Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_04.26.2012City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 26, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Jennifer Brawn, David Paul; Tim Urban, and Raymond Wahrenbrock. Commissioners in Training present: Anna Eby Members absent: Susan Firth Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner;. April Quade, Planning Specialist; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Chair Rapp opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. She explained that item #9 had been pulled from the agenda by the applicant and that item number 2 of the consentagenda was not discussed by the Sign Subcommittee, as reported by Blankenship, and that action would need to be taken by the entire commission with item number 7, the companion item. Rapp asked Blankenship for any action from the Sign Subcommittee. She responded that action was taken on the 501 S. Austin Ave Building #2 item, approved with staff recommended conditions, and #2 was forwarded to this commission. Consent Alaertda: 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 March 22, 2012 Regular HARC meeting. Rapp asked that under the Hat Creek item that it be mentioned that the applicant stated they would save the Heritage Tree_ Paul stated that he was voted in as Secretary, not Blankenship as stated. Blankenship stated these were the best minutes so far. Wahrertbrock asked that on page 3, middle of the page, last sentence the wording be changed to incoming traffic, instead of oncoming traffic. Motion by Blankenship to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Paul. Approved 6 - O. 2. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 3, and 1. (pt), to be known as. The Exchange, located at 109 W. 7'^ Street, Suite 115. (CDC-20'12-015) 1-listorical and Architectural Commission Miry. tea April 26, 2012 1 3. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business sigrtage at City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1 —8, also known as the Georgetown Barbershop and MiBoHe Wellness, located at 501 S. Austin Avenue, Building #2_ (CDC- 2012-018) Items 2 and 7 were discussed after the minutes. These minutes will be reflected under #7. Regular Agenda: 4. Discussion and possible action on a request to waive -a365-day waiting period for the demolition of a structure without CDC approval per Unified Development Code Section _3_13.010.D.4. for 1415 College Street. Wyler opened the discussion, explaining that the Sullivans, the owners have been working ort the residence and that they are concerned about the demolished back porch that leaves a back portion of the house open to the elements. They are asking to move forward with the completion of the addition_ Rapp asked the Sullivans, who were present, why they applied for the permits to rebuild the porch and then demolished the porch_ They explained that their contractor said he had applied for the permits and that they did not understand that the porch was actually a -part of the historic structure. Wahrenbrock explained the importance of 'visibilityofthe porch which faces the street, including the side street, and protecting that historical view point_ Mr. Sullivan explained that the condition of the porch, with termites and dry rot, is the driving force for asking for a waiver of the 365 day demolition permit_ Mrs. Sullivan showed diagrams of the existing footprint and house, along with proposed work too extend thehouse and complete it_ Wahrenbrock asked about the windows that were full pane glass_ Mrs_ Sullivan explained that she had personally worked on the windows, reglazing them and making the wood grids on the single pane windows_ Rapp opened and closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. with no speakers coming, forth. Motion by Blankenship to approve the waiver of the 365 day waiting period for the demolition permit of the porch_ Second by Paul_ Approved 6 - O. 5. Discussion and possible action on a postponed Certificate of Design Compliance request for the construction of a new single-family residence at Glasscock Addition,Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) 8r 6 (sw/pt), located at 415 W. 10." Street. (CDC-2012-007) Wyler presented a short staff report. This is continuation of a portion ofatCDC request taken to the March 22, 2012 HARC meeting_ CDC-2012-007 was for the demolition of an historic house and for the construction of a new residential -single family structure. HARC approved the demolition portion of the CDC request but had concerns. about the new structure and made a request that the applicant return with an updated design concept that was more fitting to the neighborhood and respected the original structure. The applicant has 3 proposalsfor the house. David Voelter, architect, and Susie Ramos, owner were present for the discussion. Mr. Historical and Architectural Commiasion Minutes April 26, 2012 2 Voelter started by saying that they started with wanting touse the existing trim on the house. The front elevation is the same as the previous plait. They changed the south elevation using board and batten to continue the same wood style as the previous structure. The extended the porch to the west and the interior changed to accommodate the exterior changes. Commissioners asked clarifying questions. Blankenship stated she was pleased they were removing the rock facade that did not seem to fit the neighborhood and asked that they consider using the board and batten all the way around the house instead of breaking up the lines with the horizontal siding_ She suggested they follow Guideline 12.21 where new interpretations of the old are encouraged. She encouraged them to draw on the history of the old building and continue that with new materials_ Paul explained the difference in cost of vertical board and batten versus horizontal siding. There was further discussion of the porches. Mrs. Ramos. stated she likes the porches the way they are designed now. Rapp opened and closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. with no speakers coming forth_ The Commissioners discussed other items of design. They asked for more windows which would be more reflective of the previous structure, and an extension of the board and batten section to make it look like a bigger portion of the building. Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC with the following considerations to be reviewed with staff: 1. More vertical board and batten,. either the whole house or a specific area with reference to the previous home_ 2. More windows, more window hoods (decorative)_ 3. More windows that are representative of the board and batten portion of the rendering. on the front. 4. Front south elevation expand all the way to the porch. S. Add another window to the front elevation that is in keeping with the board and batten style section_ 6. Remove the extension (extra six inches on south elevation), especially if covered in the vertical board and batten. Second by Blaralcenship_ Approved G - O. 6. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for the demolition of two historic structures in Southside Addition, Block 4 (seipt), Located at 307 -E. 18"• Street. (CDC-2012-011) Wyler explained that the applicant was asked toprovide at history of the structures by the demolition subcommittee,after the site visit earlier in the week_ The applicant has provided that information. The applicant, Bill Stump was introduced. Fle explained that he is the owner of several properties in town. Paul stated .that the garage had been converted to a home and. an extra "garage" was added. They were both in bad shape and built ort the ground_ He stated it would improve the neighborhood to demolish this building. Fle also said that the house next door was very well preserved_ Rapp agreed after seeing the shape the garages were in, that they should be demolished. She applauded Mr. Stump for his great efforts to reuse the materials in these old structures and that he has done excellent work on restoring the homes. Wahrenbrock appreciated the "reconstruction". Motion by Wahrernbrock to approve the Cl?C for demolition of the two structures as Historical and Architectural Commission Minutes April 26,.2012 3 proposed. Second by Paul. Approved 6 - O_ 7. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for minor exterior changes at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lots 2 Zr 3, and 1 (pt), to be known as The Exchange, located at '109 W_ 7t^ Street, Suite 115- (CDC-2012-014) Wyler presented both staff reports and explained that there would need to be two public hearings. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from 13ARC for three new signs_ The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance approval from HARC to repaint the entrance doors and kick plates for suite 115 from the current red to a new color. Two options are proposed._ The first, and preferred, option is to paint the subject features a dark Bermuda Blue. T"he blue will match the blue on the proposed signage for the storefront the HARC Sign Subcommittee will consider on the same day as this request_ The second option is to paint the features the same light green that is currently found on the building around- the red areas. The applicant has stated that, if needed, the upper story - windows can be painted as well should HARC feel it is necessary.. The applicant, Carly Donnell, was available for comment and she described what she wanted to do to the building. Rapp asked questions for clarification. Donnell asked to paint the existing red .trim to green with blue on the lower facade_ She does not want the red because it is not part of her business identity. Blankenship stated she would like- to keep the -top and bottom of the building connected. She suggested adding the red accent colors to the sign to tie it in. She also suggested stretching the. sign into an oval to increase the size of the lettering, making it easier to read. Rapp opened the public hearing at 6:20 and closed it with no one coming forward to speak_ There was more discussion of the existing colors, the entire upper facade of the building trim was painted red_ Blankenship explained that although the other tenants had different color (green) on the lower story, this approval of a different color would continue the breaking up of the facade. She recommends changing the bottom facade to green or leaving it red. They could paint the door blue if they need to. Motion by Blankenship to approve the sigrtage as proposed with the suggestion to add - red as suggested. Second by Wahrenbroe1c. Blankenship amended the motion to allow the sign to be an oval shape with a 12 foot maximum square footage as allowed. Second of the amendment by Wahrenbrocic. Approved 6 - O_ Motion by Blankenship to deny approval of the new paint coIors. Second by Wahrertbrock. Vote was 3 - 3,so no action_ (Brown, Rapp and Paul denied) Building. colors were discussed further_ Donnell agreed to paint the door and window boxes the monochromatic green that the neighboring tenant uses_ Motion by Brown to approve the store front paint color of monochromatic green. Second by Paul. Vote was 3 - 3, so no action. (Blankenship„. Wahrenbrocic and Urban denied_) Raymond pointed out that the red accents bring attention to thebuilding and possibly the sign(s). Motion by Blankenship to approve the dark blue front door color and to leave all the Historical and Architectural Commission Minutes April 26, 2012 4 other paint colors the same as existing. Second by Paul. Approved 4 - 2. (Urban and Wahrenbrocic opposed). 8. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior changes at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1 (e/pt), located at 806 hock Street. (CDC- 201.2-016) Wyler presented the staff report_ The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval from HARC to make exterior changes to art unlisted historic structure located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay_ Neither the 1984 or pending 2007 Historic Resources Surveys reference this property, but according to the Sanborn maps,. the structure was erected sometime between 1925 and 1940 and at some point received a new stone veneer facade. Original doors and windows have also been replaced over -time. The following changes are proposed to the exterior of the building: 1. All existing stone veneer on the north and east facade will be removed. 2. All existing metal siding on the south and west facade will be removed_ 3_ New Hardi-plank siding and trim will be installed on the north, east, and south facades and a new metal siding will be installed on the west facade. 4. Removal of single doors on both the north and east facades and enclosure of the openings_ 5. Replacement of existing doors on both thenorth and east facade with new painted metal and glass 3' by 6'8" doors_ 6_ Create an opening on the east facade where a door and window are currently located and install a new 10' wide by 8' tall metal and glass roll -up door. 7. Provide new sheet metal coping at the top of the parapet. 8. Provide new sheet metal .scupper boxes and down spouts at the north side of the building. 9. Remove the existing electrical. service from the north facade and install new electrical service on the south facade. 10_ All existing windows on the east facade are to remain and the windows on the north facade will be replaced with aluminum "storefront" type windows with insulated glass_ 11. New roof top AC units will be installed, butwill not be visible from the street due to the parapet wall_ Wyler introduced Matt Williams of Trinity Architects and Eric Wooer, owner of the building. Commissioners began asking questions. Rapp asked about the color of the windows_ Williams explained the metal would be a bronze color, along with the scupper boxes. She also asked if the building would be anytallerthan it currently is_ Williams responded that it will remain 4.5- on north side and that it will hide the mechanical. equipment_ Blankenship asked if they had considered other material options, that the proposed hardiplank was not consistent with the Downtown area. Williams stated they looked at other options but they are not in the price range. Historical and Architectural Commission Mix -lutes April 25. 20'12 5 There was discussion of when the rock veneer wasapplied and Wyler responded that it was not recorded, but estimated that it was. between 1925 and 1940. Visser explained that this was not a good building and that it was a tough choice whether to tear it down or try to remodel it. There are economic limitations on that side of the Square, he explained, that made it cost prohibitive to put too much money into the building that cannot be recovered. Wahrenbrock questioned the intention of the garage style/ sectional doors. Visser explained that the proposed new tenant,. RlanTex, would use the doors and keep them open during runs and events that they would hold, expanding their space_ Blankenship discussed the doors and windows, stating that typically the door and windows. were the same height, but these were designed differently_ Williams explained that they wanted to use the existing openings, which are different heights. Wahrenbrock stated he would like to see the same siding material used .all the way around the building_ Williams explained the fire rating. issue that exists.. with the proximity of the adjacent building_ Blankenship explained that she likes the rusted metal look, finds it interesting, maybe having a mural painted on it. Visser says that is not economically feasible. Paul stated that with the new proposed parking garage and walkways planned, the pedestrian friendly elements are important_ Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:56 and closed it with rto public .coming. forth. Blankenship stated she feels the proposed siding goes against the Guidelines. Wyler explained that since this was not an historically significant structure, the owner only has to consider proposed options, and the owner prefers stucco or wood. Paul spoke out against hardiplanks also. Wahrenbrock suggested reducing the size of the planks from 8" to 4". Williams stated that could be an option. Rapp allowed a late speaker to come forth.. Aaron Cabrera, owner of a building at 308 W. 80,, stated that he was in total agreement with any changes to this structure and sees that a positive change for the street, he recommends approval.. The Corrrrr+issiorlers then discussed further options_ half stone on the bottom and half hardiplank above, stucco on the east and north elevations, metal applications. They questioned using rock trim. Visser stated that was not affordable and that stucco was twice as expensive as hardiplank. Motion by Rapp to approve the CDC as requested with the following conditions and suggestions: Conditions are that the doors be 8 feet tall to match the height of the windows, that the hardiplarac product be 4" not 8" as proposed and that more traditional trim be used around the windows_ The suggestions are that siding be used on all 4 sides, but the commission is okay with the existing metal on the west side, stucco is to be considered on the east and north sides and that a mural be considered with the reuse of the metal. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved 5 - Y (Blankenship opposed_) Rappasked that Visser consider reusing asmany materials of the structure as possible. Wahrenbrock asked for the ceiling tiles to be given to. the Heritage Society. Visser explained that a lot of the materials were not worth saving. He thanked the commission for moving Historical and Architectural Carxrrrtisslor. Mima tes April 26, 2012 6 this project forward. 9. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for site and building design approval as part of the Hat Creek Burger Company infill project at City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat)., located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2012-017) '"This item was pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant to an unlcrzown later date: 10. Update an proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Towzt Overlays. Wyler explained the Public Workshops would be held on May 9 at 5:30 p.m., and May 10 at 5:30, then a Public Hearing at the next regular HARC meeting on May 24, the recommendation to City Council by 1-1Ai2C on June 28, then City Council workshop and first reading on July 10, and adoption on July 24. 11. Updates from staff and reminder about the May 9, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the May 24, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign -Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers. Rapp expressed appreciation for Liz Cook, who retired on April 30 stating that she had provided a significant influence on the HARC and Georgetown. HARC presented flowers for her that would be delivered by staff. Blankenship asked that there be an overview of CAMP training. 12_ Adjournment Rapp adjourned the meeting at 8:37p_m Appr ved, Dee R pp, Chair Historical and Arci-kitecturai Commission Minv tc-s April 26, 2012 dCVL-11.. Attest, David Paul, Secretary 7