HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.27.2011City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Monday, June 27, 2011, at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627
101 E. 7", Street, Georgetown, TK 78626
Members. present_ Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Susan Firth; Gregg Herriott; David
Paul; Nelia Ibsen. Schrum; and Raymond Wehrenbrock
Commissioners in Tr -air -Ling present: Andy Welch
Members absent: N/A
Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planter and HARC liaison; Elizabeth Cook,
Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planter; Avery Craft, Planning
Specialist and Recording Secretary
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp called the meetingto order at 6:03 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.
Consent Agenda:
1. Reviewand possible approval of the minutesfromthe May 26, 2011 Regular HARC
meeting.
Correction. Firth's name to be added to item # 1 and item #3, as she was accidentally left out
of the motion.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes from the May 26, 201.1 meeting. Second by
Herriott. Approved 7 — O. (Rapp, Blankenship, Firth, Herriott, Paul, Schrum,
Wehrenbrock approved.)
Regular Agenda:
2_ Conceptual review anddiscussion with the architect of a proposed project at 614 S. Main
Street_ (Item forwarded from A -lay 26, 2011 HARC zrzeeting_)
Sarah Blankenship and $usan Firth recused themselves from the meeting, each filing an
Affidavit of Conflict of Interest on this case.
Architect Jaynes. Bryant Boyd stated that he was approached by the City of Georgetown to
.review a concept plan for a winery. Boyd discussed the proposed demolition and infill
project of the existing 1,020 square foot structure with Board members.
Boyd stated that the building was built in the year 1968 and has been used as several
different functions for the city. Boyd is proposing to demolish the brick structure and
reinstate the fire wall between 101 W. 70^ Street and 103 W_ 7"^ Street in order to build a
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
June 27. 2011
winery containing a courtyard. A courtyard will serve as support space where people can
enjoy their wine outside with occasional music venues.
Rapp asked what is going to happen to the back wall of the 'Visitor's Center office. Boyd
stated that the wall will be transformed back to its original state with the stone, windows
and stairwell. There will be four -foot by four -foot concrete moveable planters, with iron
fencing between the planters_
Rapp stated that she hassome concerns after observing- the lot. Directly behind the building,
there are two air conditioners, a generator and an electric substation. In addition, there are
numerous trash cans- and barricades that support the building_ Rapp said that there needs to
be some sort of commitment ensuring that these things are moved. Boyd acknowledged that
these concerns are being discussed. There may be some clearance issues because the alley
way is allocated as a fire lane.
Rapp questioned if the building is considered a historic building. The structure is not listed
as an historic structure according to the 1984 1-3istoric Resources Survey_ Although the
structure appears to be in good condition, it is not historic and has no historical significance,
resulting in it being appropriate to take down.
Rapp asked Boyd what he would like to see from thecommission by the end of the meeting_
Boyd stated that he ishoping to .see whether or not the Board feels the proposed is an
agreeable idea conceptually.
Wehrenbrock stated that the board will not be taking any action in the removal of the
building until someone is lined up to take the property. Wehrenbrock asked Commissioners
if they areinterestedin recommending that there is to be a. screen wall that will block the.
protruding elements_ Wehrenbrock does not have any concerns with the proposed concept
and is in favor of the concept.
Schrum asked if there is already a winery that is interested in the property and if there is,
would this be anincentive for them to visit with HARC? Boyd stated that there is a winery
interested only if there is a courtyard included. Schrum inquired about whether or not
having an additional winery to the one down the street will create conflict_ Boyd stated that
there is full support from the other winery_ Schrum is in favor of the concept.
Herriott asked staff if the demolition of the building is inviolation of the Downtown
Development Plan_ Wyler stated that because the structure is not considered historic, it is
not an issue. Herriot is in favor of the concept.
Wehrenbrock questioned whether V.I. not the proposed four foot fence is tall enough. Boyd
stated that the height requirement is four feet: Wehrenbrock stated that. if the loading gate
remains in the alley, it should be locked because it isa potential safety concern.
Wehrenbrock asks if the common wall that will beexposedto the city building is currently
brick. Boyd confirmed it is brick. Wehrenbrock stated that there is a protrusion at the back
of the 2^ti floor and asked if it will go -away. Boyd stated :that the protrusion will go away_
Rapp stated that the consensus she is hearing is that the protruding equipment is the biggest
obstacle. Boyd stated that because it is a city building, it may be a good idea to visit with city
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2.of 4
June 27, 2011
staff to determine whether or not it is in their budget to make some adjustments_ Rapp
asked if there has been any discussion on covering or umbrellas that will help the guests
deal with the high temperatures_ Boyd stated that they did lookatseveral different options
in the design process and after much review it was decided not to add covering_ This does
not mean that this will not be looked at again in the future. Rapp stated that based on the
discussion, she is in favor of the concept.
Wehrenbrock suggested that a more decorative fence take the place of the somewhat plain
and modern fence.
Schrum asked if there is a cost analysis ort .the project_ Boyd stated that it will cost -about
$20,000 to demolish the building.
Blankenship and Firth were reseated on the dais_
3. Pu-blic hearing and possible actionto amend a Certificate of Design Compliance to change
the approved color of paint on a fence at City of Georgetown, Block 28, Lots 1 — 8, also
known as the Monument Cafe/Market site, located at 500 S. Austin Avenue_ (CDC-2011-
006). This item was moved to the July 28, 2011 regularly scheduled I-1A22C meeting_
4. Discussion and possible action to propose amendments to the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission Bylaws and Chapter 2.50 of the Code of (Drdinances_ This item was
moved to the July 28, 2021 regularly scheduled HA72C riteetirrg_
5. Discuss the City's Certified Local Government Grant awarded for a historic preservation
training. program and consider appointing a HARC member to work with staff on
conference logistics.
Cook stated that The City of Georgetown applied for and received grant funds for the
historic preservation training program_ It is anticipated that the orne or two day training will
take place in the spring of 2012. Staff would like one HARC member to participate. This will
fulfill the one mandatory training session that HARC is required to hold one time a. year.
Blankenship volunteered_
Motion by Rapp to elect Blankenship. Second by Paul_ Approved 7 — O. (Rapp,
Blankenship, Firth, Yierriott, Paul, Schrum, 'W'ehrerabrock approved.)
6. Discussion and possible action on possible 2012 Certified Local Government Grant
application requests_
Cook stated that the State is asking that the City let them know if there is any interest in.
applying for certain Certified Local Government grants. CLG grants are typically matched
monetarily_ However, they can be matched with things like in —kind work or donations.
There does not necessarily need to be a cash match but the State does look for participation.
Ideas such as: 1) puttingtogether a nomination for a new national historic district or
expanding one of the ones we have or 2) creating training or educational brochures, are
examples of ways to participate_ Cook asked HARC to email staff with ideas or suggestions
by the middle of July_
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
June 27. 2011
Blankenship asked if HARC will come back and make a decision on how we will participate
after they have compiled their ideas and suggestions. Cook stated that if time allovvs, staff
will visit with HARC to decide. Otherwise, staff may pick_ two or three ideas or suggestions
to send in. Cook assured HARC that staff will come back to them prior to making a grant
application_
Applicationswill be due in fall or early winter.
7_ Discussion and possible action to schedule a Special Meeting in July for a workshop on
proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlay
Districts.
Rapp suggested that all HARC members check. their calendars and get back to staff on dates
and times that they will be available. Paul suggested that HARC be allowed a few days to
review the Guidelines before bolding the meeting, as it is already a large document and
there will be two or three new chapters added. The new chapters will be about paint colors,,
development in Old Town, .energy efficiency, signage and residential review. Cook stated
that staff will have the revised Design Guidelines available at. least one week before the.
special meeting for the members to review. Cook asked that the -Board members email their
availability to staff by weeks. end.
8. Discussion and reminder that there will be no Sign Subcommittee meeting taking place on
July 13, 2011 and that the next regular HARC meeting and Sign Subcommittee meeting will
take place on July 28, 2011 _
9. Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m.
Appr ed, Dee Rapp, Chair Attest -Greg' Herriott, Secretary
Historic and Architectural Review. Commission Paget 4 of 4
June 27, 2011