window fits inside this particular window opening. I'm not a window expert, so I don't know.

I was not on the commission the last time when this was approved previously. I'm a little lost on what was approved previously based on, because we saw a picture at the beginning that showed how it looked in 2019 versus now. That seems like a large deterioration. I'm wondering what was approved previously and why it's...

So a little background on the process. The previous owner got it through the commission, got an approved certificate of appropriateness, got an architect, got a building permit put in. We got it reviewed by everybody. All the review comments were satisfied. All that needed to be done was a permit to be paid so we could issue the permit so the work could begin. Then that... building owner, from my understanding, could not pay, lost the house to foreclosure, and Mr. Barber was able to buy and purchase the house. And like I said, he's keeping everything except this window discussion the same as what was approved. So it's this, a new front porch will be built, this door will be reused, you'll have this, there was some discussion at the last meeting of, there was gonna be another door or a window in this location, keeping this screen door, even though there's not technically a door behind that to help keep some of that character, that's still going to be in place. It's just this discussion of how do we balance replacement material with a home that is an obvious need of replacement material restoration and, you know, a lot of people would have seen this and said, I'm going to come in and ask for demolition and a new build. So I think for what it's worth, it's something to be said that he's, you know, he's doing what he can to retain the structure and make it livable and make it something that somebody might want to come in and purchase or, you know, not change too much.

I would suggest, though, that all of the windows are changed. It really loses its historic appearance. And the specific thing that we're asked to weigh in on is, does it meet Does it meet historic guidelines both for the city and national for the treatment of historic property? And I think one of the things that really stands out is there's an addition that's going to go on the back and part of the decision is it's not very visible. So it's a smaller decision to make. I feel like the front facade of the house is a major feature of its historic appearance. What was previously approved was windows that would replace the size, style, and materials. What's going to be there is going to look totally different and be totally different materials. Could we treat the front of the house separately from the side of the house? or would you all prefer to just treat it as just all the windows?

I mean, I would second his motion that we put period appropriate windows that he's taking from the side back onto the front, and then I would approve the final windows on the sides.

Okay, but the windows on the side to be moved to the front are actually not the same size. They're a little slightly different size.

If the commission had already approved like changes to the front, excuse me, previously?

No, what they did, the previously approved was, it looks like it, so that's what on the top is what it is now and the picture on the left is what was previously approved. So replacing, repairing or replacing the current windows with ones that would look the same.

Yeah, I'm not speaking specifically to the windows. It seems like there's significant changes on the front as is. They're using appropriate materials and they are, but they are making changes Considerable changes, adding a porch is a pretty big thing, like adding the second door or fixing up the second door and leaving the screen door there.

I think that keeps the appearance of it.

The second door is part of the old tradition. A lot of old houses had two doors.

Correct. Would it have a porch or is the porch being leased? Yes.

It did, I mean, at some point it did have a porch. I don't, you know, the previous owner, at some point it lost a whole lot of pieces, you know, including a whole side that was open to the elements for a long time.

But it probably would have had a porch because that's how houses were built.

Correct, yeah. It probably would have. And again, the porch was already approved, so... If I'm remembering correctly, the windows on the front, the only change that as far as the front goes was that there was going to be a window in this location and that was denied by the commission. So these windows really were those existing windows. So it's showing that previously the original windows were to remain.

weren't they, I thought it was that they were going to be, they could be replaced by wooden windows on all the windows. Right. Yes. Correct. Windows. Yes. I mean, it just seems like a reasonable compromise here is to allow the aluminum, I mean vinyl windows everywhere except the front and either move the, the existing windows as in current request there on the site, you know, in the, on the front that we were looking at or ask the owner to add new wooden windows that match the historic ones, which would be my preference if it were, if I owned it, it would be my preference. And from a preservation point of view, it's my preference, but I think that that seems reasonable. I mean, the house is, and you know, the integrity of the house, particularly not on the front, it's very low, you know, historic integrity. So, I mean, it's like, just because, and my, and again, this is just my feeling of it just because the windows along the side are standard, you know, home Depot sizes. I just don't think it makes much of a difference at this point, but I think to, to kind of as a, as a, you know, I don't kind of a nod to the fact it's in a historic district and kind of a, you know, to, to have wooden windows on the front, I think seems like a reasonable request from the commission.

So we don't have a second on that. Somebody made a motion, but we don't have a second. So maybe we should review the motion.

We have a motion to approve with the conditions that the windows from the side of the house are moved to the front, two of them. And I guess the other condition might be to add the wooden screens, but that has not been made. But Commissioner James made the second on the moving the windows.

But they might be a different size.

They might be, but they'll still be original to the house. I think with all the changes that are happening and how dilapidated that house is, I kind of agree. I just don't want to see it torn down. If the window size is going to be a little bit different, I'm okay with that compromise.

So from a historic preservation standpoint, is it better to have windows that look the same as the previous ones but are made from newer materials or is it better to resize the windows on the front using the original materials? I guess that's the question that I would ask.

Well, I would say maybe that we don't have to... having vinyl windows is not like an if or or. There is no requirement to have vinyl windows. It is an option. And Pella windows are one option and homemade windows are another. I mean, there's lots of options. So it's not as if it's expensive Pella or cheap vinyl of a standard size. I mean, so I think the question could be, how do we want historically for the front of the property to be maintained if that's what we're concerned about? And... It sounds like that does matter, the appearance of the front of the house.

I think just to address your question, again, my opinion, I would say that probably the ideal preservation solution would be to install new wooden windows on the front that match the existing because I don't think existing are salvageable. They don't look like it from the pictures, the ones that are already on the front, because that would preserve the materials and also the appearance of the building, the historical appearance of the building. But then I guess maybe second would be to move the windows from the side, the wooden windows from the side, like you see in current request. And I think the least preservation option would be to put new vinyl windows on the front.

So I would agree. I think just try to keep the windows in the front as close to the original as possible and then let him do the vinyl everywhere else because I understand he's got showers going in there and also the cheaper ones are fine because nobody's really going to see the side that much. But the front is kind of important. So how would the owner feel about that? And also to use the screens.

With moving the original smaller windows to the front, I would, I'd be, that'd be good, yes.

Would you be open, I'm asking question to the applicant, would you be open to building new windows there in the front that match the integrity of the house and the historical je ne sais quoi that we're looking for here there in the front?

build new windows you're probably looking at least a thousand dollars a piece but if we approved vinyl windows on the side that's the money you would save and it would go towards those other windows um i mean it would still cost more isn't it you know significantly more

I would just add as a comment is that the long-term prospect for the new wooden windows would be much better. They would last a lot longer than moving existing windows that are probably already, you know, have already lived a while, existed a while. So in the long run, from a lifecycle cost perspective, it might end up actually being cheaper to put the new windows in the front.

Would the commission be open to an aluminum clad wood window versus a brand new rebuilt wood window?

If it matches the facade of the front of the house based on what it, I guess, would have looked like previously.

The six over six, the same dimension, same... How much would that cost? I don't have that information.

I want to be careful about speculating. We shouldn't speculate on prices, but Mr. Barber estimated that it would cost $1,000 to build a brand-new custom wooden window, and it's $903 to get a Pella window for that spot. So it looks like it's about the same cost to have... a new wooden, by your estimate, a new wooden windows that would totally meet our vision for the adherence with historic guidelines to have those two windows appear as they are now and you can install vinyl windows and alter everything else about it that you seem to want to on the rest of the house.

If that's the direction y'all want to do, then yes, then I'll do the wooden windows on the front and the vinyl everywhere else.

Thank you. So I would like to amend the motion to have to say that essentially keep the part about the vinyl window is the same right vinyl windows allowed on the entire house except for the two front windows but rather than moving the existing windows to the front to to require um new wooden windows on the front that match the size and the design of the existing windows and uh i will second that is there another condition about screens I don't see a need to put a condition on screens, but if somebody else feels strongly about it, I'm no, no, I don't.

I don't either.

Okay. Then we can, um, take a roll call on this. Uh, well, first we need a second on that. I second it. Okay. Diana. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then we will, we can take a roll call on commissioner D decks motion.

Yeah. Okay. Commissioner D deck. Yes. Commissioner Rivas? Yes. Commissioner Speed?

Yes.

Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner James?

Yes.

Commissioner Baker?

Yes.

Okay, that passes.

Moving on to the addition, you'll need to take a motion on that as well.

I make a motion to accept the proposed addition. Second. Second.

Do you guys have any discussion?

I have no problem with this. I think this is fine. Okay.

All right, roll call vote. Commissioner Dedeck? Yes. Commissioner Speed?

Yes.

Commissioner Rivas? Yes. Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner James?

Yes.

Commissioner Baker?

Yes. All right, that passes. Thank you for doing this.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, the next we have are some updates. Really the only update that I have is that on October the 1st at our next meeting, we will be adopting the 2027 meeting agenda calendar. We have to do that based on the, So just try to be present so that way we, if there's a conflict of dates, we can move those around. That would be very helpful. And then we don't have any certificates of appropriateness for that meeting, but I do, I'm starting the Back to Basics series. So we'll have staff from the Texas Historical Commission Certified Local Government Program here to just give us a brief presentation. Hopefully it won't be too long of a meeting, but... We'll have a short little meeting in October. And that's it for updates.

Now we have an opportunity for the press and public in the audience to ask questions related to only items on this agenda. Would anyone like to do so? Seeing and hearing none, we'll move on to the next item, which is adjournment. May I have a motion?

I move that we adjourn.

And a second?

Second.

May we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Rivas? Yes. Commissioner Speed?

Yes.

Commissioner Hayes? Yes. Commissioner James? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Dedeck? Yes.

All right. We are adjourned at 639. Thank you, guys. Thank you.