Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_04.28.2016City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7�, Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice -Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood; Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero. Commissioners in Training present: Michael Friends and Lynn Williams Commissioners absent: Jan Daum Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2016 meeting. Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Romero. Approved 7 - 0. Item E was discussed next. C. Nomination and election of Vice -Chair and Secretary of Commission. Nomination by Mee, second by Romero to elect Nancy Knight as Vice -Chair. Approved 7 - 0. Nomination by Knight, second by Bohls to elect Lawrence Romero as Secretary. Approved 7 - 0. D. Discussion and possible action to appoint the members of the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. Nancy Knight and Shawn Hood volunteered. The Commission approved their appointment 7 - 0. E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations and infill construction for the property located at 1104 South Church Street bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, B lock 221/2, Lot 1, 2 (P T ), 0.27 acres. Synatschk presented the staff report. The property is located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay district and most recently served as a professional office. The current owner wishes to return it to residential use. The request includes the addition of a carport along the western wall of the structure, the construction of a new 1.5 story detached garage and the installation of an additional column on the front porch. The carport design incorporates simplified interpretations of the structures style, utilizing a different type of brick to differentiate the new construction from the original house. The roof height will not extend beyond the height of the current roofline, creating further differentiation for the project. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 The proposed accessory structure will incorporate modern interpretations of the existing style, but will utilize new windows and materials to differentiate the new construction. The size and massing for the infill project is appropriate for the site, and it will be set back from the primary structure. The structure measures 26' wide by 26' long, with an approximate height of 25' at the peak. The structure will be clad with hardi-siding with modern windows and a metal roof. The use of modern materials, including windows and the garage door will help differentiate the structure from the existing historic structure. In addition, the proposed structure will utilize square columns, contrasting with the tapered columns on the original house. The proposed porch column is not appropriate for the project. The porch design often incorporates one or more middle low piers without a column, as seen on this structure. In addition, UDC Section 4.08.050.A states that "The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided." The middle pier without a porch column is a distinctive feature of the architectural style and should be preserved to protect the historic integrity of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the project without the additional column. Bryant Boyd, the architect for the project spoke and explained that the front porch beam is sagging and needs the additional column to add support to the middle and prohibit any more sagging. Otherwise the homeowners will have to take apart the front of the house to replace the beam with a steel beam, at a much larger expense. He also presented several pictures of houses in the area that have the additional column and some that did not. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Commissioners asked if adding the column would change the status of the structure in the Historic Resource Survey. Synatschk stated probably not, that it was not a substantial enough change. Commissioners debated and considered the safety issues and expense to replace the beam. Motion by Eason to approve the COA as presented by the applicant, including the column on the front porch. Second by Mee. Approved 7 - 0. F. Discussion and possible action to specify a materials list for applicants to include in HARC packets for COA. Commissioner Knight opened the discussion. She explained that she feels there are issues with clarity between the changes that were made to the UDC and how the applications and checklists are being applied by staff. Her concern is that the commission is not receiving enough information on projects to make the decisions that are called for based on Chapters 6 and 14 of the Design Guidelines. Sofia Nelson, the Planning Director, explained that staff is always willing to work with the applicant and the commission. She feels the conflicts come during review of the bigger projects and those that have a mixed-use element. The applicants feel they are not getting enough feedback from the commission, but the commission feels they do not have enough information to give constructive feedback. The applicants have stated they don't want to spend too much money on the design of the project, including specific details, if the commission is not going to like it. Commissioners and staff discussed ways of discussing the projects with the applicants so Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 everyone gets what they need to move forward. For example, a commissioner could state: "Based on what you have shown us, the windows are proportionate but I need some more information on these materials. I am not quite comfortable with ... ". Synatschk suggested that commissioners can use specific Guidelines as examples to explain what they need to see, during the Concept Plan review. There was further discussion that applicants who bring in "options" for the commission are not helpful. This causes problems with the review. The applicants should come to the commission prepared to present the entire project, including details on exterior elements and how the project meets the Guidelines. Nelson agreed that the applications should be complete before coming before the commission and reminded the commission that we were all on the same team, working towards the same end goal of historic preservation while enhancing the quality of life and economy for the community. There was further discussion that the Guidelines' requirements are not specific enough and that is where some of the conflict comes into play. Chair Bain invited public comment and J.J. Parker of Timber Hitch Court asked to speak. She stated she appreciates all the hours the Board spends serving on the commission. She has been hearing good things about the Downtown, but hears that developers don't want to be told no and that HARC produces an extra hurdle for them. She thinks asking for materials should be a suggestion, not a requirement. No other speakers came forth. Knight stated she is not asking for an additional requirement for the applicants, only that they be made to provide what is already required. Eason suggested making sure everyone, including the applicant and commissioners, know what type of application is being reviewed and possibly outlining what requirements are needed for which type of project. Hood asks that all applications be fully reviewed and complete before being submitted to the commission for a COA. Nelson responded that it is not the intent to submit partial applications and that staff will work on educating everyone and clarifying the application types through Mates reports. G. Review and update of the Downtown Overlay District Parking Study Synatschk reported on the parking study and said that it showed that the people that had the most complaints about parking downtown were business owners and residents. Visitors did not have many complaints. He pointed out that the new parking lot at 8th and Rock was being utilized a lot, along with the city lot at 96, and Main Streets. There is a move to name the parking lots and he will take any suggestions for those names. He also explained that there is money in this year's budget for additional signage and restriping. That work will be done this summer. H. Updates from staff on future meetings and current projects. Synatschk reported that the Historic Resource Study is still being worked on. The consultants have reviewed approximately 4000 properties in the field and are now working on the reports in the office. Next month (May) is Preservation Month and an activity is planned for every weekend. Starting with a Historical Marker Workshop on May Th at 9 a.m. in Founders Park. There will be a proclamation at the City Council meeting on May 1011,. May 14th — Georgetown Heritage Society is working with the Williamson Museum for Pioneer Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 Day on the Square. The Demolition Subcommittee will meet on Monday May 91" at 2:30 p.m. The next regular HARC meeting will be Thursday, May 261". Motion by Knight, second by Romero to adjourn at 7:16 p.m. Approved 7 - 0. Lam--- �� A. -W, -- Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 28, 2016 Attest, Lawrence Romero Page 4 of 4