HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.25.2015Caiy of Georgetown, Foxas
11 listoric and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
t`hursday, lune 25, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
Council ,arid Courts Building
101 i_.: 711 Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Me nMw premal: Lee Mo. Chair, Nancy Knight, Vice-Chtair, (us lin HOW; Ienu fn Brown; Aiehard We
and MarY Io Wmcier-
Comi nissionc•rs in Training present' Lawrence Romero; Jan Dawn; Patty Eason
Curnnnssinna rs al sent; Shawn food
Staff nrestm M,alt'Synatschk� l isfo.ic Planner; Andreina Davila, Pioledt Coordinator; l.aua'ielire=wer,
Assistant City Manager and Karen i rust, Recording Secretary.
A Call to Mader by Chair Liam at 6113 with the reading of the ordvr cif business to be conducted;
€ eggislative Regular Agenda
I3. Review and passrhle .approval of the nnuulcs of the May 29, 2015 i e limp.
Motion by Mee to approve the ininutes as submitted. Second by Knight. Approved 6 .- U.
C Public: 110arinE� and pons bic ,iction on a mqueal for .a Ccs) tific<tc of Tkdg a Compliance (CDC) for
exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 122. East 8th Street, bearing, the legal
dcscripf.on of CJly of Georg,�efowia, ROck51 l of 1 (NF-C/PT); 0-026 acres (CDC X0 154116)
Svnal:Schk pre�enlvd the slaff re'porl the applicant is reclucsting a CDC to cxpand the bus7.ne'4i to ao
ocipcent husincss and match the paint rigors to the origuaal structure. This will provide a coh-sive
stoiefroul for the ousrncss. No additional signage is required atihis acrid. Staff reccrnranendo
approval,
11aere were no questions.
Barn opened the: Public Hearing, and vvft:h no d rirtenscorning forth, closed the Hearing -
;Motion by Knight to approve the CiOC application as submitted. Second by Mee, Approved 6 - 0.
D Public l Iearang; and possible acficin on a request fora Ceilificalo of Dcsa?;fa Compliance (CDC:) for
e°xtelior attcrations and addition for the property located at1804Ash Street, hearing; the legal
doscripiion of Flug hi,s Addilion, Block t5 (NEVPT). 0,33 acres (CDC -2015-017)
Synatschk presonlc d the staff report. t her applicant is requesting, a Certificate of Dosign Compliance
for exterior atteratronsand an addition to the structure located at 1804 SOLih Ash StreeL. The
proposed pojvC[ includes the removal of an existuag porch and construction of anew porch,
enclosing, thea existing carper 1, adding exteriorAuiler panels and painting the two slory structure.
i ie reported pmposed changes conflict with the Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the interior
Slandarels for Itehabiliiehon by signific.antlyWong; the facade and adding conjeclurai features.
1 loweVcr, based ulaon the current historic staluS of die structure, staff has determined that the
changes have limited impact on a non-significant s -acture and is supporirve of the project, with the
romnamendatitans of locating windows viet,ila in design to the cur rent ce, ndnws and hwestigartrtag
other options fol the 2nd fluor open space
Hrrnu� ,and A,elu�. 'fivaf l:r,��n+ C.xn.n "stun Pn,, 1 of 6
D4 Ura; MW TO Tji
Tom Nichols, the applicant/architect explained that the owners want to paint the brick of the house,
or ingiiig ri back into character with the old town neighborhood. They avant to replace the windows
is rth casement wvindws because the current winnows ane not up to code, They errant to enclose tire
second floor porch over die front door to seal off the existing, leaks to that portion of the house, I"he
Noun over the carport area is failing and so that will be replaced and overhead doors will be
maul ed 'f he electric pant i on the f oni of the house will he relocated. 'pre c hmnney will he c )uk!uded
above the rouftine and brought up to code also.
Bonin asked is Nichols would crnnsuler looking for inoru connpatibie windows and N ictzols said he
would lock.
Bain opened the Public I l gar iug and with no citizens coming torp, closed the I fearing:
Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as subrnitted; without the recornm. cridations by staff.
Second by Mee.
C ornmzssiuncrs discussed the applicairon and wore okay with the windows and porch design and
stated the alterations were conipatible nvdh The neighborhood.
Vote to approve, 6 — 6_
I`Public l learing and possible action oil a requcst lot, a Certificate of i)esign Compliance (C I)C) for
infill Construction for tine pruperly located at 605liast Uurversity Avenue; hearing the legal
description of DimmitAddition, Block 8i11-85 (111), 0.631 acres, DinunitAddition, Block 84-6-� (p'1),
0-3939 nc res; :utcl Pi nunit Addition; Block 84, S17 Conner (CDC -2015-020)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing an infill consh Uction project which
h eludes three firce-story aparunent buildmg lane proposed pusjeci is located in the Old Town
overlo), District; fronting; University Avenue. While the Downtown aril {ilii Town Design
CUIC1011nes request a res denhal type setback, this project ;s located on the commerrnal edge of the
Overlay District, adjaceni to several nwhi story commercial stn,cicturns, religious institutions and
educational iacilitics. I lee, rear of the property well include parking and ottier surface arnenities,
providing, a buffer for the residential district:
The prupused dosign maintain. a JuJIMI r sole through file ar;hc'd nwa cmljs andnioduinhon of the
fa4ades, eliminating the single ",afl along; anv of the street facing faa,ados, crnnply-irng avith C'uidrlino
14 The grade change otid use of rrudripie buildungsbreaks the project into modules, as oudixiedby
Guidelines i9-.4, 143 and 741 4 HY; use of nwnnry inaterialn both brick and stone, aloins; with (he
;natal roof, is conipaNble with the oven alt chai icteristic of the throe act and complies with Guideline
INK
This cui'a01`11 project dies not r.on)ply with the design standards of the utncier lying C0 (Local
C'outiicicial) Zoning distrnr, i`he CDC approval criteria outlined in LDC Section .3,13030 requires
r ompli.vxe e, h the design standards of otic code, including the site design standards for each zoning
district. I the applicant has submitted on application for a plannrtd Unit Developmernt (PUD), allowing
lot, the creal iou of a unique zouingdistiict for theproje�t ?'lie I"UD application is iI rezoning
npplimbon and YOH be reviewed by staff for presernlonon to the Pl oning; £,r Zoning, CAonunisnon and
City Council for !inat approval,
Additionolly, Inv proposed pojectrequhvA a Certil0ite of Design Wriphance for Fornoli}ion, The
I ho *tri end A'iha" W Rm mv Gnurnssten. Paye 2 of 6
appu¢arit has submitted the applhad on and staff will preset t the appluaIIon to the Demolition
5eibcomnuitec at a future date WC Section 3.13.04-0 includes the appro%aI of a CDC for the rievv
construction prior to the issuance of i CDC to!- demolition, when the new protect regwres HANC
mv-iew f he CDC for infill const udio.n requires i IARC reviety; therefore, the }IARC is revievvi ng the
Will application prior ro taking action on the demolition application.
Based upon the above infornmal,01 HARC approval for CDC -2015-020 is conditional upon the
approval of the CDC application for demolition and City Council approval of the PUD.
Let, McIntosh; applicant/ developer explained that he has lived in Georgetown for many Yon s and
has looked attinis lrroperty for niany years. Ile recently puiehased the t6roperlp h'onn the He><ilthcare
Foe.mdalion with a vision Of sontrthing aeskhelic ally pleasing to [ho neighborhood and something
[hat flukes sense for diet community and the} oundation. Die truetfre itself isit) vel'y poor shape"
he fovlS complete rehabilitation is the only oplion. Hti wants to arswer the questions of thene.ghbom
and addrnss any c >nceiTns-
Winder asks for they original site plan anti the location: of the future buildings. `lyo t,chk _;hnwed
those buildhng locations. ';here is amfrnnafion o` the localcxiof tit laistot is slnrchi is s, f herx was
cniuei':i that 4 the connno nen approves Ow roti}( o nSiru donnat !tris ineeting that the de!noht,fon
would automatically be approved. Synatschk explained that the infill construction CDC had to be
condihoo(d on both thr,demolition approval and the PUD mioning One action did not include the
other actions. If the di,molition or rezoning does not get approved, then the application for infill
would have to be changed.
Knight questioned the height of ,lien structure. Synatschk ;tatcd it would br 35 feet Econ grade -
Bain opened the Public I fearing and explained the process
Peter Data, ll0i Walnut, expressed i.ppreciadon. of thc, I "IARC efforts to review Most, issues_ Mr -
Dana expressed concern that the proposed buildings are too large for this nc ighborhood and the35
feet in height does not include the parapo[s that are depicted on the plans, so the actual heights of the
buildings are at least 38 feet from grade I le also expressed concern that there vvas not a review of the
patking lots for screening, the outdoor lightinf, would be too bright and there would be removal of
gees. He suggested a two story building would be -mitre welcome.
Susaun,Pirih, Chair of Georgetown 1leiitage Society, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ilan. The
C
ioard feels ,m talaartuuntcomplex developineut would he welcome as woutd adaptive rousoShe
explained that this infill construction does not meet ;the criteria of Chapter 14 of the Win
C;eudelinefor rehabilitation versus infill constiuctio,n. She cited that thk lrrolei t Should maintain 2
front yanl ahpearanee, he of human scale and match the character of the neighborhood, il,ey
disagree with tile supporting staff report and requested a denial of the: apphcahon by IS
Comrnssion.
Burn closed the l'ctbltc 1 leiaring w fits no o0ier �peakoi's con inn; forth.
Synaischk explained that Mr. Daiwa s concerns will be add tressed by ,toff during the review of the
actual site plan with the UDC requirements. Those items are not for review of flat, Commission-
Mr,Mcinfoshresponded that hc feria the application i> in compliance withall ihe,vgniremetats,
including 100%, im.per vious cover. An pad of the developfnwil standards, he is required to bring the
development to the street, as per urban developrnent Standards. And uicorpoiath, the use of the
Hento'wd:AtrhI ut r's1 I Z'vwwe,vnnv::nem NpSoni
Nloct i lane'.', ?0)"
sir ucrea�s that he e1111, 60"; ui IN, NoWi ng is gone, 80%a of the exterior for is,gone. the Comrnission
<,tnnot slop the demolition; i, can delay it, but not step it, >' ie is trying to provide a project that meets
the noods of [he community.
Motion by Knight to deny CDC application CDC -2015-020 based on the findings in the Design
Guidelines outlined on pages 145 and 140 as volt as Guideline 14.7, the project does not rnueet
setback requirements using a residential type setback; Guideline 24.4 does not provide a variety of
heights; and 14.13 a structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience. While this
project rneets some of the Guidelines in Chapter 74, it does not meet A the Goideiinesor the
spirit of the chapter. Second by Mee.
Dlscns} iOn Faurtucd. Knight stated she fools this way because the° r:cak' and mass of this building,
althoughbroken into niodulesassuggested, does not match the character of the other larger scala
buildings in the area. Synai-chic explaured that this pmper ly is in (lie Downtown Gateway Overlay
and ;heat bringing, the Shacturc Lip to the front of the lot meds the requirenums of that zonhig TWO
and Hot area. Knight argues chat Cornpahbility is not be rig inct. dohls explains that as bAnga
neighbor that limes chaseto ties Site; he undontand- thm to height is necessary to making this,
..
Ieas;ble, and would rather have We targe Adding than a run-down smaller one 1-1e stated that as
with tine C,eorgetonian, this new protect could e=nhance the neiFhborhood_
Winder questioned the Current zonings of the properly. It is cmTently zoned C-3. Reruning to MU-
D'I foimulh-family is one of the actions that rt s.,tilltobeundertaken, Winder questioned why this
revicyy was happening before thezonrng and demolition requests. Synatschk explained that Council
wants all reviews to be held Wkwo tromp to Council so therefore, d ii, rezoning hearing at Council will
be held alter the CDC hearing by IIARC. Winder stated that the character of University Avenue is a)
mixed rnrd diverse that she feels finis property is not out of chararwr with the other nearby structures.
Bain asked herr Sv nats irk to address the commissioner's colmmens. lie mpiAned that the Design
Ulidelines that were called out in file motion were written manily `or nsiclenilal infill and For`
commercial uses Tat an, being fhut in residential structures thou have been converted. The strict
setbacks for residential stondiiids do not fit the commercial aspect of th6� site on this urain road,
here was further discussion of meeting, this "mass and scale" that are called out in the g,4icleleses.
Winder suggested stepping back the third floor to inini nize the mass.
Knight also read from page 147 of the Guidehunes: "New construction in the historic district is
cncoun-agcd if the proposed detstfrl and s;f nip., an, iompa l able with [lie Gistr ui s oharac ter. When
srtmg nese construi tion, rompatibdity with existing sefb rt ks, the spacing of buudings, and the
orientation of buildings should be considered Compatibility of proposed Iaridscaprng, lighting,
pavily" signage; ,and accessory buildml s is also impoi-tant " lough[ feels the commission should
review all these items. Bohls discusses [hat the UDC calls :rut standards that are not part of this
review and they have to trust staff to reviewchose, items..
Winder a- kcd for hiss y and context of all buildings ce5mrng to the ce omission, even when it is not
demolition application.
(lain called the question. Knight reread. The vote was 3 —3. Mee; Knight and Brown voted for
denial. Winder, bohls and Bain voted against.
Motion by Winder to continue this item to the next I3ARC meeting to allow vile applicant to
I urther design the project and to provide ;inure resources for evaluation. No second. Motion died.
I ,'tome L1110. Atchdr viii al R� w� v otmh,,siott V004mr,
kwon l; lu W 25 Leila
l3ohls asked the applicant if he would be willing to build Ir is as<a two-story building. McIntosh
responded no because it would not mcct the economic criteria. He feels this project meets the rules
but was deniedbemuse the conundssioners don't like it.
heiv "as disoiYon over the word roinpiaibie" and how it should be inteipieted. No consensus.
Motion by Bohls to approve the application as submitted and conditionally upon the approvals (if
the demol€lion and rez.oning applications. Second by Bain. Vote was tied 3 —3. Winderr Bohls
and Bain voted for approval, Mee, Knight and Brown voted against, Without a Sour vote
approval, which is a majority, the application is denied.
i1le app!wani stated Ile did not wish to continue this item. lie will appeal the vote to Courici:l.
iiain called for a5 rninute break.
P. taiticussioi'r nrnd pos.,ililr anion to support the City's application for an update of the National 12ctste>r
DistnCis ivtatt `iv r.,rlsdu., i hstoncI'lariiter
Svi),ilscllle asked for support for the Cifv'Sapplimb n . 110s is a requitement of the application the
Ws consultant has provided the rerearch and in rition the report which will be submitted with the
appNmtutn ConnnAwknwr Winder asked that the Commissioner. -,a he .able to review the r cport before
it is nubirtitIcd. Sy a schk stated he +tiould send it iocrt.
Motion by Knight to approve the letter of recommendation for this application. Second by
Winder. Approved 6-0.
G consideraiion and possible,nction to appoint the inembers of the I li storicFcsuurce Survey
Subcommitice-'viattSviiaischk,t istorisHannor
Synatschk explained staff wishes to create, the Historic Rrsource Sarvey Suhconimittec to assist siall
througIaout the sur vee process. rile Sulvey Subcommittee Will work with City staff and the selected
Project considtant In rnainage 111e survoy ,orojccl and l)i'ovide Update,; to the 1 lis'loric and
ArchileCllirai kuview Commission. I1nc Subcommiltec. will worn: closoly with staff to ensure ti nctly
urntileholl of tho survey snd assistwith the coordination of additional research and identifying
stakeholders for inclusion in tho process.
Arnde VI of Iliel talvrtc-and Aii,hi'cclnral Rcvtcuv Coiint.rssion bs-laces aulhori�,cs the Conuniss,otn
to create=subcammitiees for specific projects rolatod to Commission matlors Subcommittees with
nor niennhcrs require City Council approval prior to thcir iomnauon. Council approved the
Subcommittee on jure 9, 2015.
Me proposed Surti'cy Subcoinintte, will be comprised of the following pcohne
1. l listoric and Architectural Review Commission Chair or designee 2. City of Georgetown Pianninr;
1)ircct:oi or designee; 3. Chief Building Official or designee; 4. Citizen at Large with w i nterestrin
historic preserc"aiion, and S C;eorgetown I leritage Society President or desiguec,
Motion by Knight to approve the Subconimhtee as submitted with Renee Hanson nominated for
the: Citizen at I. arge position. Second by Mee. Approved 6 -- t).
I i. Considc ruuoii_and possible action to appoint I.Deinolition Subcommittee and establish a n.eeting date.
Frost requested rcviewinsg the atnended bylaws, then appointing the Demolition Subconirnittee.
Fhcbyiaws were reviewed, including the addition of the Dennolihou Subcouiniiifee and oinission of
111swnc meiAldllt. uuaS: R,wu6
hi. of mt� hi(ie _+ 'Or5
the tiigri 5n bcomm rl tce.
Non'(ina6cfn by Mee to appoint Nancy Knight and Shawn Hood to the t)enaolitiuo Subcommittee.
Dave Miall, the Building Official is already named to the subcormnittee. Second by Winder.
Approved 6-- 0.
the group agreed to meet on the second Monday of each month at WO p.m. and at 4:00 pita. on the
regular meeting dates of the fourth Thursday, as needed.
1. Discussion on revisions proposed to Certain application checldisis, review processes and other
depor'tmont nperalions to ({niform to ihr May 2015 L )C Amendm nits cInd new Certificate of
Approprial ne5s proc.ss.
Davila presented a quick overview of the checklists and prnblicahon in regards tea the new
iegulanuu,. Commera� amt queshons nray be dirrcked to her.
): Yiesenta[ion of z'evt:;ed blrlaw;, asapprneed i5y Cil}� C`owicuonjwlc23, 201_5.
See item 11. above.
1 011eStiMIS and CPII1111 1,15 bruin Crrrnmissionet-s in Tra nine.
:'here were no quvs[iors.
L Lpdate.� from Stall'and reminder of future nawetings
Syiiatschk staled the I hstoric Resource. Survey SubcomlmitCe IYOUld be IaMr in tae mond-r.
hr Demolition'Iubcominittee would nrcr•t via Jule 1.11" to discus' ,an application for 605 6. Liniver' ity,
and thr- r eK,u 101 T11 CIII Ig will be IwId Off i niy 23-, as sched u led.
Adjournment. Motion by main to idjo_nn, second by Knight. 'l'hemeeting
Approved, Lea Bain, Chair
I II%t llt and A; fuL,,tura) R,Vw" C[3nnl I's fpn
M,roimg )wic. h? ?1015
Attc,st,Riehai{d R1cIe
adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
P'Ipo 1, cr(>