HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_12.12.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
December 12, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The H istor ic and Ar chite ctural R evie w Commission, appointed by the
M ayor and the C ity Counc il, is re sponsible for he aring and taking final
ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppropriateness base d upon
the City C ouncil adopte d Downtown De sign Guide line s and Unifie d
De ve lopme nt Code.
Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s:
· S taff P re se ntation
· Applic ant P r esentation (L imited to ten minutes unle ss state d
othe rwise by the C ommission.)
· Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant
· C omments from C itize ns *
· Applic ant Re sponse
· C ommission De libe rative P roc ess
· C ommission A ction
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the
r oom, to the r ec ording se cr etar y be for e the item the y wish to addre ss be gins.
E ach speaker will be pe rmitte d to addr ess the Commission one time only for
a maximum of thre e minute s.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the O ctober 10, 2019 regular meeting of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an
alteration to a commerc ial property located at 712 S . Austin Avenue, bearing the legal des cription of
G eorgetown C ity O f, BLO C K 41, Lot 5(P T ), AC R ES 0.06. (2019-66-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k,
Downtown & Historic P lanner
C Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Page 1 of 30
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 12, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the O c tober 10, 2019 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
Attached.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.None
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 30
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2
Meeting: October 10, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
October 10, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Amanda Parr; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Steve Johnston; Pam Mitchell;
Lawrence Romero; Terri Asendorf-Hyde;
Absent: Josh Schroeder; Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst;
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Romero filling in for the Chair at 6:02 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 26, 2019 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item A by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Parr.
Approved (7-0).
B. Public Hearing and possible action for the demolition of a low priority structure located in the
Old Town Overlay District, located at 1304 E. 15th Street. – Nathaniel Waggoner, Long Range
Planning Manager
Nelson informed the Commission that the applicant had made a change and would like present
to the Commission first before the staff report.
The applicants, Paul Morris and Shawn Boyd, addressed the Commission. The applicants
presented pictures of the home and described the issues with the home’s structure and stability.
The house was identified as a low priority structure, which is why the applicants applied for a
demolition. However, after speaking with department staff, the applicants decided to instead
only request for demolition of the newest additions to the structure. The applicants commented
on roofing issues, lack of structural support, plumbing and electrical issues, and foundation
issues. There will be a significantly lower cost to update the issues to the core structure of the
house rather than the entire house including additions.
Waggoner provided an overview of the relocation, removal, or demolition criteria from the
UDC. The staff report was then presented by Waggoner. The one-story residential structure
located at 1304 E 15th Street is identified as a low priority structure in the 2016, medium priority
structure in the 2007 and was not included in the 1984 Historic Resources Surveys Reports
(HRSR) completed by the City of Georgetown. The estimated date of construction is 1949. The
2016 HRSR indicates a “Ranch” stylistic influence with an irregular plan. Additions to the
original structure include an enclosed garage and a carport. To date, staff has received one (1)
written comment in favor of the demolition. This low priority structure is compatible with other
ranch style homes in the area and remains habitable and repairable.
Page 4 of 30
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2
Meeting: October 10, 2019
Waggoner also commented that on August 22, the demolition subcommittee toured the
property. The original structure is still recognizable and can be preserved. There are original
materials that can be of salvage value. The subcommittee recommends denial of the request for
demolition of the structure.
Waggoner explained the approval options to the Commission: approval, approval with
conditions, disapproval, and delay where final action must be taken within 35 days.
Commissioner Mitchell asked the applicants how long they have lived in the house for, and
what changes were discussed with the applicant. Waggoner explained that there was discussion
about the additions to the original structure that are creating issues. Although the application
was initially for a full demolition, the applicant has reconsidered salvaging the original
structure.
Commissioner Romero opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Commissioner Parr commented on her observations during the tour. She is opposed to the full
demolition of the structure and would like to walk through again to look at the additions that
have been made.
Commissioner Romero described his observations during the tour and commented that this
does not meet the criteria for a demolition. He also would like to go back and tour the house
again.
Waggoner clarified the voting options for the Commission. The applicant commented that the
current condition of the house is not the best, but there are safety concerns.
Motion to approve Item B by Commissioner Johnston.
Motion to approve Item B with conditions, where the demolition is restricted to any addition
that is not core to the primary structure of the house, by Commissioner Mitchell. Second by
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Motion passes (4-3) with Commissioners Romero, Parr, and
Johnston opposed.
C. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson informed the Commission that notifications regarding attendance will be sent out from
the Mayor. There will not be a meeting on October 24th as there are no items on the agenda.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Parr. Second by Commissioner Morales. Meeting adjourned
at 6:55 pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Page 5 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 12, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for an
alteration to a c ommercial property loc ated at 712 S . Aus tin Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription of
G eorgetown C ity O f, BLO C K 41, Lot 5(P T ), AC R ES 0.06. (2019-66-C O A) – Britin Bostick,
Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p lic ant is reques ting HAR C approval fo r the mo d ificatio n o f the existing ground floor storefront,
which is no t original to the build ing, to return the façade to an ap p earanc e mo re c o ns is tent with two story
buildings o f the turn o f the 20th c entury time period. T he new façade would have an ins et d o uble d o o r for
the first floor, a left s id e door fo r the interior s tair lead ing to the sec o nd flo o r, and a deep metal awning
reminisc ent of the deep awning vis ib le in his toric pho tos o f the b uilding. Ad d itionally, the build ing would
have a new paint sc heme, new up p er flo o r windows to replac e the exis ting wo o d windows and new bric k
on the gro und floor faç ad e to replac e the painted b ric k that was mo d ified fo r the non-o riginal s torefront
installation.
Based on the findings lis ted ab o ve, staff rec ommends AP P R O VAL of the req uest fo r alteratio ns to the
façade of this high-p rio rity s truc ture, with the exceptio n that the wo o d windows on the upper flo o r be
repaired and repainted rather than replaced. T he propos ed façade design is c onsistent with the Design
G uidelines as well as with build ings of that era and with the Do wntown His toric District, and the proposed
des ign enhanc es the Dis tric t by returning ground level features that are characteris tic of buildings from the
Vic torian era and by removing features that were not character-enhanc ing.
Public Comment
None at the time of this posting.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit
Staff Report Cover Memo
Page 6 of 30
To HARC:
Our family is very excited to rejuvenate the Doering Building on the west side of the square. Once we were able
to acquire the building, we met with both the owner and discussed historic attributes with prior tenants of the
building. Unfortunately, we were not able to find out a whole lot of information. In order to be the best
stewards possible of the building, we have re-pointed the limestone façade at the rear of the building. Now we
are seeking your support to renovate the façade and restore the integrity of this historic building.
The first structure appears to have been built on this site in 1885, and then through a couple of phased builds
was replaced by the current structure in 1895(ish). As previously mentioned, the western side is not as
photographed as the rest of the square. There are only a few direct photos of the Doering Building, but you can
see a few different façade and awning styles over the life the building. We began our research process with
Kim McAuliffe and the Main Street Program of the Texas Historic Commission. We’ve also looked through the
Williamson County museum, Georgetown Library, and publications by Donna Scarbrough Josey related to the
square (Georgetown: Then and Now / Georgetown: Images of America). Recently, we met with Ms. Britin
Bostick to consult on our ideas to date to ensure we were fulfilling the City’s intent. The items we are focusing
on restoring, pursuant to Chapters 6, 9 and 11 of the Design Guidelines are as follows:
Façade-
A. Paint- – Christian Prado (THC) helped to provide us with a sample of appropriate color schemes for this
building. Given the coloration of the original brick facade, we prefer the dark green and cream color
scheme with black accents. To address Sections 11.1-11.3, our family conducted the research
described above to try to achieve a likeness from the historic photos. Granted the photos are in black
and white, but the intent seems consistent. Additionally, we will do our best to match the original
brick. We are adding a separate entry to the second floor, consistent with secondary access of other
buildings on square. This is a similar color scheme consistent with the neighboring buildings. Pursuant
to Section 11.6, we would like to highlight some of the beautiful detail in the second story tin features.
We have attached indicative color samples. We have included pictures of the proposed color samples:
Jasper (Dark Green), Sand Dollar (Cream) and Caviar (Black).
B. Windows. The sizing, location and limestone lintels of the windows define this building as referenced in
Sections 6.1-6.3. We would like to keep the exact look of the transoms and upper story windows, but
put in a double paned product to help with efficiencies. Lower floor glass will need to be replaced to
bring back the historic façade. As with other buildings on the east and west, throughout the day, the
second floor heats substantially. Further, there is evidence of past leaks and wood rot on the second
story. Given the cost of the interior renovation and of the façade, we want to preserve that as best as
possible. We are looking at an Anderson A-series product similar to the replacement windows in the
nearby David Love Building- double hung, double-paned and custom sized to fit the existing locations.
The first floor windows will also need a custom cut, but we request they be double paned. This will
comply with Sections 6.12, 6.13 and 6.16 of the Design Guidelines.
C. Awning. Working again with Christian, we were given some historically appropriate options for awnings.
We preferred the metal awning for the clean line and classic look, as well as its durability. Besides
restoring a historical feature, the awning has practical attributes, providing welcome shade for
pedestrians, shielding the merchandise on the ground floor from direct sun, and providing shelter when
those crazy Texas storms blow in. We have attached an example of a black standing seam metal roof.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
The Doering Building
Page 7 of 30
We are happy to answer any questions that you might have, and are looking forward to starting this
project!
Sincerely,
Kristofer Kasper
Page 8 of 30
Page 9 of 30
HISTORIC PHOTOS
Page 10 of 30
Page 11 of 30
Page 12 of 30
Page 13 of 30
Page 14 of 30
Page 15 of 30
Page 16 of 30
Page 17 of 30
EXAMPLE OF AWNING – BLACK STANDING SEAM METAL
Proposed Color Scheme, Awning and Signage for the David Love Building
Page 18 of 30
WINDOW DETAIL
Page 19 of 30
Page 20 of 30
HISTORIC CHRONOLOGY OF DOERING BUILDING
Page 21 of 30
Page 22 of 30
SURVEY AND PLOT PLANS
Page 23 of 30
Page 24 of 30
MAIN STREET RENDERINGS/TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION
Page 25 of 30
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019‐66‐COA – 712 S. Austin Ave. Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: Thursday, December 12, 2019
File Number: 2019‐66‐COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
alteration to a commercial property located at 712 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of
Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 41, Lot 5(PT), ACRES 0.06.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Doering Building
Applicant: Kristofer Kasper
Property Owner: Opossum Creek LLC
Property Address: 712 S. Austin Avenue
Legal Description: Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 41, Lot 5(PT), ACRES 0.06
Historic Overlay: Downtown Historic Overlay District
Case History: COA‐2017‐001 – Business Signage
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1895 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street‐facing façade (Contributing High
Priority Historic Structure)
Awning or Canopy (Contributing High Priority Historic Structure)
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non‐historic architectural feature (Contributing
High Priority Historic Structure)
HPO:
Changes to paint color on previously painted surfaces (Contributing Historic Structure)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The current ground floor storefront configuration is not original to the building. Returning the ground
floor façade to a design consistent with the time period in which the building was constructed, returning
the structural columns and foundation to the interior of the building and installing a metal awning that
is consistent with the awning visible in historic photos of the building are all appropriate for this high‐
priority structure. The addition of the door on the left to provide access to the interior stair is consistent
Page 26 of 30
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019‐66‐COA – 712 S. Austin Ave. Page 2 of 5
both with designs of that era and with indications of a stair once in place in that location. First floor
construction materials of brick, Douglas Fir and new storefront are consistent with rehabilitating the
façade while also not creating a false narrative that this is the original storefront.
The replacement of the upper windows with non‐historic materials is not consistent with the Design
Guidelines and is not appropriate. Repairing the wood windows as needed and repainting is the
recommendation of Chapter 6 of the Guidelines.
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
CHAPTER 6
6.3 If a storefront is altered, restoring it to the original
design is preferred.
If evidence of the original design is missing,
use a simplified interpretation of similar
storefronts. The storefront still should be
designed to provide interest to pedestrians.
Note that, in some cases, an original storefront
may have been altered early in the history of
the building, and may itself have taken on
significance. Such alterations should be
preserved.
See also Preservation Briefs #11: Rehabilitating
Historic Storefronts, published by the National
Park Service.
Complies
Storefront from a recent modification is
being removed and replaced with a design
more consistent with the building’s time
period as identified in Exhibit 2.
6.15 Repair wood features by patching, piecing‐in,
consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood.
Avoid the removal of damaged wood that can
be repaired.
Rebuild or repair portions of existing window
frames, sashes, sills, or portions thereof, rather
than replacing complete windows unless it is
technically infeasible to do so.
See also Preservation Briefs #9: The Repair of
Historic Wooden Windows, published by the
National Park Service.
Does Not Comply
Applicant proposes to replace wood
windows.
Page 27 of 30
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019‐66‐COA – 712 S. Austin Ave. Page 3 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary,
match the replacement to the original as closely as
possible.
Preserve the original casing, when feasible.
If the original is double‐hung, then the
replacement window should also be double‐
hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match
the replacement also in the number and
position of glass panes.
Very ornate windows or doors that are not
appropriate to the building’s architectural
style are inappropriate.
Using the same material (wood) is preferred.
Partially Complies
New windows are proposed to be consistent
with design of original, but of a different
exterior material.
CHAPTER 7
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period
than that of the building are inappropriate.
Complies
Design character of building is clear and
proposed alterations are consistent with
original time period.
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or
Medium Priority Historic Structure should be
preserved and their historic character retained.
Due to special circumstances, a structure’s
historic priority may change over time
(because a reduced number of similar style
structures in stable condition still exist within
the district or city, or if unknown historic
information becomes available that adds
significance).
Complies
Proposed alterations do not diminish
historic character.
CHAPTER 10
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall‐
mounted brackets, chains, and posts.
Consider using a contemporary interpretation
of those canopies seen historically.
Complies
The proposed metal canopy is a
contemporary interpretation of the fabric
awning seen in the historic photos.
CHAPTER 11
11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building
that coordinates all the façade elements.
Using the historic color scheme is encouraged.
Complies
Page 28 of 30
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019‐66‐COA – 712 S. Austin Ave. Page 4 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
Choose a base color that will link elements of
the entire building face together. It can tie
signs, ornamentation, awnings, and entrances
together. It can also help the building better
relate to others on the block.
A single color scheme should be used for the
entire exterior so upper and lower floors and
subordinate wings of buildings are seen as
components of a single structure.
Applicant worked with the Texas Main
Street Program to develop an appropriate
color scheme for the entire façade.
11.2 Paint colors should enhance individual building
elements while creating a unified, coordinated
appearance for the entire structure.
Paint colors and placement should create a
cohesive look for the structure. There should
be one main color on the body of the building
to unify the façade.
Choose colors for trim, accents, and
architectural details that complement the main
color on the body of the structure.
Consider the palette of surrounding structures
to create a harmonized appearance along the
block face.
Complies
Proposed paint color scheme highlights
architectural features and compliments the
unpainted brick façade color.
11.6 Paint colors should highlight architectural details.
Plan painting to use more than one color. It is
inappropriate to allow architectural details to
be camouflaged by painting them the same
color as the background of the structure.
Strong or bold colors can be appropriate for
trim, accents, and architectural details.
Complies
Paint color scheme uses three colors to
highlight and differentiate architectural
details.
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
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Page 29 of 30
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019‐66‐COA – 712 S. Austin Ave. Page 5 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interiorʹs
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies – Does Not Comply with
Standard 6. Deteriorated Historic Features
Shall Be Repaired Rather Than Replaced
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies – Complies with the
Applicable Design Guidelines Excepting
6.15 and 6.20
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable – No Signage Included
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for alterations to the
façade of this high‐priority structure, with the exception that the wood windows on the upper floor be
repaired and repainted rather than replaced. The proposed façade design is consistent with the Design
Guidelines as well as with buildings of that era and with the Downtown Historic District, and the
proposed design enhances the District by returning ground level features that are characteristic of
buildings from the Victorian era and by removing features that were not character‐enhancing.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 30 of 30