Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_01.26.2012City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 26,.2012,. at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627 101 E. 7h. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Susan Firth, lDavid Paul, Nelia Ibsen Schrum, and Raymond Wahrertbrock. Commissioners in Training present: none Members absent: none Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and HARC liaison; Julie McCartney, Chief Code Enforcement Officer; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Chair Rapp opened the meeting at 6:00 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 Cade. (Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.) Consent Agenda: The Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items, that the Commission may act on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission's approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted. 1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the December 8, 2011 Regular HARC meeting. Susan Firth stated that she would like the "Vice -chair" title removed from the attest line. Then she motioned for approval of the minutes as submitted with that change_ Second by Paul. Approved 5 — 0. (Schrum not present at this point.) Regular Agenda• 2. Public hearing .and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of art historic detached garage in Din -in -Litt Addition, Block 88 (r1w/pt), located at 905 College Street. (CDC-20.11-043) Wyler presented the staff report_ The applicant seeks. Certificate of Design Compliance Historical and Architectural Commission Mina tcs Jana a ry 26, 2012 7 approval from HAl2C for the demolition of the detached garage. The maize house, also in need of maintenance, has significant history attached to it having been the home of Sara Houstorl's daughter but the history of the subject garage is less known. The applicant states the purpose of the request is to demolish the garage in hopes to better sell the property to someone who is willing to make the investment and fix thehouse up_ It has been stated the cm-rexztowner does not have the financialmeans to renovate the house. Staff recommends approval of the demolition_ Bob Schnelle, the applicant was available for questions from the commissioners_ Blankenship questioned the comment that the applicant would like to re -plat the property also. TNyler explained that the neighbor's fence was placed, without a permit, on this owner's property. In order to re -plat, to remedy the situation without removing the fence, the .garage would have to be demolished. Rapp asked how long the applicant had owned the property. Mr_ Schnelle responded sirtce 1963. She asked why' it was so neglected and he responded that no one had lived there in several years because it was unusable. Blankenship asked how long the property had been for sale_ Schnelle responded that it had been for sale for 3 months, but the sign disappeared that week. Rapp opened the Public Hearing. at 6:10 p.m_ and as no one came forward to speak, closed the Public Hearing. Blankenship stated that the research she had done estimated the construction type was. of the early 1900's. She expressed concern over demolition of any part of the property until a new owner had the opportunity to make the decision. Nene Schrum entered the dais. Julie McCartney, Chief Code Enforcement Officer,, spoke to the several maintenance code issues .that had been addressed over the past several months. She stated this ws the last item to be addressed. She stated the city prosecutor and judge determined that the structure must be either brought up to code or demolished and Mr. Schnelle has indicated .that he does not have the means to bring it up to code compliance. Mr. SchrteIle explained that he has not been able to sell the "historical nature" of the house after tryirtg for several months. Blankenship suggested websites that market state and national historical site specifically. The Commissioners continued the discussion that this property should never have been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair. There was discussion that HAl2C action, whatever it would be would impact the new owner. It was also mentioned that it was possible that the Building Official could also decide that this was a dangerous structure and force the destruction of the building, but this could legally take several months. Several of the commissioners stated that if it was demolished that because it wasa historic structure of some nature that it should be well documented before demolished and that some of the materials should tried to be saved and -reused. Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for demolition, with the condition that the applicant work with staff to document the structure with photos, dimensions and as much detail as Historical and Architectural Commission Mittu las January 26, 2012 2 possible, and that the batten boards try to be saved for the new owner. Second by Rapp. Vote 3 — 3 (approved — Rapp, Firth and. Schrum, opposed — Slartkeanship, Paul and wahrertbrock) Tie vote, failed. The Commissioners discussed other options Mr. Scl-melle might have. Firth gave the same motion again: Motion by Firth to approve the CUC for demolition, with thecondition that the applicant. work with staff to document the structure with photos, dimensions and as much detail as possible, and that the batten boards try to be _ saved for the new owner. Second by Rapp. Approved 6 — 0. 3. Review and Discussion with possible direction to staff on proposed amendments to the. Design Guidelines. Items 4 and 5 were discussed first_ Commissioners were given the brochures for CAMP and asked to contact staff with confirmation of their attendance on March 26 and 27_ Firth asked that the City Attorney .attend a general meeting of the Commission to address sign content and the ability of the. Commission to regulate that. Elizabeth Cook presented a handout to discuss to more items for the Design Guidelines update. The discussion centered around outdoor furniture and allowing string lights in the trees and beyond. 4_ Discussion with staff on Georgetown's Commissioners Assistance and Mentor -Mg Program (CAMP) training session scheduled for late March. 5_ Updates from staff and reminder about the February 8, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the February 24, 2012 HARC/I-;ARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers. 6. Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Apprved,, Deo app, Chair Historical and Architectural Commission Minute§ January 26, 2012 3