HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_02.26.2015Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: February 26, 2015
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 6 :00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7 th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Anna Eby, Chair; Nancy Night ; Ty Gipson; Richard Mee; David Paul and Mary Jo
Winder.
Commissioners in Training present: Rodolfo Martinez, Barbara Price
Commissioners absent: Jennifer Brown
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Andreina Davila,
Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Call to Order by Eby at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2014 regular meeting.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Knight. Approved 6 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for a
residential addition on the property located at 711 East 8th Street bearing the legal description of
Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report and explained the case. The applicant is requesting a CDC for a
residential addition in th e Old Town Overlay District. According to the letter of intent, the applicant
wishes to construct a two story addition, including a garage on the first floor and additional living
space on the second floor. The applicant’s request includes approval to use the underlying
Residential Single-family zoning district. Guideline 14.16 states that “an addition shall be compatible
in scale, materials, character and architectural style of the main building.” The materials and
architectural style of the proposed addition are compatible with the historic structure. However, the
scale and character are not compatible with the historic structure. The proposed addition is 145% of
the square footage of the existing structure, with flat vertical walls lacking the details, attributes and
features that distinguish the addition from the existing historic structure. The design guidelines allow
for a larger addition, but suggest the use of a connector to separate the addition from the existing
structure, when feasible. The guidelines also suggest the use of dormers instead of creating a full
second floor. The HARC may consider recommending the use of a connector, or changes to the
façade to create a more detailed street facing façade. Possible options include changing the roof l ine
to allow for the use of dormers on the east elevation; or applying a different siding material to the
second story, to the east building façade (Pine Street).
Due to ZBA’s denial of the setback modification and conflicts with the setback requirements, the
applicant has expressed an interest in looking at the possibility of acquiring a portion of the
ROW/easement to allow construction of the addition at the proposed location and outside of the
required rear setback. If the applicant is able to acquire a minimum of 15 feet of the ROW/easement,
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: February 26, 2015
the Setback Modification and the CDC allowance for use of the rear setback of the underlying RS
zoning district would no longer be required. However, HARC approval would still be required to
utilize the side setback of the underlying RS zoning district, as well as the 1,740 -square foot two-story
addition next to the existing street facing façade. Because of this, the applicant requests that HARC
review the proposed addition on its own merit in accordance with the appl icable Guidelines and
criteria for approval, and as if no setback modification or exception would be required, but not take
final action on the request.
Considering the proposed addition on its own without the need for a rear setback modification, staff
recommends approval with the following conditions: the east building façade must include at least
one of the following changes: construction of a smaller connector to set the addition away from the
house; change the roof line to allow for the use of dormers on the east elevation; or apply a different
siding material to the second story of the east elevation.
Staff recommends approval of the application to utilize the base RS zoning district setbacks.
In regards to the addition, until the issue with the ROW/easement is resolved, staff recommends one
of the following:
1) Should HARC find that the addition, as designed, meets the criteria for approval, staff
recommends that HARC continue the case until future meeting as agreed by both the applicant and
HARC to allow time for additional research in to acquiring a portion of the ROW/easement; or
2) Should HARC find that the addition, as designed, does not meet the criteria for approval, staff
recommends that HARC disapprove the request.
Chair Eby asked the applicant if he had any comments. James Grove stated that he only wished to
get a feel of what the Commission would like to see him do.
Eby opened the Public Hearing at 6:12 and with no speakers coming forward, closed the hearing.
Motion by Nancy to continue the c ase. No seconds were made so motion died.
Andreina Davila explained the issues for the commission giving them options on their action to be
taken.
The commissioners debated the design of the structure and its style and compatibility with the
neighborhood. They explained to Mr. Groves that the window to wall ratio of the new structure
should be more consistent with the window to wall ratio of the existing structure.
Motion by Knight to continue this case, CDC -2014 -052, to the April regular meeting to allow the
applicant to work further on the design and the right-of-way issue. Second by Paul. Approved 6 –
0.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: February 26, 2015
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 124 East 8th Street, bearing the legal
description of City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1 (NE/PT)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing new trim paint and business signage
for the High priority structure located in Ar ea 1 of the Downtown Overlay District. The proposed
paint scheme is designed to highlight the character defining features of the building, primarily the
transom windows, storefront windows and the doors. The proposed paint is for the 8th Street façade
only; no changes are proposed for the Church Street façade. The current muted base color will remain
in place, with the trim and doors painted as proposed by the applicant. The accent color is
appropriate for the structure, utilizing colors from the unpainted brick on the Church Street façade,
blending the two facades together.
The proposed projecting sign and hanging signs are allowed by the design guidelines for buildings
located in the Downtown Overlay District. Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends the
following approval for CDC -2014-053: 1. The proposed paint scheme as presented, 2.The proposed
projecting sign, lowered one foot below the cornice line , and 3. The proposed hanging sign, in a color
scheme coordinated with the façade and oth er signage.
The applicant Davin Hoyt was available for questions and asked for clarification of staff’s
recommendations. Synatschk explained.
Eby opened the Public Hearing at 6:57 and with no once coming forth, closed it.
Winder moved to approved the application with the trim paint colors be approved, and the
condition that the hanging sign paint colors be made consistent with the façade and the other
signs, to be reviewed by Synatschk before permitting, and the projecting sign brackets are to be
moved dow n to not damage the architectural features at the top of the column. Second by Mee.
Approved 5 – 1. (Knight opposed)
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
residential addition for the property located at 1318 University Avenue, bearing the legal description
of Outlot Division B, Block 12 (PT), 0.9506 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant proposes to remove a non -historic addition to the
east façade of the house, and construct a new addition, approximately 900 square feet in total size.
Previous renovations on the structure resulted in the replacement of the existing siding, new
windows, new roof and other exterior changes, greatly reducing the historic materials on the
structure. The proposed materials are consistent with the style of the structure and are appropriate
for the project. The new addition will be setback from the primary façade, with a narrow section that
expands to a perpendicular wing on the end. The combined b uilding setback, different roof pitch and
building skirt height will create the required differentiation for the structure. Staff recommends
approval of CDC-2015-001 as submitted.
Grace and Jarrod Pyka, the applicants, were available for questions by the commissioners.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: February 26, 2015
Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed it.
Motion by Knight to approve the application for CDC -2015-001 as presented. Second by Gipson.
Approved 6 – 0.
F. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. No questions or comments.
G. Staff updates and reminder of future meetings.
The Parking Study received 500 responses, Public Meetings will be held on March 11.
The Tax Incentive Workshop will be held March 12 th
March 18 th, a volunteer project with Serteens to redo the historic markers in Founders
Park.
March 9 th Sign Subcommittee meeting is cancelled.
March 26 th meeting will be held.
The RFP for the Historic Resource Survey will be put out next week. This is being done in
phases.
The Grace Heritage Center is being assessed this year for rehabilitation in next year.
The Sidewalk Ordinance will be going to City Council in April, regarding ADA
compliance in downtown.
And last but not least, recognition of David Paul for 4 years of service to the Commission a nd
to our two commissioners-in -training, Rodolfo Martinez and Barbara Price.
Adjournment. Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Mee. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
_____________________________ ____________________________
Approved, Anna Eby, Chair Attest, Nancy Knight