Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_02.26.2015Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown February 26, 2015 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on Certificates of Design Compliance applications based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens* Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action *Those who wish to speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. Legislative Regular Agenda B Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2014 regular meeting. 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. 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) 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 F Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. G Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on Certificates of Design Compliance applications based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens* Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action *Those who wish to speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2014 regular meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Minutes 12.11.2014 Backup Material Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6  Meeting:  December 11, 2014   City of Georgetown, Texas  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Workshop  Minutes  Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.  Council and Courts Building  101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626    Members present: Nancy Night, Acting Chair; Jennifer Brown; Ty Gipson; David Paul and Mary Jo  Winder.  Commissioners in Training present: Rodolfo Martinez, Barbara Price  Commissioners absent:  Anna Eby and Richard Mee  Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly,  Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.  A. Call to Order by Knight at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.    The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), appointed by the Mayor and the  City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on Certificates of Design  Compliance applications based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines and Unified Development Code. The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular  Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director  or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code  Chapter 551.  Welcome and Meeting Procedures:   Staff Presentation   Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)   Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant   Comments from Citizens*   Applicant Response   Commission Deliberative Process   Commission Action  Legislative Regular Agenda  B. Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 23, 2014 regular meeting.  Motion by Paul, second by Winder to approve the minutes as presented.  Approved 5 – 0.    The items below are listed in agenda order, but the cases and actions were taken in this order: D., G., C., E., F., H  and I.    C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  infill construction for the property located at 913 Walnut Street bearing the legal description of  Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres.   Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant proposes to construct a 677 square foot accessory  structure, replacing a previous structure. The proposed two story accessory structure includes a 432  square foot garage on the first floor, with a 245 square foot play room on the second floor. The  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6  Meeting:  December 11, 2014   property is used as a residence and currently includes only the main dwelling.    Per UDC Section 4.09.020 .B.1, a Certificate of Design Compliance is required for “Construction of  Single‐family or Two‐family Residential structure or addition that exceeds the limitations of Section  4.09.030.B.  The applicant wishes to construct the structure within the setback, requiring a CDC to exceed Section  4.09.030.B.2: “Upper stories of single‐family and two‐family structures within the Old Town Overlay  District are subject to a 10 foot side setback and a 15 foot rear setback. However, HARC may approve  a CDC, in accordance with the adopted Design Guidelines, to allow the utilization of the setback  requirements for the underlying zoning district.”  HARC may allow the reduction in the overlay district setback requirements based upon the criteria  established in the UDC. The proposed structure replaces a previous structure demolished within the  last year. Allowing the property owner to build to the required setbacks for the underlying RS zoning  district will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties and allows the applicant to utilize  their property.  The proposed project requires approval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and  the Zoning Board of Adjustment prior to initiating construction. Case # SE‐2014‐001 was presented to  the ZBA on October 21, 2014 and failed to receive the required 75% majority for approval. The  applicant has requested the ZBA reconsider the case based upon new information.    The applicant requires HARC approval for the use of the underlying RS zoning district setbacks and  will return to ZBA on December 16, 2014 to review the underlying setbacks.  Based on the findings of  fact, and that the design of the new structure meets the Design Guidelines, staff recommends  approval.  Knight questioned the process of HARC making a ruling prior to ZBA giving any approvals on the  setbacks.  Synatschk explained that HARC was merely reviewing the second floor setback  requirement, not the entire structure.  The decision for the second floor setback was to be made  regardless of the location of the first floor setback.  Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed it.  There was discussion among the Commissioners about the height of the structure and the  compatibility of other buildings like this in the neighborhood.  There was further discussion of the  content and focus of the action to be taken.  Motion by Brown to approve the CDC‐2014‐039 as presented.  Second by Gipson.  Approved 4 – 1.   (Knight opposed)  D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  residential addition and infill construction for the property located at 211 West 11th Street bearing  the legal description of Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), 0.12 acres.  Knight recused herself for this item, stating a conflict of interest.  Gipson stepped in as temporary  Chair. Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant proposes multiple changes to the Low  Priority structure located at 211 West 11th Street. The structure’s previous owner received a  Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior alterations in 2006, which included the addition of a  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6  Meeting:  December 11, 2014   second floor and an addition to the rear of the structure. The approved work was partially completed,  and the structure has remained in a partial state of construction since that time. The current owner  seeks a CDC to complete the construction, replace the addition to the northeast corner of the  structure, and construct a new accessory building. The subject property currently lacks a driveway  and approved parking area. The project requires the installation of a driveway to comply with  current development codes.  The applicant was available for questions.  Winder asked if the applicant knew what was original to  the house.  The applicant stated it was hard to say since the house had remained incomplete for so  many years.  He felt like the sunbursts on the dormers were part of the addition done at a later time.   It was also discussed that the stone fireplace did not seem to be original.    Gipson opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the Public Hearing.  Winder was concerned about what was original versus what was added later but reasoned that the  proposed addition is compatible to the house and the neighborhood.  Motion by Winder to approve CDC‐2014‐043 as proposed with condition that the accessory  structure is approved contingent on the Zoning Board of Adjustments ruling of approval.  Second  by Paul.  Approved 4 – 0.  Knight came back to the dais.  E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal  description of Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres.  Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant requests a Certificate of Design Compliance for  substantial alterations to the unlisted historic structures located at 1804 South Ash Street. Although  not listed on the historic resource survey, the Williamson County Appraisal District sets the effective  date for construction at 1958. The alterations include removal of the existing porch and installation of  a new porch, new paint and exterior finishes for the structures.   The proposed porch does not reflect the design of the structure and creates a sense of false history for  the property.  In addition, the two structures that comprise the property were built as individual  structures and later connected with a carport. Maintaining the individual character of the two  structures is important to preserve the historic integrity of the site. The cast concrete construction of  the smaller structure is unique to Georgetown, representing a construction type not duplicated  among the other historic resources of the community.  Loss of the construction type would negatively  impact the individual property and the historic district overall.   HARC provided direction to the applicant during a conceptual review at the September 25, 2014  meeting. The Commissioners requested a more simplified design for the porch and additional  emphasis placed upon the one story structure, due to its unique design characteristics.   Painting masonry structures is only appropriate if the masonry was previously painted. The two  structures are currently in their historic state, and should remain unpainted. Mortar and masonry  materials are susceptible to future moisture damage and deterioration if painted, and should be left  in their original condition. The applicant did not provide any information regarding a structural need  for painting the structures.     Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6  Meeting:  December 11, 2014   The proposed changes conflict with the design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards  for Rehabilitation by adding conjectural features and significantly altering the historic appearance of  the property. Staff recommends denial of the proposed project and requests that the applicant be  directed to discuss the project further with staff.  The applicant, Cathy Miller, explained the application in her words.  Commissioners asked questions regarding the application.  They agreed that the property could be  made to look much better, but did not want the applicant to change the historic structure.  There was  a debate over the appropriateness of painting of the concrete structure.  Matt explained that the  concrete structure is not listed on the survey, although the house was listed as built in 1958.  There  have been no permits for the concrete structure.  Knight felt like the structures could only be  improved, that there was not a reason to try to protect any historical aspects that have already been  destroyed.  Winder stated she has no issue with the modifications and paint for the house, but the concrete  structure is extraordinary and she felt like it should be studied more and not painted.  She suggested  painting only the trim of the carport and concrete structure to make them more compatible, instead of  painting them all one color.    Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed it.  Motion by Paul to return the CDC‐2014‐045 to staff for clarification and discussion.  No second, this  motion died.  Andreina Davila explained that HARC can only approve the application, deny the application, or  approve the application with conditions.  Motion by Paul to deny the application and bring it back to HARC with a better plan.  No second,  this motion died.  Motion by Gipson to approve CDC‐2014‐045 as submitted with the condition that the concrete  structure not be painted.  Second by Paul.  Approved 4 – 1. (opposed by Knight)  F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  relocation of the structure located at 214 West 3rd Street bearing the legal description of City of  Georgetown, Block 14, Lot 7 (N/PT), 8 (W/PT).  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The property owner wishes to relocate the Medium priority  structure located at 214 West 3rd Street outside of the city limits of the City of Georgetown. The  owner intends to construct a building more compatible with the district in the future.   The applicant proposes relocation of the structure to a company in Liberty Hill, with the final location  unknown at this time. Although the structure will be saved, the approval results in the loss of a  historic resource for Georgetown. The applicant met with staff on October 29, 2014, prior to  submitting the final application. Staff discussed the possibility of requiring notice posted in the local  paper and other methods for a minimum period of 60 days to allow time for an interested buyer to  relocate the property within the city limits. The ad was posted on Craig’s List on October 30 and will  satisfy the proposed 60 day notice requirement on December 31, 2014.  Much of the context of the northwest corner of the Downtown Overlay District has been  compromised by new development, including the Williamson County Justice Center and detention  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6  Meeting:  December 11, 2014   facilities. The resulting loss of residential context supports the request to relocate the residential  structure for future commercial development. Any future development of the subject site will require  review by city staff and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for compliance with the  Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.  After asking for questions from the Commissioners, Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no  speakers coming forth, closed it.  Knight also suggested that the ETJ be added to the UDC as a  possible relocation site so that historic structures might stay closer.  Motion by Knight to approve CDC‐2014‐046 based upon the findings that the structure is no  longer compatible with the context of the historic district and the future development will be more  compatible with the historic overlay district. The applicant is required to post the structure for sale  until December 31, 2014 to encourage relocation within the City of Georgetown.  Second by Paul.   Approved 5 – 0.  G. 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 212 West 7th Street, bearing the legal  description of City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 2‐3 (PTS), 0.17 acres.    Gipson recused himself from the dais, stating a conflict of interest.  Synatschk presented the staff  report.  The applicant is proposing one exterior change to the Low priority structure and new  business signage. The exterior alteration, installation of a new door, is required to provide secondary  egress in case of an emergency. This alteration is necessary to protect the occupants. The door is  proposed for installation in the west wall of the structure, which is a secondary façade. Staff requests  that the HARC require the exterior of the door be painted to match the building, limiting the visual  impact upon the structure. The applicant will also construct a ramp to address ADA accessibility due  to the exterior grade change.   The proposed signage is appropriate for the structure, including size, materials and placement within  the delineated sign frieze. The interior changes and placement of the new HVAC will be reviewed by  staff for compliance with the UDC and all applicable building codes. The applicant was available for  questions.    Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed the Hearing.  Knight started the comments and stated she did not like the door style and placement.  David  Andrews, representing Chris and Becca Graves, explained that the door was placed in that location  because there were exterior panels on the outside of the building and the interior of the building was  laid out so that the only way of egress was through the hall that was located there.  There seemed to  be no other solution for placement and the fire code requires an egress for that side of the building.  Knight stated she did not think the signage, plastic with backlit LED lighting, met the Design  Guidelines, sections 9.7 and 9.2.  Synatschk explained the plastic sign could be considered as an  exception. Winder stated she felt the door and the signage met the Guidelines.    Motion by Winder to approve CDC‐2014‐047 as submitted.  Second by Brown.  Amended by Paul  to include that the exterior door should be painted to match the exterior structure as recommended  by staff.  Second by Knight.  Amendment approved 4 – 0.  Motion approved 4 – 0.  Gipson came back to the dais.    Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6  Meeting:  December 11, 2014   H. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.  There were no comments.  I. Staff updates and reminder of future meetings.  The next meeting will be possibly a Sign  Subcommittee meeting on January 13th and a regular HARC meeting on January 22nd at 6:00 p.m.    J. Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Mee.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.     ________________________________          _______________________________          Approved, Nancy Knight, Acting Chair         Attest, David Paul    City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: 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. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for a residential addition in the Old Town Overlay District. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to construct a two story addition, including a garage and additional living space. The applicant’s request includes approval to use the underlying Residential Single family (RS) zoning district setbacks. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request will meet the approval criteria of Sections 3.13.030 and 4.09.020 B of the Unified Development Code (UDC), with the modifications outlined in the attached Staff Report. The modifications include altering the design of the upper story. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required application fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-052 Staff Report Exhibit CDC-2014-052 Exhibit 1 - Letter of Intent Exhibit CDC-2014-052 Exhibit 2 - Exterior elevations and floor plans Exhibit CDC-2014-052 Exhibit 3 - Exterior photographs Exhibit Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 1 of 7 Meeting Date: February 26, 2015 File Number: CDC-2014-052 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION 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. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 711 East 8th Street Residential Addition Applicant: James Grove Property Owner: James Grove Property Address: 711 East 8th Street Legal Description: Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: This is the first public hearing for this CDC application. An additional application was presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on February 17, 2015, requesting a setback modification to the required rear setback. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1912 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low Priority National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance for a two-story, 1,740-square foot residential addition. The HARC CDC application includes two requests, which may be considered as one application. The CDC request includes the following: 1. CDC approval for the construction of the upper story utilizing the Residential Single family zoning district setback requirements 2. CDC approval for the construction of a residential addition to a street facing façade These two items may be approved with one motion, or considered separately. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 2 of 7 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 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen Complies 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts Complies 14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure Complies 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character and architectural style with the main building Does not comply 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character- defining façade Complies 14.18 The roof of the new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property is located at 711 E. 8th St. in the Old Town Overlay District, and consists of an approximate 1,200-square foot single-story residential structure (Exhibit 1). It is surrounded by single- family residences on all sides, and it is bounded by Pine Street to the east, 8th Street to the south, and a 40-foot wide right-of-way (ROW)/easement to the north, which was originally dedicated for a residential street but never constructed. The current use for the site is a single-family residence, and the property is zoned Residential Single-Family (RS). The property currently takes driveway access from Pine Street, which will remain unchanged. The Residential Single-Family (RS) setbacks apply to this project and are as follows: 20’ from the east (side) property line adjacent to Pine Street (due to the driveway access) 6’ from the west (side) property line (western adjacent property, located at 705 East 8th Street) 10’ from the north (rear) property line (city right-of-way/easement) Additionally, the zoning regulations for the Old Town Overlay District require upper story construction to be set back 15 feet from the rear property line and 10 feet from the side property line, creating a tiered structure and reducing the impact of the second story on adjacent properties. However, the Historic and Architectural Review Committee has the ability to allow the applicant to utilize the base zoning district standards of 10 and 6 feet, respectively. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 3 of 7 The property owner wishes to construct an approximate 1,740-square foot addition within an 870- square foot footprint (Exhibit 2). The proposed addition includes a first floor 2-car garage and an 870 square foot second story living space. While the applicant’s letter of intent states that a kitchen will be included, the applicant has since decided to remove the kitchen from the project. The addition is proposed to be constructed to the north wall of the existing residential structure 6 feet and 0 feet from the existing west and north property lines, respectively, within the current required rear setback and additional Old Town setbacks (Exhibit 3). The applicant was informed that the City had abandoned the 40-foot ROW, but maintained a utility easement. The applicant moved forward with the design work based upon the information provided by staff. In reviewing the application, staff determined that the ROW had not been fully abandoned, and therefore the subject property did not include any portion of the ROW/easement. Consequently, the proposed addition requires the review of a setback modification by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to encroach into the required rear setback, and allowance to utilize the setback requirements for the underlying zoning district by the HARC, in accordance with UDC Sections 4.09.040 and 4.09.030.B.2, respectively. The UDC provisions referenced above reduce the impact of proposed infill construction on the adjacent properties. Based upon the proposed location, allowing the applicant to utilize the underlying RS zoning district setback requirements will not adversely impact any adjacent properties. The largest potential impact, the reduction of the rear setback, is mitigated by the location of the existing 40-foot ROW/easement, which provides a 40-foot buffer between the subject property and the property to the north. The west side of the proposed addition overlooks the subject property’s back yard, reducing the impact of the proposed addition on the adjacent property to the west. Because of this, allowing the Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 4 of 7 property owner to build to the required setbacks for the underlying RS zoning district will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties and allows the applicant to utilize their property as proposed. The request for a setback modification (Case # SE-2015-002) was presented to the ZBA on February 17, 2015. The proposed setback modification failed to receive the required 4 votes for approval, and thus the request was denied (3-2). While the ZBA did not object to the encroachment into the required rear setback, the dissenting votes expressed concerns regarding the proposed size of the addition, which is approximately 145% bigger than the existing structure. In addition to the requested exceptions from the side and rear setback requirements for upper stories, HARC must also review the proposed addition in accordance with applicable Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The addition, as proposed, will be constructed along a secondary façade, limiting the impact on any character defining features of the building, in compliance with Guideline 14.15. Additionally, the proposed addition will be located in the rear yard and set further back than the existing building line on Pine Street, minimizing the impact on the existing structure by allowing the original structure to stay in the foreground (Guidelines 14.14 and 14.17). The proposed roof design is consistent with the original structure, but has a lower pitch, creating differentiation between the historic structure and the addition. Moreover, the additional setback from Pine Street and use of different materials create the necessary differentiation between the historic structure and addition, complying with Guideline 14.13. 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 line 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, 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 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 5 of 7 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 applicable Guidelines and criteria for approval, and as if no setback modification or exception would be required, but not take final action on the request. 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 was submitted on December 12, 2014, and deemed complete by staff on January 5, 2015. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project does not comply with the standards of the underlying RS zoning district. The current design does not comply with the RS Setbacks outlined in the UDC. Therefore, the HARC is unable to approve the CDC as proposed. 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 proposed project does not comply with one of the six applicable guidelines due to the incomparability of the scale and character of the addition as noted in the analysis above. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The addition, as proposed, reduces the impact on the existing Low priority historic structure by setting back from the existing building line and utilizing compatible materials. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding historic properties. The block contains structures of various size and design, reducing the impact of the proposed addition. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project has a limited effect on the Old Town Overlay District. Two-story additions are in character with other properties in the district. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted The proposed project does not include any Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 6 of 7 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 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. signage. 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, 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. The proposed project has limited impact upon the overall character of the Old Town Overlay District. Utilizing a connector or altering the second floor design would increase compliance with Criterion H.1 by limiting the impact on the structure and the surrounding properties. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-052 711 East 8th Street Page 7 of 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed project does not comply with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code, as detailed in the analysis above. The applicant is exploring the option of acquiring a portion of the ROW/easement to resolve the conflicts with the setback requirements of the zoning districts, with the exception of the additional side setback for the second story. Considering the proposed addition on its own without the need for a rear setback modification, staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the request, 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. The CDC includes two separate items for review, which must be addressed separately. 1. CDC approval for the construction of the upper story utilizing the Residential Single family zoning district setback requirements 2. CDC approval for the construction of a residential addition to a street facing façade 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. As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this application. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Aerial Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Site Plan, Exterior elevations and floor plans Exhibit 4 – Exterior photographs of current structure SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: 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) ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for exterior paint and new business signage for 600 Degrees, located at 124 East 8th Street. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to paint the trim surrounding the windows and doors and install two signs. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request meets the approval criteria of Section(s) 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) with the proposed changes as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The proposed changes to the request include lowering the placement of the projecting sign and coordinating the colors of the hanging sign with the building façade and other signage. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-053 Staff Report Exhibit CDC-2014-053 Exhibit 1 - Sign and Paint Specifications Exhibit CDC-2014-053 Exhibit 2 - Projecting Sign Exhibit CDC-2014-053 Exhibit 3 - Sign Examples Exhibit Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-053 – 124 East 8th Street Page 1 of 5 Meeting Date: February 26, 2015 File Number: CDC-2014-053 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION 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) AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Exterior alterations and signage for 600 Degrees Pizzeria and Draft House Applicant: Davin Hoyt Property Owner: Dollar-Rabb, LLC Property Address: 124 East 8th Street Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1(NE/PT) Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 1 Case History: This is the first public hearing for this project HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1905 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High 2007 – High National Register Designation: Contributing Structure in NR district Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting exterior paint and signage for the business located at 124 East 8th Street. The Certificate of Design Compliance request includes the following: 1. New trim paint to highlight the windows and doors 2. Business signage Sign Type Projecting sign Size 5 feet high by 1.5 feet wide, (7.5 sq ft total) Materials Aluminum sign cabinet with translucent letters Location Mounted on the corner, above the tie rod canopy Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-053 – 124 East 8th Street Page 2 of 5 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 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program. Does not comply 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition Does not comply 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. Complies 9.9 A hanging sign may be considered Complies 9.10 A projecting sign may be considered Complies 9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. Complies 9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building facade. Complies 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. Complies 9.20 The light for a sign should be an indirect source Complies 9.21 If internal illumination is used, it should be designed to be subordinate to the overall building composition Complies 9.25 Signage should have a professional quality and a finished appearance. Complies 11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building that coordinates all the façade elements Complies 11.2 Paint colors should enhance individual building elements while creating a unified, coordinated appearance for the entire structure Complies 11.3 A muted color is preferred for the base color of most buildings Complies 11.5 In general, use bright colors for accents only Complies 11.6 Paint colors should highlight architectural details Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing new trim paint and business signage for the High priority structure located in Area 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 Sign Type Hanging sign Size 3.33 feet wide by 0.83 feet high (2.76 sq ft total) Materials Painted birch wood Location Mounted underneath the tie rod canopy, over the primary entrance Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-053 – 124 East 8th Street Page 3 of 5 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. However, each sign presents some inconsistencies as addressed below. Projecting Sign: The proposed projecting sign complies with the design guidelines for the color and the limited internal illumination of the letters. In addition, the projecting sign allows for placement of the signage without obscuring any significant architectural details of the structure. The structure utilizes materials, specifically the pressed metal façade, unique to the Downtown Overlay District. The proposed sign colors correspond with the colors of the primary façade. However, the proposed exceeds the height of the cornice, not in compliance with the guidelines. The proposed location must be lowered to comply with the design guidelines. Guideline 9.10 states “a projecting sign should appear to be in proportion with the building. It should not overwhelm the appearance of the building or obscure key architectural features.” Extending the sign height above the cornice line obscures the brick detail in the cornice, and shifts focus from the façade to the sign. Lowering the sign below the cornice line would comply with the design guidelines. Hanging sign: The proposed hanging sign complies with the size and location requirements specified in the design guidelines. However, the design guidelines state that “signs should be in balance with the overall character of the property.” The proposed colors for the hanging sign are not coordinated with the colors of the proposed projecting sign or the proposed façade colors. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-053 – 124 East 8th Street Page 4 of 5 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; Staff received the application on December 22, 2014. Additional information was provided on January30, 2015 and the application was deemed complete. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project does not comply with the design standards of the UDC, specifically Chapter 10 – Sign Standards. 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 does not comply with the Downtown and Old Town design Guidelines as detailed in this report. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed paint and signage does not significantly impact the historic integrity of the 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 project preserves the overall historic integrity of the district and allows an active business the opportunity to increase their visibility, enhancing the overall character of the district. 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. The proposed signage does not comply with the UDC or the Design Guidelines. The recommended changes would bring the design in to compliance with the code. 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 The proposed signage and paint has a limited effect on the overall character of the historic district. The proposed paint is a color change for a currently painted structure and the sign is not out of character for the district. The correct placement of the sign limits the impact on the structure and the context of the surrounding blocks. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-053 – 124 East 8th Street Page 5 of 5 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, 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 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 3. The proposed hanging sign, in a color scheme coordinated with the façade and other signage These changes will bring the project in to full compliance with the UDC and the Design Guidelines. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the project. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Sign and Paint Specifications Exhibit 2 – Projecting Sign Exhibit 3 – Sign Examples SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS CDC-2014-053 Exhibit 1 - Sign and Paint Specifications CDC-2014-053 Exhibit3-Similar Sign examples City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: 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 ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for an addition to a medium priority historic structure. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to remove a non-historic addition and construct a new addition. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. the applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2015-001 Staff Report Exhibit CDC-2015-001 Exhibit 1 - Property Survey Exhibit CDC-2015-001 Exhibit 2 - Floor plans and Elevations Exhibit CDC-2015-001 Exhibit 3 - Photographs of current structure Exhibit Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2015-001 1318 East University Avenue Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: February 26, 2015 File Number: CDC-2015-001 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION 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 AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Pyka residence addition Applicant: Grace Pyka Property Owner: Jared and Grace Pyka Property Address: 1318 East University Avenue Legal Description: Outlot Division B, Block 12 (PT), 0.9506 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1950 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not recorded 2007 - Medium National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance for the removal of a current non-historic addition and the construction of a new addition to the medium priority structure. 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 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies 7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. Complies 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2015-001 1318 East University Avenue Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Complies 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or re- move original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. Complies 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS 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 building setback, different roof pitch and building skirt height will create the required differentiation for the structure. 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 was received on January 28, 2015 and deemed to be complete at that time. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed residential structure complies with the UDC design criteria for the underlying RS zoning district, including setbacks, impervious coverage and site design. 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 detailed in this staff report. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is The proposed project retains the integrity of Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2015-001 1318 East University Avenue Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS preserved. the individual historic structure. The previous loss of the historic materials reduces the impact of the proposed addition. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed addition is compatible with surrounding properties and those seen throughout the Old Town Overlay District. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed addition does not adversely impact adjacent historic properties or the overall character of the Old Town Historic District. 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. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. 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, 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. The proposed project does not create an adverse effect on the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed size, location and design of the district are compatible with similar structures and the construction will be conducted in a manner that can be reversed in the future. The project will create continuity with the surrounding properties, enhancing the subject property and contributing to the aesthetic values of the Old Town Overlay District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of CDC-2015-001 as submitted. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2015-001 1318 East University Avenue Page 4 of 4 As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Property Survey Exhibit 2 – Floor plan and Elevations Exhibit 3 – Photographs of current structure SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. ITEM SUMMARY: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: - SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary