HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_11.01.2012City of Georgetowni, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, November 1, 2012, at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Municipal Court Building
101 E. 70. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626.
Members: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship; Jennifer Brown; Anna Eby; David Paul;
Raymond Wehrenbrock; and Tim Urban.
Somrnissioner(s) in 'Training: N/A
Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager;
Elizabeth Cook, Planning Consultant ; Andrew Spurgirl, Planning Director; Eric Lashley,
Library Services Director; and Karen Prost, 12ecording Secretary.
Regular -Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:01 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.
(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)
C,lfitestions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens 'E
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
i" 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.
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 Agendawill be consistent with the staff
recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Pogo 1 of.5-
NoverxmbNr 1, 2012
1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the September 27, 2012 Regular 13ARC
meeting_
Commissioners gave corrections. Pages 4 and 7, should read Rapp instead of Dee_ Page 7,
under Mr. Johnson's comments, his statement was that he felt the accordion doors look
tacky, specifically notthe entire venue_ Page 9, last paragraph, strike the word "any" in the
first lisle. Strike Elizabeth Cook- from being present at the meeting, she was not. And on
page 3, Wahrenbrock asked that it be clarified that his calculations were based on
Guidelines 9.4 and 9.5, and that both calculations exceed the maximum size of the allowable
si gnage.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Blankenship_ Approved
7-0_
Regular Agenda:
Rapp moved item #4 to this position on the agenda,but minutes will be shown under- the item_
Blankenship recuseel herself from items 2 and 3.
2_ Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance to change facade
features at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 5 pt., to be known as the Georgetown Art
Center, located at 816 S. Main Street. (CDC-2012-041)
As this was the second presentation for this application, Gary Wang, Wang Architects,
presented the application. The application is to make facade changes to previously
modified east facing storefront and make an addition of a new glass door in an existing
opening in the south facing facade under the staircase, as part of the City's proposed art.
center project. T'he art center will occupy the first floor of the historic fire station and
include a small pocket park outside. 11ARC isbeingonly asked to approvethefacade
changes, as the pocket park is considered landscape features, which are administratively
approved.
Mr. Wang summarized the previous meeting of HARC on August 23rd, explaining the
commission had given an overwhelming positive response after he gave a history of the
building and outlined thedifferent proposed schemes. The intent is to still have a gallery
and art studio, along with offering public restrooms. He is presenting for approval the
schematic option that was most well received by the commissioners, along with the city staff
that had reviewed it. He explained that they intend to still use the bell tower, and to include
a water feature /splash pad. They looked at other options but felt this would .give the most
cost efficient and best use_
He explained the revolving door that was suggested was too expensive. The mister for the
water feature, that was also suggested, would blow water onto- the historical limestone and
cause marking so that was not considered further. They do plan to install a glass door
under the staircase on the south facing wall_ And they will add setback glass on the
storefront. The suggested faceted (cantered and angled) windows were deemed too
expensive_ They plan to use brick patterns on the sidewalk to draw people into the space.
Mr. Wang showed color samples o£ the accent colors.
Rapp opened and closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. with no citizens coming forth to
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
November 1, 2012
speak.
Commissioners discussed the colors and placement of those colors on the building facade.
Wang explained they plan to clean the limestone of the building and add a warmer palette
of colors. Rapp questioned the color of the anodized metal doors and windows. There was
further discussion of using the dark bronze colored metal door and window surrounds.
Wahrenbrock expressed a like of the surrounding design of the front door.
Motion by. Paul to approve the CDC as applied and presented. Second by Urban.
Approved 6 — O, Blankenship recused.
Commissioners took a. 10 minute break.
Public hearing and possible action to amend a Certificate of Design Compliance to change
facade and site features at City of Georgetown, Block 33, Lot 4, to be known as Grape Creek
Winery,_ located at 614 S. Main. Street Sz -101 W. 7.. Street. (CDC-2012-042)
Kreger presented the staff report_ The applicant seeks to amend a previously approved
Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) to change the exterior wall finish for the north
facing wall of the former Visitor Center building, which is the back wall of the future
winery_ As requested by the applicant,-HARC approved thiswall to be the existing stone.
However, once the wall was revealed after demolition of -the adjoining building it became
apparent the condition of the stone made reuse in its current form impractical and that
massive patching, repointing, and installing of some new stone would be required. A large
area of the wall had to be secured immediately with a gunite in -fill patch to help stabilize
the wall and preserve the building. This patch is shown on the applicant's submission
materials_ This stone wall has not been carefully maintained overtime and has been patched
and had items bolted into it over the years.
Based on budget and lime constraints and after consultation with the Texas Historical
Commission, the applicant is proposing to use the same materials that comprise the back
wall of the courtyard facing Main Street, brick veneer and stucco, to complete the repair
work to this wall. HARC approved the Main Street facing wall to be brick with a cornice
trim, and gave staff the ability to work with applicant to finalize the wall finish after
demolition to address any construction issues. There were somestructural limitations to
that wall that limited the ability for the brick to continue the entire wall. Stucco was used to
complete the wall, when to be painted soft green to match the Main Street facing building
facade color_ The recently painted stucco (green) on the Main Street facing wall will be
repainted to match the existing green on the Main Street facade as it is not the correct color.
7n addition, the applicant would like HARC to consider allowing options for the structure
surrounding the rape Creek Courtyard to be either the previously approved wrought iron
fencing and planters or partial stucco walls with a height of 2.5 to 4 feet facing Main Street
and 3 to 6 feet facing the alley_ As originally proposed, the courtyard would be confined by
installing five concrete planters (4' by 4') along the outside edge of the courtyard as shown
on the applicant's Option 1 illustration_ A black wrought iron fence (42" in height) would
be installed in between the planters and pedestrian access to the courtyard would be
through a double 6-foot wide gate off Main Street. An additional lockable double gate will
be added to the northwest (alley -facing) corner of the courtyard that will be used for
Historic and Archltectvial RcVieW Co:aaaission Page 3 of 5
Novevxxb¢r 1, 20I2
shipping and receivu'tg for the winery. The stucco used for the planters or wall is proposed
to be the same light cream as the trim on the building. Color samples are included in the
applicant's submission materials_
Also, an optional pergola and fireplace- are now requested, budget permitting. The
additional requested wall height at the alley would allow for the potential of a fireplace.
The pergola and fireplace might be added overtime rather than with the initial construction
project.
The _applicant has provided several illustrations of their various options. for HARC's
consideration_ Option 1 represents their currant approved design, with the proposed
pergola added. They would like a broad approval that would let them decide which
materials and features are feasible for them based on costs. Again, they would like the
ability to add the pergola and/or fireplace at a later date without having to return to HARC
for that additional approval.
Laurie Brewer; Assistant City Manager, was available for questions as the applicant.
Wahrenbrock stated he like the combination of option 1 oil Main Street and option 3 on the
alley side. He likes the look of more wrought iron and plants. Wahrertbrock also
questioned whether the stucco applied to the existing rock is reversible. Brewer explained
that the rock must be stabilized first, and then the stucco wall will be installed in front of the
wall. Since the brick and rock wall is already deteriorated, the stucco will probably not be
reversible in that the rock's integrity cannot be saved.
Wahrenbrock questioned the need for a six foot gate at the alley. Paul stated he did not see
the need but they could leave it as an option fox- the owner.
Rapp opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. and closed it with no citizens coming forth.
Motion by Rapp to -approve the amended CDC for 61_4 S. Main Street as proposed with
the following conditions: The north facing wall is be to brick veneer and stucco as
proposed by the applicant, with the ability to work any finaldesign issues with staff-.
The courtyard fence/wall shall be a combination of wrought iron and stucco with a
wrought iron gate, and include planters to soften the wall (Option a example). Stucco
and wrought iron shall be used for the fence/wall facing the alley with a maximum
height of six (6') feet (Option 3 example). A six foot (6') tall wrought iron gate facing the
alley is optional_ The fence/wall facing Main Street shall include a 42" tall iron gate,
wrought iron fencing, and 4' tall stucco planters. The maximum height of the planter
portions of the wall is four (4') feet with a maximum width of four feet (4'), the balance of
the fencing shall be iron_ The maximum wrought iron fence and gate height is 42 inches
wooden pergola and/or a .fireplace located in the stucco wall, as proposed by
the applicant, may be installed at any time, with proper City permits without returning to
HARC. Staff may work with the applicant on the final design as long as it is similar to
that proposed_ Second by Urban_ Approved 6 — O, Blankenship recused.
4. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for a parking lot
at City of Georgetown, 'Block 9, Lots 7-9 (w/pts.), located at 215 W. 3‘'. Street (southeast
corner of Rock and 2^a Streets). (CDC-2012-03S)
Kreger presented the staff report. The applicant seeks Certificate of Design Compliance
Historic and Arctdteetural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
November 1, 2012
(CDC) approval from HARC to construct a free standing parking lot to serve as overflow
parking for the El Monumento restaurant immediately across Rock Street from this vacant
property. As proposed, only a portion of the larger tract will be developed as parking, and
the undeveloped portion (the northeast corner of 3rd. and Rock Streets) will be available for
future development.
The parking lot design is relatively straight forward with 21 spaces accessed via Rock Street_
A Type. II sidewalk (brick pavers at outside edge concrete walls) and a Type III sidewalk
(scored concrete in 2-foot modules) will be placed along Rock and grid Streets, respectively.
Landscaping, including parking lot screening and trees, will be placed along Rock and 2nd
Streets_ No landscaping is proposed adjacent to the existing developed property. An
existing 24 inch Pecan Tree at the interior eastern corner of the project site will remain and
be protected during construction. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize the site plan
details, which include the landscape plan. Kreger explained that the Commission will be
looking at the effect of the parking lot on the site and staff will be looking at the smaller
details and making changes as needed for code compliance.
Sam Pfeister, owner of El Morlumento restaurant and applicant, requested the
commissioners allow them to install decomposed granite on the parking lot. as opposed to
the concrete that is proposed on the application_ Kreger stated the Development Engineer
has not approved the decomposed granitebecause there are still issues with the existing
parking lot that is made of decomposed granite.
Urban expressed concern about pedestrian access only existing through the parking lot_
Rapp opened the Public Hearing, at 6:19 p.m. and closed it with no citizen comments being
offered.
Wahrenbrock and Paul asked questions about drainage issues and existing trees. Kreger
explained those issues would be reviewed by staff_
Blankenship expressed liking the appearance of the granite and is in support of that material
that matches the adjacent parkinglot and surrounding land.
Rapp moves to approve the CDC as requested with the following conditions: The
applicant will work with staff to finalize the site plan with landscaping and final
engineering, the applicant will focus on pedestrian access within and around the parking
lot, and the applicant has an option of materials, stabilized crushed granite or concrete,
with the city development engineer's approval. Second by Paul. Approved 7 — O_
5_ Updates from staff and reminder about a possible November 1.4, 2012 HARC Sign
Subcommittee meeting at the Georgetown Municipal Complex and the December 13, 2012
HARCfF3ARC Sign Subcommittee meetings at Council Chambers.
Kreger gave reminders and stated there would be a November 14,h Sign Subcommittee
meeting.
6. Ad" rrirrl t. Rapp djo red the meeting at m.
proved, Di�e'f2app, Chair Attest; David Paul, cuecretary
Historic and ArcMitectvral Review Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 5 of 5