The Historic and Design Review Commission on Nov. 5 approved replacement of four side windows and the porch columns at 838 East Magnolia but denied a request to replace a large front picture window.

The action came after a lengthy exchange about whether the applicant had authority to replace original wood windows without formal written approval, and about the commission’s preservation preference that original sashes be repaired or salvaged when feasible.

OHP staff recommended denial of the proposed fenestration modifications in the written findings and advised the commission that four original 1‑over‑1 wood windows were no longer in the structure and that "a salvage 1‑over‑1 wood window should be installed" if originals were unavailable. The staff report also recommended approval of the porch column replacement with two stipulations: that the proposed columns be 6‑inch square with capital and base trim and that any new wood header match the original profile and not obscure rafter tails.

Applicant Ivan Solis said he had already replaced some windows he considered too deteriorated to repair and that he had received a verbal clearance to proceed. Solis told the commission he had ‘‘a verbal okay to run with it’’ and said he was seeking approval for the windows he already installed and to replace additional windows with wood‑clad Pella windows that he had specified.

Several commissioners and staff disputed the idea that an oral authorization established compliance. An OHP staff member told the commission that if a window is beyond repair "either a salvage wood window be installed" or a fully wood window meeting staff standards should be used, and laid out a process in which photos and, where ambiguous, a follow‑up site visit would be used to determine repairability.

Commissioners debated the condition of the original windows, the effect of reframing openings during permitting and the risk of creating a post hoc precedent for unpermitted replacements. Commissioner Sabino said that, based on a site visit, the windows appeared "in very good condition," and warned that allowing after‑the‑fact replacements could send the wrong message to other property owners.

A motion that the commission adopt the staff‑recommended column replacement, approve replacement of the four side windows with a wood window product that meets staff profile/inset requirements, require appropriate wood screens and deny the front oversized picture window passed on a roll call (Mammon, Velasquez, Galloway, Mazuka, Guevara, Cervantes and Holland voting yes; Savino, Vasquez, Fetzer and Gibbs voting no). The commission recorded the vote as seven yeas and four nays.

Next steps: the applicant will work with OHP staff to ensure the approved windows meet the specified profile and inset requirements and to document the approved porch columns. If the commission’s approved product cannot be used, staff recommended salvaged 1‑over‑1 wood windows as a fallback. The applicant was advised how to proceed through permitting and that certificates of appropriateness will be prepared and emailed per standard procedures.