HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_10.27.2016Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
October 27, 2016 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Co mmis s ion may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene an Executive S es s io n at the reques t
of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any p urp o s e autho rized by the Op en
Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code C hapter 551.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff P res entation
Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.)
Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
Comments fro m Citizens *
Applic ant Res p o nse
Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s
Commis s ion Ac tion
* Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing
sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the
Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes o f the September 22, 2016 regular meeting.
C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior
alterations fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 1264 South Church S treet bearing the legal d es criptio n o f Lo gan
Ad d ition, Bloc k 1, Lo t 5-6, 4 (E/PT) (CDC -2016-034).
D Co mments o r Ques tions by Co mmis s ioners -in-Training.
E Up d ates on Do wntown Projec ts and Events
Page 1 of 29
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 29
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 27, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes of the Sep tember 22, 2016 regular meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC_Minutes _09.22.2016 Backup Material
Page 3 of 29
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: September 22, 2016
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th 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: CIT, Jan Daum
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic District 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 August 22, 2016 regular meeting.
Eason asked that Hood’s suggestion to add a minaret at the theater black box as a solution for
different material on the building be added to the minutes. A correction on the number of
students that have attended the Palace camps, should be 600.
Motion by Eason to approve the minutes with the corrections. Second by Knight. Approved 7
– 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
exterior alterations to the street facing façade for the property located at 1600 Elm Street, bearing
the legal description of Southside Addition, (resub Blk Pt 1), Lot s 1 and 3, o.374 acres.
This item was opened after Item D.
Synatschk reported the applicant is requesting the removal of an existing historic porch, replacing
it with a new porch designed to match the porch on the east side of the structure. The application
was initiated after Code Enforcement issued a Stop Work Order for the project. The historic porch
along the north façade was removed, and partial construction of the new porch was in progress.
The 1984 survey form evaluated the current structure for its significance, determining it to be a
Low priority structure. The property was reevaluated in 2007, with the priority upgraded to
Medium priority. A survey form was not produced in conjunction with the 2007 evaluation. The
draft results of the 2016 historic resource survey reduced the priority from Medium to Low due to
the non-historic alterations along the east façade.
The structure was significantly altered in 2012 with the construction of two porches on the east
façade of the structure. The 2012 City of Georgetown aerial photos document the construction of a
new slab for an accessory structure, and slabs for the porches. In addition, the March 2011 Google
Street View images document the construction of the new porches. The Craftsman style columns
Page 4 of 29
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: September 22, 2016
match those of the 2006 accessory building in design and materials. Therefore, the east porches
are not historic components of the structure.
The project at 1600 Elm Street was not reviewed by staff prior to commencing work. If staff had
been able to review the proposal before the applicant started work on the porch, staff’s
recommendation would have been that a flat roofed porch, extending to the left of the historic
porch, would have been the appropriate treatment for the structure. The design would have
accomplished the applicant’s goal while highlighting the historic details of the structure. Staff’s
recommendation for the project would have included a design with a flat roof that highlighted
the historic character defining porch, while creating the required differentiation for new
construction.
The proposed project does not comply with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines
because it results in the removal of a character defining feature, loss of a significant stylistic
element and creates a new feature that is inconsistent with the structure. The HARC has the
authority to request that the applicant reconstruct the lost character defining feature and request a
design that incorporates that feature into an expanded porch.
Chair Bain asked why the 2011 renovations were allowed to occur. Synatschk explained that the
porches in Old Town were not reviewed by HARC at that time. Scott and Linda Wilkins were
present to answer questions from the Commission. They stated they had lived in the house for 25
years and did not realize the porches were historic, they only knew they were from another
structure and not stable.
Eason stated that homeowners not knowing their homes are historic is a major problem and the
city needs to notify homeowners better than has been done in the past. Synatschk said
homeowners would be notified with the new Historic Resource Survey publication. Eason and
Knight agreed the homeowners in the area do not necessarily know when to submit for a permit.
Nelson said the city will work on education of the public, but the applicants for this item fall
under the Unified Development Code and Design Guidelines regulations.
There was further discussion of ways to better educate homeowners in the Downtown and Old
Town overlay districts of the regulations that affect their homes. Synatschk reminded everyone
that the new street signs for the districts would help delineate the differences of the areas, helping
to identify that houses are in historic districts and could have specific historic significance.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
Lisa Gustavson of 1610 S. Elm Street spoke in support of the applicants’ request. She said she had
not heard about HARC and the regulations until recently and she has lived here since 2005. She
presented examples of houses in the neighborhood with similar pillars and features.
Amy Baker of 1503 Elm Street spoke in support of the project. She has lived in her house since
2002 and was aware of HARC but felt that some of the permits required are not clear. “Some
maintenance” language is confusing when trying to determine if a permit is needed or not.
Eric Loyd of 1607 Elm Street supports the applicants’ request. He wrote a letter stating the same.
He also explained that some of the house was destroyed by a falling tree and therefore they
should be allowed to replace the damaged area.
Michael Kamen of 1604 Church Street supports the request and thinks the house will be
Page 5 of 29
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: September 22, 2016
consistent with the rest of the neighborhood’s character.
Chair Bain closed the public hearing with no more speakers coming forth.
Romero commented that the process was confusing but it is still the obligation of the
homeowners to take the responsibility to ask questions before doing any work.
Motion by Knight to approve the application as presented by the applicants. Second by Hood.
The discussion continued about the fact that Realtors don’t know about historic structures and the
process to renovate or remodel them, so they are not helping the new homeowners. And the title
companies are not telling homeowners that properties have historic significance. They all agreed
that the homeowners should not be penalized for trying to improve their home. Hood suggested
the Planning Department work closer with realtors and homeowners and try to be proactive by
educating people about the design guidelines and application of those guidelines.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7 – 0.
D. Public hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential addition for the property located at 1605 South Church Street bearing the legal
description of Southside Addition, Block 1 (W/PT), 0.15 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to add 263 square feet to an
existing structure. It is on the corner and will be differentiated by a setback and different
materials. Staff recommends approval.
Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no citizens coming forth closed it.
Motion by Eason to approve the COA for 1605 South Church Street as submitted. Second by
Bohls. Approved 7 – 0.
E. Comments or Questions by Commissioners-in-Training
Michael Friends asked questions about the porches and why what was appropriate for some were
not appropriate for others. Hood explained that although a porch and pillar design looked like
houses around the neighborhood, the design had to be consistent with the house style that it was
being built for.
F. Updates on current projects and future meetings.
• Austin Avenue Bridges are still being reviewed. Go to austinavenue@georgetown.org for
more details.
• Historic Resource Survey: work is ongoing by the consultants. They are working on the
forms and the GIS map. Staff is expecting a draft report by the end of October. There will
be notifications of public meetings and a comment period for homeowners to meet with
the consultants and/or staff.
• Table on Main is being held on October 2, 2016. Tickets are available through the Main
Street Program.
• Downtown Lowdown will be held on October 19th at Roots Bistro on the Square.
• The next HARC meeting will be Thursday, October 27th.
• The next Breakfast Bites meeting will be held November 16th.
Page 6 of 29
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: September 22, 2016
Adjournment
Motion by Knight, second by Romero to adjourn at 6:55 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
___________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 7 of 29
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 27, 2016
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s (COA) fo r exterior
alteratio ns for the property lo cated at 1264 S o uth Churc h Street b earing the legal des c rip tion of Logan
Additio n, Blo c k 1, Lot 5-6, 4 (E/P T) (CDC-2016-034).
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for exterio r alteratio ns to the south and east
facades o f the Medium P rio rity struc ture. Ac c ording to the sub mitted letter of intent, the applic ant wis hes
to reconfigure a porc h o n the south faç ad e, replac e the fro nt door and enc los e a s ec o nd flo o r balc o ny on
the east faç ade.
Staff rec o mmend s approval with c o nditio ns of the reques t b as ed on the find ings that the req uest meets the
ap p ro val criteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC ), as outlined in the attached
Staff Rep o rt.
The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
COA-2016-034 Staff Report Backup Material
COA-2016-034 Plan Review Backup Material
Page 8 of 29
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2016‐034 1264 South Church Street Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: October 27, 2016
File Number: COA‐2016‐034
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior
alterations for the property located at 1264 South Church Street bearing the legal description of Logan
Addition, Block 1, Lot 5‐6, 4 (E/PT).
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Ross Residence Remodel Project
Applicant: Carl Illig
Property Owner: Dale and Mickie Ross
Property Address: 1264 South Church Street
Legal Description: Logan Addition, Block 1, Lot 5‐6, 4 (E/PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1913
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium
2007 ‐ Medium
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting the following changes to the medium priority structure:
1. Remove two doors in the south façade, and install single door
2. Remove existing window from a non‐historic addition along the south façade
3. Construct new porch railing on the south porch
4. Enclose second floor porch on the east façade
5. Install new front door in the east façade
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
4.1 Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail Complies
4.2 Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building. Complies
Page 9 of 29
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2016‐034 1264 South Church Street Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows
and doors in a building wall.
Does not comply
6.13 Preserve the functional and decorative features of an historic window or
door.
Complies
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to
the original design as closely as possible.
Complies
6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings to solid wall. Does not comply
6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque materials. Does not comply
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic
Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting several exterior changes to the Medium Priority historic structure as part of
a comprehensive renovation of the interior of the structure. The original 1913 structure was a single
story residence, later expanded and divided in to multiple residential units, resulting in an inefficient
floor plan for the structure.
The proposed change to the south façade will result in the removal of two existing doors, replacing
them with a single door. In addition, a non‐historic window will be removed from the 2008 addition.
The addition extended the south façade to the west, creating additional living space inside the
structure. The wood siding will be replaced in kind to create a consistent wall. The removal of the door
returns the single door configuration documented on the original structure. Removing the window will
create a larger expanse of blank wall, which is partially obscured by a tree and will be further obscured
by new landscaping. The final change to the south façade includes the removal of the porch steps and
installation of a new railing, matching the existing railing on the east porch. These changes will return
the south façade to a secondary entrance, emphasizing the primary entrance on South Church Street.
These changes are supported by the historic documentation and are appropriate for the structure.
The project includes enclosing the 2nd floor balcony on the east façade of the structure. The balcony is
not original to the structure, and was added when the 2nd floor was created. The South façade has a
similar design element, and serves as the design guide for the proposed change. The existing columns
will be retained and incorporated in to the design, as shown in the renderings. Although the guidelines
discourage enclosing historic porches and balconies, this change is appropriate because the change
involves an addition to the structure.
The final requested change is the replacement of the primary door in the east façade with a new door.
The proposed design includes enlarging the existing opening for a new door, with a different
configuration than the historic arrangement. However, the historic photo does not provide a full view
of the original door, but does not show the proposed sidelights. Based on this information, the
proposed change is not in compliance with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
Page 10 of 29
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2016‐034 1264 South Church Street Page 3 of 4
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
A. The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
Residential Single Family (RS) zoning
district design guidelines.
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,
specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay
District;
The project complies with the Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines as noted
in the staff analysis.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed exterior changes preserve the
integrity of the historic structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
No new buildings or additions are proposed
with this project.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the surrounding historic
properties.
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted
design standards, and are not in character with
the site or landmarks within the Historic or
applicable Overlay District in question will not be
permitted.
No signage is proposed with this project.
H. The following may also be considered by the
HARC when determining whether to approve a
Certificate for Design Compliance:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
The proposed project limits the alterations
on the exterior of the structure, reducing the
overall impact. The changes do not reduce
the historic significance of the structure, nor
create an adverse effect for the surrounding
Old Town Overlay District.
These changes do not have any significant
impact upon the character defining features
of the property.
Page 11 of 29
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2016‐034 1264 South Church Street Page 4 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the changes to the south façade, and
enclosing the 2nd floor balcony on the east façade. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the
new primary entrance door, excluding the sidelights.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding this project.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 12 of 29
Page 13 of 29
Page 14 of 29
Page 15 of 29
South Elevation
16th Street
Page 16 of 29
Page 17 of 29
Page 18 of 29
Page 19 of 29
Page 20 of 29
Page 21 of 29
East Elevation
Church Street
Page 22 of 29
Page 23 of 29
Page 24 of 29
Page 25 of 29
Page 26 of 29
Page 27 of 29
Page 28 of 29
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 27, 2016
SUBJECT:
Updates on Downto wn P ro jects and Events
ITEM SUMMARY:
1. Aus tin Avenue Bridges
2. His toric Res ourc e Survey
3. December 8th HAR C Meeting
4. His toric Dis tric t S treet S igns
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
Page 29 of 29