Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_04.28.2011City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 28, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627 101 E. 7*. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Will Moore, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; David Paul; and 1'4elia Ibsen Schrum. Commissioners in Training present: Raymond Wehrenbrock and Andy Welch. Members absent: Susan Firth; Dee Rapp and Gregg Herriott; Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Avery Craft, Planning Specialist; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m_ Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. C'.orasent Agenda. 1_ Review and possible approval of the minutes from the. March 24, 2011 Regular HARC meeting. Blankenship responded that there is a typographical error in the second paragraph on page 3 of 5. The second sentence should read: "She likes the woven fence but suggests it should blend in with the property style better than it does." Motion by Petal -to approve the minutes with the correction_ Second by Blankenship_ Approved 4 — O_ (Moore, Blankenship, Paul and Schrum approved.) Regular Agenda: 2. Public hearing and possible action on an amendment to a Certificate of Design Compliance for a change in the proposed outdoor seating area fencing at City of Georgetown, Block 28, Lots 1 — 8, also known as the Monument Cafe site, located at 500 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2011-006) This item was pulled at the applicant's request. Thefenczng will remain the same asoriginally proposed and approved by HARC on March 24, 2011. 3_ Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a changein facade material, windows, pillars and color on an historic residential structure at Lost Addition, Block 66 (pt), located at 305 W. LJnieersity. (CDC-2011-007) Wyler presented the staff report. Earlier this year, the applicants met with staff to discuss updates to this house that lies within the Downtown Overlay District. After meeting with staff on a few occasions, permits were issued and work commenced. Code Enforcement later stopped work on the project because work was being done without proper approvals and beyond the original scope. The applicant was changing building materials from what was Historio and Arohlteotural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 April 28. 2011 originally on the house, including the windows, siding and trim. Some windowsand part of the original siding were already replaced. The house is listed as a Low -Priority Historic .Structure in. the 1984 Historic Resources Survey and a Medium -Priority Historic Structure in the 2007 Survey. The applicant has already begun the process of removing the original wood siding from the facade and replacing it with Hardi- plank siding. The renovation is a Code Enforcement matter dueto the replacement of a material without proper approval, so the applicant approached HARC to ask that the new Hardi-plank siding, partially installed, be approved and feels it isappropriate in appearance and complements the surrounding buildings and neighborhood. In addition to etta.nging the siding material, the applicant would like to change the siding color from turquoise to a pale blue, specifically Kelly Moore's "Seaside Accents". The brick chimney will be painted Kelly Moore's "Dig it" (a taupe) and the trim will remain white. The wood siding on the porch gable will be replaced with fish scale siding, a change in style from the current wood siding, and painted the same color as the Hardi-plank siding. The applicant requests approval to replace the original windows with energy efficient aluminum clad windows as he has already done with some and feels they are appropriate in appearance. The current front windows, and proposed windows for the remainder of the house, are a six over sixstyle and the original windows appear to be 1 over 1. The applicants- wish to replace the brick onthe pillars around the porch with limestone. They state the brick is not original to the house and was installed sometime in the-197O's_ Although the applicants have replaced a majority of the original siding and have the intention of beautifying their home, staff recommends they remove the Hardi-plank siding that has been installed and replace what cannot be salvaged or maintained with in -kind wood siding. Additionally, unless the applicants can provide an historic photo showing the fish scale siding above the porch, staff considers it inappropriate given that the addition of new features to an historic structure is discouraged. The porch gable should remain wood siding to match the remainder of the house, unless the Commission finds the fish scale siding .appropriate in design - and to the time period of the house. The replacement of the brick with limestonemay be considered appropriate by the Commission given that the brick. pillars may not be original to the house. If the limestone is found to be appropriate in design and period appropriate, the Commissioners might consider having the applicant reface the brick on the chimney as well so that it matches the porch in material. Some windows have already been replaced, so HARC should speak to the applicant about the original windows' condition when .deciding whether or not the new aluminum clad windows are appropriate or if a simpler style should have been used. Finally, staff recommends approval of the proposed light blue color for the siding and white trim but finds it more appropriate to keep the brick on the chimney unpainted to match the brick c n the porch or be changed to limestone should HARC approve the change in porch material. Moore opened the discussion by Commissioners. 131artIcenship responds that she believes the house was built in 1925 according to fire insurance records that were found_ The owners were present, Jeremiah Lugo and Alarta Gibbs, and stated they believed the house was constructed Historic and Archit®ctural Raviaw Commission Rags 2 of 4 April 28. 2011 in 1948 based on the documents they have. Moore opened the floor for discussion and stated they should discuss individual items_ Blankenship openedwith discussion on the Hardi-plank siding, She stated that if the original siding was in poor condition and needed to be replaced, it was okay to use the Hardi-plank in the same style that was originally on the house. But it should not be used to replace good siding ina manner that matches other houses_ Moore feels the Hardi-plank siding is okay for this purpose. Paul agrees with Moore but thinks it is more appropriate for repairing and restoring poor siding, not replacing existing good siding. Schrum felt the Hardi-plank replacement looks good and is in character with the neighborhood. She asked the owners why they were replacing the existing siding and the response was that they hoped it would be more energy efficient and bring their utility bills down. Moore moved the discussion to the window replacements. He explained that this is an historic house, in an historic district in an historic city and the windows that are being installed are inappropriate. He feels the owners should exchange the previously purchased windows with windows that are similar (wooden) to the existing windows and are 1-over-1 windows_ He explained the trim should be similar also and explained that historically, the trim was installed to the window and the siding was then cut individually to fit the trim, not vice -versa- The current trim needs to be installed in that manner to match the old style_ Blankenship explained to the owners thatold windows can be fixed, and that lead paint can be removed, the glazing repaired and interior storm windows can be installed if energy efficiency is a concern. haul agreed that it was much better to restore the windows than to replace them. Moore moved the discussion to the proposed colors. Paul does not like the painted brick, Moore does_ There was further discussion and ideas proposed for the front pillars. Cook explained that each case is considered on its own merit and because other houses on the block are done one way, does not mean this house gets the same treatment. Commissioners change over the yearsand differentideas are presented. Each house is an individual project. Paul brought up the fish scale type siding andexpressed his disapproval. The owners agreed they did not like the fish scale siding either, but were trying to match other homes in Georgetown_ Moore spoke to the renovations in Georgetown. He explained there are a lot of mix and match styles in town and HAl2C does not always have the opportunity to say whether the renovation projects are appropriate or not because the houses may not be in the Downtown Overlay Area, but this one is. He explained that there are many products available to modernize a homebut that they are not necessarily appropriate for the historic. structures_ There are some good products out there however that will make the homes more efficient but still maintain the character of the structure. Moore recommends approval of the colors chosen but feels the other items should be taken back to staff and a compromise developed and brought back to the commission. 'The contractor and the owners spoke and explained that they were "maze& out" on their budget and that they could not afford any other windows, could not take any of the purchased materials back and that they were stuck with what they had. Moore empathized but explained the commission could not ignore the Guidelines and allow the owners to complete inappropriate work. He would not speak for what had happened in the past, only for the Guidelines and the purpose of protecting homes and the character of the downtown area. Historic and Architectural Review: Comm ission Page 3 of April 28. 2011 Cook gave action options for the Commissioners to consider. Moore opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. No on.e was registered to speak. Moore closed the Public Hearing at 8:16 p.m.. Motion by Moore to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance as requested with the following conditions: 1..) The colors is acceptable as submitted; 2.) The fish scale siding is denied; 3-) The Hardiplank siding would be allowed on all sides but should be applied as suggested around the windows; 4.) The request for approval of the windows and brick and limestone pillars will be taken back to staff for compromise to be resubmitted, he self- appointed himself as an advocate for the homeowners for that meeting, and the Commissioners will follow-upwith a continuation of this item in no more than two weeks so as to not hold up the owners any further. Second by Schrum. Approved 3 — 1- (Moore, Paul and Schrum for, Blankenship against.) Motion by Moore to hold the continuation meeting for the items of windows, brick and limestone that are to be discussed further, on Wednesday May 4., at 4:00 p.m. in the Georgetown Municipal Complex- Second by Schrum. Approved 4 — O. (Moore, Faul, Schrum and Blankenship for.) The meeting with the owners, staff and Moore will be held Wednesday, May 3rn at 4:00 p.m. 4. Discussion and reminder that the next Sign Subcommittee meeting will take place on May al, 2011 and that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on May 26, 2011. Wyler reminded everyone that the Sign Subcommittee will also meet on Thursday, May 5«with representativesfrom the Downtown Georgetown Association, the Main Street Advisory Board, and the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce to: discuss window signage in the Downtown Overlay District_ 5. Adjournment Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m- App i[ r�� ee 149 r Qd, D , Chair Attst, Grerriott Secretary Historic and Architeotursi Review Commission Page. 4 of 4 April 20. 2011