Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_05.24.2012Gity of Georgetown, 'Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 24, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, "rX 78627 101 E. 7t^ Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Dee Rapp, Chair; Jennifer Brown, Susan Firth, David Paul, Tim Urban, and Raymond Wahrenbrock. Corrunissioners in Training, present: Anna Eby Members absent: Sarah Blankenship Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie 1Ereger, Principal Planner; Laurie. Brewer, Assistant City Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary 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_ (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.) Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff- Presentation Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) minutes. unless stated otherwise by the Commission) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens. ''- Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process: Commission Action x- Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins_ Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes. Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 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. i_ Review and possible approval of the minutes from the April 26,. 2012 Regular HARC meeting. Historical and Architectural Corrttmtissio.z Minutes May 24, 2012 1 Rapp asked that changes be made for incorrect spellings on page 2; "windows" and `pane". On page 3 of the motion for approval of the CDC, she wants it noted that this was for a transitional home, and not to be used for art office or business of any kind_ Motion by Paul, second by Wahrenbrock, to approve the minutes as amended. Approved 5 - O - 1. (Firth abstained because she was not present for that meeting.) 2. Discussion .and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (pt), also known as Avalon Monuments, located at 1OO4 S. Austin Avenue. (C1CPC-2012-020) 3. Discussion and -possible action et a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new business signage at Lost Addition, Block 66 (sip*, also known as Mustang Heritage Foundation, located at 1112 Rock Street. (C1DC-2012-022) Firth reported that the items 2 and S were addressed and approved by the Sign Subcommittee (earlier that night. Regular Agenda: 4. 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) item was originally scheduled to go to the April 26, 2012 1-1.A72C meeting butwas pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant. Rapp explained that the Commissioners were reviewing this project based on the information packets that had been distributed for the April 26 meeting_ Wyler then explained that the Commissioners would be reviewingthe site layout and the building based an the Design Guidelines: He explained that the City Council had approved the Special Use Permit on First Reading and would be reviewing it again for the Second Reading, as required for an ordinance of this type. "I'he owner, John Kiltz; presented new drawings of the site using handouts and a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that he had attempted to address the commissioners concernsfrom a prior meeting and comments that were made_ They revised the parapet to be a square shape instead of true round; the cupola changed per the request to square it up; pedestrian access was from 40h Street by designing an internal sidewalk and stairwell to Austin Avenue for pedestrian access from the sidewalk; dimensions weregiven clarifying auto access, an eight foot tall screening wall between the drive through lane and menu board and the townhomes, and a six foot retaining wall on 4t^ Street; a masonry retaining wall was designed for Austin Avenue; a wrought iron security fence was added around the playground; the car queuing area was developed to allow 12 cars from the window to the roadway, including S cars from the menu board that would not block access to the parking area; addressed the 4t. Street screening of the dumpster area; and addressed the concern about the site line of Austin and 4w Street by insuring that the required sidewalk will cut the property back enough to have visibility. 'The Commissioners began asking questions_ Rapp started by asking that the alley be made one-way. Kiltz responded that was not up to him, the city traffic engineers would make that Historical and Architactural Commission Minn tcs May 24, 2012 2 determination_ Firth questioned what was being done to improve access and the entryway for the owners of the townhomes that would be trying to access their garages from this access. Ki1tz explainedthey would do everything. they could with sigrlage to direct the restaurant visitors to the restaurant and away from the townhomes. Wahrenbrock asked about the tree protection of the large tree at the entranceway. Wyler explained that the Urban Forrester would address the tree issues. Trey Halley, architect, .gave examples of proposed materials that would be used on :site. He showed a buff colored brick, double -paned windows,galvanized roof material and a gray neutral Hardiplank that would be used as siding on thenorth side of the building_ The playground and parking. fencing will be masonry and limestone with black metal pickets_ He explained the retaining wall would be cut limestone and the parapet would be cut stone at the top. He explained all the windows would be bronze colored and that in the picture when it showed larger windows, those were actually smaller windows placed together to form the larger glass wall, giving more character and depth. Chair Rapp opened the Public Hearing, at 6:50 p.m-. Bob Mullins, 402 S. Main Street, expressed concerns .about the narrow driveway being split 50/50 between the homeowners and the restaurant customers. He was worried about parking in the alley, the kids playing in the yards and their safety, restaurant odors, and stated this was lowering the townhome owners- quality of life. Clark Lyda, 60.1 S. Austin Ave., explained that it was critical that the applicant follow the same process as everyone else for approval, allowing for public notification and review_ And it seems that the site plan that was. submitted on this right was different than the one approved by council, showing it was not submitted in time for public review and comment. He also cited UDC Section 4.08.020.a.2 stating, that this proposed building did not meet the requirement of two usable stories in height or an overall building height of not less than 20 feet. They can request an exception to this ruling if HARC determines they are an .extraordinary contribution to the goals of the Downtown Master Plan. He also cited Design Guidelines 12.1 and 8_25, stating that this site would not be compliant. He requested the Commissioners not approve this plan this way_ Renee Hanson, 1252 S. Austin Ave., shared a concern about the proposed one story building. on Austin Avenue and felt that the entire site was not in keeping with the character of downtown. Andrew Sony., 406 S. Main Street and spokesperson for the townhorne owners, expressed that they all felt the drive through was not appropriate for this site and that it would hinder the access to their driveways, citing that the original agreement granted them "free and uninterrupted access to cars and pedestrians" from this easement. PJ Stevens, 1998 S. Austin Ave. providing a technical analysis for the towllhome owners, stated the access and queuing shown on the original plan do not meet the UDC requirements and that a full application should be submitted and public review allowed before approval is granted for this plan. Leonard Van Gezldt, 502 S. Walnut Street, stated he likes to walk a lot around downtown and he has heard there will be many cars involved with this restaurant and that he does not Historical and Architecly ral Commission Minutes May 24, 2012 3 believe that matches the character of downtown_ Ross Hunter, 908 Walnut, stated be felt there was a conflict :with the public information and discrepanciesof the documents that were presented. Darwin_ Britt, ceded his time to Carolyn Britt who wasspeaking for Heather Britt, 418 S. Main Street, asked that the homeowners be considered and asked the commissioners to put restrictions on the property and approve design criteria as if they were living behindthe property. Rapp closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. with no other speakers coming forth. Rapp stated that the Commissioners were going into Executive Session at 7:21 p.m_ for legal counsel with the city attorney, authorized by the C pen Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551 _ Commissioners returned and Rapp reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Rapp spoke for the Commission_ She stated they appreciate all the work that the owner has done to address the original Commission comments, but they also felt that the citizens had valid concerns about the application. The concerns are that if the information that was presented at this meeting is not what was approved by City Council, and the information that was presented here was not available for public review, they could not take full action on this CDC. The Commission was postponing action on this item until the following items were returned by the developer/ owner and proper notice was given of the meeting and the documents for review_ • An accurate elevation with 2 dimensions and details on all side of the property. • A dimensioned site plan to include the alley, easement and garages_ • The Variance Request, submitted in writing as according to the UDC Section 4.08.020_ • An accurate list of materials and where those materials will ,go exactly. Also material and color samples must be provided, that exactly match the plan_ • A clean and accurate parking design showing traffic flow, exact dimensions of the driveway, and queue lines asdefined in the UDC_ • An exact depiction, with dimensions of where deliveries will be made. • A site plan showing the removal of the cupola. Rapp gave the commissioners and public one more chance to identify a need. Firth asked that the applicant consider the public safety of the pedestrians in the alley_ Pj Stevens. asked that a lighting plan be submitted for review with the site plan. The existing submittal stated the liglting plan would be submitted separately_ Wyler explained that the commissioners would review the light fixture style,: but the engineered lighting, including lumens, spillage, etc: would be addressed during the site plan review by technical staff. Mr. Kiltz stated they could submit pictures and styles of the lighting fixtures_ Historical ahcl Architectural Commission Minutes May 24, 2012 Rapp postponed this item for further discussion until the items listed above were submitted. 5_ Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior changes and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 49, -Lot 1 (w/pt), also known as the Co-op,. located at 508 W. 8t* Street. (CDC-2012-021) Wyler presented the staff report_ The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval from HARC to make exterior changes to their building. They also propose new business signage advertising the Co-op. The structure, built circa 1950, is not listed in the 1984 Historic Resources Survey but is referenced as a Medium -Priority Structure in the 2007 Survey_ The following changes are proposed to the exterior of the building; 1. New Exterior Isaint Colors: The stucco facade (on all sides) will be repainted from the current gold to white. All trim, including canopy trim, will be painted "Bitter Chocolate"_ 2. Addition of Horizontal Slats: The slats will be attached to the north (front) facade with a metal frame to reduce the amount of facade drilling. 3. New Sign: A custom metal black and white projecting sign with painted lettering and inset lighting will be installed to the front of the building, centered above the canopy. The sign will measure 3.3' tall by 10" wide by 3.8' deep, totaling 12.76 square feet and will read "The Co-op, 78626". No other changes or signs are proposed to the building at this time. The applicants, Brady and Faith Clark were available for questions. They explained that they wanted to paint the stucco building white as it was originally. They showed the signage and slat examples. Firth asked about the color of the casing. Ms. Clark explained that it would be the same "bitter chocolate" color as the slats and fascia color. The gutters would remain natural galvanized metal,to match the building on the corner's galvanized metal siding and parts of the library. They were trying to carry through the theme. Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 with no speakers coming forth. Rapp questioned why the applicants chose such a bright white, stating she felt it was a little too contemporary for the character of that area. Ms_ Clark explained that they were trying to match the original color of the building and felt that the color would fade some. They still want to be able to see the white through the proposed slats. They were also planning to work with the Library to possibly use the white side wall for an outdoor projection screen for movie nights. The Commissioners decided to vote on the different elementsof the application separately. Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the sign as presented. Second by Urban. Approved 6 - O. Firth encouraged the applicants to come back to HARC for future signage_ They discussed the proposed slats next. Urban expressed that he would like to see the brackets of the slats spaced equally across the front of the building. Mr. Clark stated they would do that and then apply the slats so that there would not be a seam. Firth quoted Guideline 4.2,. "Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the Historical and Architectural' Commission Minutes May 24, 2012 5 original building." And she cited Guideline 5.6, "Historic building materials or features shall not be covered." Firth does not feel the slats are appropriate. Motion by Firth to deny a CDC for the horizontal slats, leaving just the existing stucco on the top portion of -the building_ Second by Brown. The CDC was denied by a 4 - 2 vote. (Denial by Firth, Brown, Rapp and Wahrenbrock. Voting against the denial: Paul and Urban.) There was no further discussion of the paint. Motion by Firth to approve the CDC for the white paint color on the building. Second by Wahrertbrock. Approved 5 - 1, Brown opposed. Motion by Firth to approve the awning, trim and casing colors. Second by Urban. Approved 5 - 1., Brown opposed. 6. Discussion and possible direction to staff on proposed revisions. to the Design Guidelines for theDowntown and Old Town Overlays_ Wyler opened the discussion by stating that no major changes had been made to the document after the public workshops. Rapp added that she wanted more detailed criteria and consequences added to the demolition sections. Wyler explained that those details were more specific in the Unified Development Code. There was discussion that the demolition subcommittee could use more training on those sections of the code. There was further discussion of the timing for adoption of the finalized document_ Commissioners were told to get any further suggested changes to staff no later than June 14_ Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:55 with no speakers coming forth. 7. Updates from staff and reminder about the June 13, 201.2 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the June 28, 2012 I-IARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers_ Wyler reminded the commissioners that they may have a special called meeting if the Hat Creek application came back with the requested materials. He will send out an email checking availability of the commissioners_ 8. Adjournment Rapp adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m_ , Appr ved, Dee R pp, Chair Attest, David Paul, Sec tary His[orical arkd Commission Mirtutes May 24, 2012 6