Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.28.2012City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, June 28, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627 101 E. 7.h Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown, Susan Firth, David Paul, Tim Urban, and Raymond Wahrenbrocic_ Commissioners in Training present: Anna. Eby Members absent: none Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Bridget Chapman, ?sting City. Attorney 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 otherwiseby the Commission.) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens'" Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action " 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 (5) minutes. Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Consent A>;endac The Consent Agenda includes non-eontroversial and routine items that the Commission may act on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that arty item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it individually aspart 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 May 24, 2012 Regular HARC Historical and Architectural Corirmission 1 Minutes June 28, 2012 meeting. Brown pointed out that the names on item 3 should be Mr. and Mrs. Clark, not Mr. and Mrs. Brady. So noted. Motion by Paul to approve the minutesas amended. Second by Wahrer brock. 6 - O - 1 (Blankenship abstained as she was not present for that meeting.) 2. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for new window signage at City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lots 6 Sr 7 (pts), also known as the Palace Annex II, located at 216 W. 8th Street. (CDC-2012-023) Regular Agenda: 3_ Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a street -facing addition to a residential structure in aka Town at Shell Addition, Block 6, Lot 2, located at 809 E. 4.h Street. (CDC-2012-025) Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval from HARC to. build a .screened porch on the east. side of the house. Per Unified Development Code (UDC)Section4.09.030.13.1, additions shall not be made to the street facing facade of an existing Single-family or Two-family residential structure within the Old Town Overlay District, unless a CDC is approved by HARC in accordance with the adopted Design Guidelines. The house is listed as a Low -Priority Historic. Structure in the Historic Resources Survey and is located on the eastern edge of the Old Town Overlay District. The 12' x 15' porch will be accessed from an extended breakfast area (immediately north of proposed porch shown in the photo below) and three east -facing. exterior windows and a door would then face the inside of the porch but remain intact. The parch will follow the existing roof line above and remain within- the City's required setbacks, behind an existing 6' privacy fence and trees. Commissioners began questions to the owner, Nichole Chigoy. Rapp questioned whether the porch would fit within the required setbacks. Wyler responded the Plans Reviewer would check that. She stated that she felt it looked nice but was out of scale with the house. Blankenship questioned whether there would be any damage to the existing siding. Owner and contractor explained that it would remain on the inside, they were not removing anything, just adding on. There was discussion about how the porch would be attached to the house, through extending existing. joists and "marrying" the new to the old. The addition would be painted to match the house color_ Rapp opened and closed the Public Heating at 6:22 p.m. with no speakers coming forth. There was further discussion and clarification of the view that would be seen from the street. Rapp pointed out that the application was missing the elevation as viewed from the street. Wahrertbrock pointed out that the picture of the porch in the packet was not how the porch would look and he explained the roofline. Firth pointed out that the view would be twelve horizontal feet of a screened porch with the rooflirne extending from the existing and over the screened porch. • Blankenship said we can look a this two ways: It meets the guidelines because of 7.5 "Design a new addition such that the original character can clearly be seen". And this Historical and Arohitoetural Commission Mires tea june 28, 2012 2 application meets that guidelines, clearly seeing the new structure. Or this application can be denied because it does not meet guideline 7.5, "An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building."., which does not work with the new proposed roofline. Motion by Urban to approve the CDC for the application as designed and proposed. Second by Firth. Approved 6 - 1. Wahrenbrock opposed. 4. Discussion and possible action on a. Certificate of Design Compliance for the relocation/reconstruction of an historic accessory structure in Old Town at Shell Addition, Block 19 (e/pt), located at 502 Walnut Street. (CDC-201.2-026) Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) approval from HARC to move an accessory structure three (3) feet to the north to make way for a walkway in the backyard_ The structure will be rebuilt using as much of the original materials as possible. Per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.13.010.13.4„ A Certificate of Design Compliance is required for the demolition or relocation of any building or structure on the List of Priority Structures. The main house is listed as a High -Priority Historic Structure in the Historic Resources Survey but the exact age of the subject structure is unknown. it is believed. to be historic, however. The owner states the shed is in bad shape and needs maintenance. She would like to continue using it and plans to do some maintenance while at the same time moving it slightly to allow for the backyard walkway as shown on the provided site layout. She will use existing siding as well as purchased siding to match the house and the shed will again be painted yellow. The corrugated tin roof will be replaced with a new version of the same style_ Wyler explained that this application was for a relocation but would be handled as a demolition application because the materials were being reused. Larkin Tom, the applicant was available for questions. Rapp asked several questions to determine that the materials would be re -used, as possible; the interior poles would have to be replaced with new lumber; the shed might actuallybesmaller than the original but not larger, and the roof and siding materials would be reused. The metal siding on the back of the structure will be replacedwith wooden siding to match the existing. Urban questioned the actual proposed location. Tom explained that it was to be moved three to six feet. to the north and would not bevisible from the front of the house. Rapp opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:37 p.m. with no speakers coming forth. Motion by Firth to approve the CDC application as presented_ Second by Paul_ Approved 7 - O. Rapp called a 5 minute recess at the request of commissioners_ Rapp reconvened the eneetirtg at 6:50 p.m. 5.. 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. (C17C-2012-017) "This item was tabled at the May 24, 2012 HAIZC meeting to allow the applicant time to address design questions from the Commissioners before final action is taken_ His toricai and Architectural Commisaiort Minutes June 28, 2012 3 Wyler introduced the applicant, John Kiltz, developer, who would present the items that were requested from the Commission at the previous meeting. Kiltz gave a presentation on the following. items: 1. A more detailed site plan was presented with dimensions included. 2_ Door and window details were given with dimensions included_ 3. The building was taken from two stories to one story, and they included a variance request for the height difference_ 4 A complete, detailed list of materials was provided. 5. Traffic flow was addressed. They worked with .city engineers and staff and have now ceded control of the access easement, cutting off 25 feet of the back of the Hat Creek property for total access of the homeowners, and adding a separation fence along the easement. 6. Showed all access points_ 7. Showed queuing line of traffic by reconfiguring the drive-thru. 8. Identified the trash collection and delivery areas. 9. Removed. the cupola so that the building matches the context of the town -thoraxes. 10. Revised the dimensional drawing to include the alley and tow-nhomes. Mr_ Katz then went on to explain that they felt they were meeting the intent of the. Fesign Guidelines 12.1 through 12.14. They feel they xnet 12.1 by aligning the building at the front of the property line at the northwest corner of Austin Avenue., while site walls and fencing supplement the building edge. 12.2: Defined the edge of the lot, where a portion of the building is .set back, with landscaping, sidewalks and fencing_ 12.3: Consider dividing a larger building into modules,they divided the building into three dimensional modules. 12.4: Building heights of larger projects should provide variety, provided scale and variety in rooflines, stepping down to the playground area. 12.5 Large sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure, 3200 square feet broken into three elements. 12.6: Divide the large building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings, they don't think they have a large building, only 25 and 27 feet modules and use materials to match traditional buildings. 12.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred, using local limestone materials that match other buildings in the area including the courthouse. 12.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane, they don't feel they have a large wall but they have used a variety of materials to break up any large facade areas_ 12.10 Develop the ground floor Ievel of a project to encourage pedestrian activity and avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance, the building is raised at grade and uses "balconies" of the retaining wall to step the wall into the building area and the playground area is designed to promote pedestrian activity_ 12.11 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street, there is an eight foot grade change at the northwest corner which is not pedestrian- accessible sa they worked with the site as well as they could to accommodate pedestrian access. 12.12: Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians, they developed an internal sidewalk that separates the parking and pedestrians as. much as possible and have three pedestrian Historical and Architectural Coratuission 4 1V1i f14 [ER Jarie 28, 2012 entrances- into the site_ 12.13 Minimize the number of entrancesalong a street edge, they don't have any driveways on Austin Avenue and only one each on 40, and 50, Streets. 12.14 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible ordisburse throughout the site, they placed parking on one: side of the site only and did not place parking near the access easement in deference to the homeowners behind them - Mr. Kilt= wasavailable for questions - Rapp opened thepublic hearing at 7:06 p.m. Andrew Sohn, 406 S. Main Street: agrees with Nancy Knights comments of the City council meeting of June 26, 2012 that Downtown Georgetown is an a pedestrian area and the drive- thru is not pedestrian friendly. Nancy Knight, 205'Fanwood: believes that Hat Creek customers will want to stay at the restaurant for a meal and the playground and not drive-thru, She reminded them that they willnot have access to their parking lot or drive-thru during city special events_ She expressed concern about the metal roof facing the west and the glare that will occur, and the high maintenance of the siding- She stated that the Design Guidelines are not met when you pick and choose the ones that you want to apply, it has to meet all the Guidelines_ Ross Hunter, 908 S. Walnut Street: concerned about the flow of pedestrian traffic from the Square to the river and the building edge is not aligned at the .sidewalk edge, citing the large masonry wall at 4th Street is not pedestrian friendly. He supports the guideline that encourages shops and store fronts along Austin Avenue, not a parking lot and masonry wall. He also stated this was not art extraordinary contribution to the Square as iscalled Dar- in the Downtown Master Plan and should not be considered. Clark Lyda, 601 S. Austin Ave: expressed appreciation of the Commissioners service. Gave slide presentation of historic buildings in the downtown area ti-tat have been torn down and those that are current buildings in the downtown area, citing. those that were and are "extraordinary"- Quoted UDC Section 4.O8.O2O.13.2 and expressed that the Hat Creek development was not art extraordinary development and did not support the height exception that they were requesting. David Ron -line, 426 S. Main: currently a physician but has background in historical architecture and appreciates the beauty of Georgetown_ He believes the commission should be good conservators of the heritage and quality of life of the downtown area and that Hat Creek is inappropriate for this block_ Renee Hanson, 1252 S. Austin Ave: recalled the history of the downtown and how the Design Guidelines were established with Nore Winter, along with the Downtown Master Plan. She does not believe that Hat Creek is a contributing development to the value of downtown. It is not pedestrian friendly with Austin Avenue stairs and the driveway and parking lot crossing_ She does not feel the development is aesthetically pleasing. She stated. these were good people and a good product, just- a wrong location. Rick Williamson, 204 Holly Street: statedthere was a frontage problem and that an active edge meant that pedestrians must be abletowalk off the street sidewalk and directly into the building_ The front door of the building doesnotface the street, but the parking lot_ He l-ttstorical aria Architectural Cornreassion M iriu tes June 28, 2012 5 stated this development was not pedestrian friendly andraised concerns that it was not ADA compliant. Richard Kutz, 1312 Elm Street: questioned the Iength of six cars from the call box to the sidewalk. He also said that the attraction for children and families is the playground and that this is not how the site is setup_ He thinks. the developer can design a better site_ Rapp closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.r t. with no more speakers coming. forth. Mr. Kiltz came back for Commissioner questions_ Wahrenbrock asked questions about the sidewalks and site line from 4°� Street onto Austin .Avenue. Kiltz stated the traffic engineers approved the design. Wahreribrock also expressed concern over glare from the metal roof. Blankenship discussed site possible changes; flipping the entire site, bringing the playground inside, or adding building room for a retail element. Firth questioned the delivery times and transformer access. She too was concerned about the retaining wall height. Mr. Kiltz stated the plan at this point is still conceptual and that they will work with grading and are adding a step -planter box. Wyler explained that if they change any of the design features, the applicant must come back before the commission_ !Glitz stated he thinks this is still a well -designed quality building that may contribute to the Square based on what they offer to the public The Commissioners deliberated. Blankenship stated that because the building does not support Guideline 12.1 and is not aligned along the property edge, there is not a main entrance on Austin Avertue, she cannot support the development as proposed. Rapp agreed with Blankenship and added that the UDC and Downtown Master Plan and Design Guidelines do not support this type of development. And compared to other developments in the area, pointing out Monument and El Monumento specifically, that this property is not extraordinary in any way. UDC Section 4_08.020 states that applications "shall comply" and be extraordinary. She feels this is not consistent with the Town Square. District and this is not the best use for that lot, expressing concern for the connection between the downtown area and river area. 'This does not meet criteria A..1, B.1,B.2, B.3, C, D and E. of UDC Section 4.08.020_ She will vote against the project_ Paul stated he likes the project but the location iswrong and he is not supportive of it in this location. Firth feels the location is misused and agrees with the guidelines and UDC secticats that have been quoted. She cites the Downtown Master Plan that limits auto -oriented businesses to north of the river. She feels this business could be redesigned to be a successful stay -and - dine business, but not a drive-thru and small parking lot business on Austin Avenue_ She feels this should be a safe, pedestrian oriented business .and not an auto -oriented business, and it is not. Urban pointed out that less than 50% of the building is at the sidewalk edge and that it. should be oriented to the street, not the parking lot. Brown supports the project but agreed with the other commissioners. Wahrertbrock stated he appreciated the developer addressing the previous concerns of the commission and they did that very well, but he also feels this is the wrong location for this Historical and Architectural Corros issior. Minutes June 28.2012 6 business. Motion by Blankenship to deny the Certificate of Design Compliance for Hat Creek Burgers, located at 405 S_ Austin Avenue based on the following Guidelines: 8.25: Locate a surface lot such that it will be subordinate to other site features. It is upfront and the size of the parking lot is as large if not larger than actual built area. 8.26: Site a parking lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a block. Staff says the design guidelines state the preferred location of a parking lot that shares a site with a building is behind the building itself but if there are no other options a side lot is -acceptable. Commissioners believe there are other options available. 22.2: Locate a new building at the front property line. • Align the building front at the sidewalk edge. The front is not at the sidewalk edge, the main entrance of this proposed development is to the rear of this building. • A minimum of 5O% of the street frontage of a property shall have a building, wall at the sidewalk edge_ This proposal appears to have less than 5O%0 of the frontage, based on the aerial photo and drawings. 12.10: Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. Take Staff report says the south side of the property is the most level with the street and would be more contusive to street -level activity. • At least one of the following should be provided along the primary pedestrian ways: storefront, display cases, landscaping, and courtyard/plaza. C>rtly landscaping is really provided. • Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance_ Tire large retaining wall along Austin Avenue creates a large blank wall. 22.22: Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. Tire site plan is essentially designed around the drive -thru. The main entrance is near the rear of the lot_ There is no main entrance from Austin Avenue to the building. There is not even an entrance to the buildings at the street side. • A primary building entrance should be at or near street level (it is not!)_ 22.24: Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. The parking is not located at the back. The clause, when feasible, makes it difficult to objectively gauge. 22.26: Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale_ The buildings that have the traditional historic commercial appearance are not at street level. That does not convey human scale if humarks are looking at a giant waIl._ This plan does not meet the design goals of Area 2 for the Design Guidelines (Chapter 12, page 2); The Design Goals 'of Area 2 are defined as: • To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians (not done) Hiskorical and Arctii tectural Commission Minutes jur.0 28, 2012 7 • To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscapes design that can be understood by pedestrians. The building is ort an elevated wall with not a single entrance from Austin Ave. This is not understandable to a pedestrian as a typical building model Iike this has an entrance for pedestrians and there is none here. • To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles_ There is an attempt to screen and shade the vehicles which goes along with Guideline 8.30, but the parking is still in a primary location that is adjacent to downtown and breaks the building. wall,. when parking should go in the rear as per Guidelines: 12.1, 8.25, and 8.26. • To strengthens the pedestrian: network of sidewalks, plazas and paths. The Downtowns Master Plare Introduction, page 3: • Refers to limiting further development of auto -oriented businesses. • Also suggests auto -oriented business be developed north of the river. • And continues to say with such development (i.e_ auto -oriented) "there is a risk that the character of the area (Area 2) will remain fragmented". The Downtown Master Plan Introductiors, page 70: • Reiterates the comment regarding negative impacts on downtown with the development of "new businessesthat are more auto -oriented than is desirable for a traditional downtown core"_ • Continues to say "these tend to fragment the area and weaken its perception as a single, destination shopping experience". The Downtown Master Plan Chapter 2 page 29 Sasic Framework a Vision for Downtown: • Foreseesdowntown as art "exciting, attractive place to work, live and visit"and a place. that is family oriented, Hat Creek accomplishes this goal well with the casual dining and playground concept. but contradicts the purpose with the in -and -out nature of the drive- thru_ The Downtown Adaster Plant Chapter 2, page 35, Basic Framework Automobile Systems: • Designs should focus on improving access into the core, not through it, as the drive - through concept implies. The Downtown Master Plan Chapter 2, page 37 13a.sic Framework, Design Character: • Again refers (specifically) to the "activity center- concept and downtown core north of the Courthouse Square, the Master Plan refers to the need to "provide mini -destinations" and this projectis not seen as a destination. + Each activity center should include uses that will attract people to downtown and encourage pedestrian activity and areas where people can gather. TT-te Design Guidelines are met to a certain degree in certain instances. But several basic principles 8s fundamental issues outlined in the Design Guidelines- and the Master Plan are glaring omissions as listed above_ The request for the Freight Exception is denied based on Linified Development Code Section F4is torical and Go=nmission Minutes tune 28, 2012 S 4.08.020 13.1.e. The proposed building shall be art extraordinary cosztribution to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtozon Master Plan. The Commission does not believe this project is "extraordinary" based on the Master Plan Goals that are not met or captured in the plan. Second try Firth_ Denial approved, 7 - O_ Commissioners asked for a five minute recess at 8:52 p.m. Rapp reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m_ 6_ Discussion and possible recommendation to. City Council on proposed revisions to the Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlays. Wyler read and presented the new text for sign content and there was follow-up discussion. Ms_ Chapman, Acting City Attorney, explains to the commission they can regulate what goes on the primary sign in regards to font, size of font, color, number of lines, but not actual wording. Commissioners decided they would like to consider the language that was given to them and discuss the Guidelines one more time before they recommend the amendments to City Council_ Motion by Rapp to postpone this item to Monday, July 2, 201.2 at 3:30 in the Georgetown Municipal Complex. Second by Wahrenbrocic. Approved 7 - O. 7. Questions or comments from Commissioner(s)-in-Training about the actions and matters considered on this agenda. Eby did not have any questions but said she thought the commissioners handled the cases well. 8. Updates from staff and reminder about the July 11, 2012 HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown 1VIunicipal Complex, the July 26, 2012 HARC/HARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers, and the July 10. City Council Workshop 8s First Reading of the Design Guidelines. 9. Adjour;iznera - Rapp adjourned the meeting at8:57 p_m Attest, David Paul., Secretary 7iis torioal vrta Architectural Commission NM, tes June 28, 2012 9