Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_03.17.2014Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown March 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM at the Council and Courts Building, 101 E. 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. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. 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 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. 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 Consideration and possible approval of the revised minutes of the January 23, 2014 regular meeting. B Review and possible approval of the minutes of the February 27, 2014 meeting. C Preservation Brief #14 on New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings. D Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1-4 (PTS), .0842 acres, located at 107 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2014-006) E Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 6-8(PTS), .2686 acres, located at 817 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2014-008) F Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 1-2,7-8 (E/PT), located at 202 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-011) G Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1(W/PT), .0551 acres, located at 308 W. 8th St. (CDC-2014-012) H Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for signage at Morrow Addition, Block O (PT), .3083 acres, located at 1208 S. Main St. (CDC-2014-013) I Discussion and possible action to reconsider HARC action taken on January 23, 2014 denying a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. (CDC-2013-061) J Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. (CDC-2013-061) K Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Exterior Alterations at Clamp's Addition Revised, Block (NW/PT), .1785 acres, located at 801 S. Walnut Street. (CDC-2014-007) L Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Exterior Alterations at Southside Addition, Block 5pt, .16 acres, located at 2009 S. Church Street. (CDC-2014- 009) M Review of Council approved Bylaws of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. N Review and discussion of the City Council Attendance Policy for Board Members. O Consideration and possible action to elect the Vice-Chair and Secretary of the HARC. P Consideration and possible action to nominate and elect the Sign Subcommittee members. Q Discussion and possible action to appoint the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. R Consideration and possible action to set date & time for 2014 HARC meetings and 2014 HARC Sign Subcommittee Meetings. S Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. T Reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC. Adjournment 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 __________________, 2014, 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 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible approval of the revised minutes of the January 23, 2014 regular meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: The minute of the January 23 HARC meeting, approved at the February 27 meeting reflected that CDC- 2013-061 was approved with a vote count of 3 in favor and 2 in opposition. However, in accordance with Section 3.13.060(D) of the Unified Development Code, an application before the HARC shall be considered approved by a majority vote of all members of the HARC. Consequently, a minimum of four (4) affirmative votes is required to approve CDC-2013-061. The HARC's motion to approve CDC-2013- 061 failed with a vote count of 3 in favor and 2 in opposition, and therefore is deemed denied. Because of this, the January 23 HARC meeting minutes were approved in error. The minutes have been corrected to reflect the actual final action per the UDC, and require HARC approval of the revision. The applicant was notified of this decision on February 24, 2014 and CDC-2013-061 is placed on the agenda of the March 27, 2014 HARC meeting for possible reconsideration. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, HARC Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes of 1/23 Meeting - revised Backup Material Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6 Meeting: January 23, 2014 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present Anna Eby, Chair; Jennifer Brown; Nancy Knight; Tim Urban; and Mary Jo Winder. Commissioners in Training present: Raymond Wahrenbrock Commissioners absent: Richard Mee, David Paul and Martine Rousseau due to ice storm Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Andreina Davilla, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; Shelley Hargrove, Main Street Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Call to Order by Eby at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) 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 speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes. Legislative Agenda: 1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the December 12th Regular HARC Meeting Corrections noted by Winder: Item 4, change wording in motion from transom to store front windows; and, Item 8, complete the action with list of volunteers and motion. So noted. Motion by Knight to approve the minutes with the modifications. Second by Urban. Approved 4 – 0. (Brown came in after the vote.) 2. Discussion and possible action on Downtown Master Plan adoption recommendation. Synatschk presented the draft plan and explained that the document was to establish the vision of the downtown area, and it is not a regulating plan. He presented the timeline of public meetings and proposed readings of the ordinance at the council meeting. Commissioners provided comments. Overall, they stated the elements were good. Winder expressed concern that there was not enough emphasis on historic preservation in the plan. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6 Meeting: January 23, 2014 Synatschk stated comments were still being accepted. Motion by Knight to authorize the Chair to sign a letter in support of the document. Second by Winder. Approved 5 – 0. 3. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for infill construction at Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 5, .165 acres, located at 201 East 9th Street (CDC-2013-049) Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks a CDC for Infill Construction on a vacant parcel located within the Downtown Overlay. The proposed project includes a two story structure with a low stone wall adjacent to the street and parking located at the rear of the structure. The proposed two story structure is to provide overnight lodging for guests. The structure will be clad in stone and stucco, with a standing seam metal roof. The new design is based on previous HARC comments and the architect used the historical Owen House as a model for the structure. The architect, Raul Saldivar, the architect of this project, designed the building to merge architecturally with the buildings of the area. Eby opened the Public Hearing at 6:34 p.m. Susan Firth, speaking for the Heritage Society, reminded the Commissioners to use the Guidelines for guidance in considering this project. She asked that they consider the character of the building, the scale of the building and keep it with the character of the neighborhood. Larry Olsen, of 300 E. 9th Street, stated he looks forward to having the Inn in the neighborhood. He asked that the commission look at the buffer yards as described in the UDC, consider placing stone on the back wall instead of the solid stucco material, and asked that a screening fence or shrubs be placed on the backside of the parking lot so that the car lights would not shine into the adjacent house. David Kellerman, of 912 Shinnecock Hills Drive, representing the Main Street Advisory Board, expressed that the city needs this business downtown. It is a beautiful building that will be a good transition from downtown into the residential neighborhood. He asked that the commissioners consider the cost of any proposed changes for the developer and asked that there not be any more delays on this project. Ross Hunter, of 908 S. Walnut Street, stated he feels the commissioners should deny the CDC based on the design not meeting the guidelines 13.10, 13.13, 13.16, 13.22, and 13.6. he does not believe the building fits the character of the neighborhood. He agrees with the concern about the necessary setbacks and encourages traditional elements be used. He encourages a design that will fit the neighborhood. Eby closed the Public Hearing with no further speakers coming forth. The applicant, A.K. Makiya, spoke to the comments. He agreed that it is important to have a buffer with the neighboring house. He wants to harmonize with the style and character of the city, but to do run the business it is difficult to reduce the size of the building. He stated he was trying to work with everyone. Commissioners deliberated. They asked the applicant why he would not put this on two Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6 Meeting: January 23, 2014 lots since there is another lot between his building and the restaurant on the north corner. He explained that he did not own that lot. There was discussion of which plans were most current. Winder stated she could approve the plans conceptually, but not in detail. She felt the scale and size were appropriate but wants the look to be more residential, using modulation and more windows. Urban appreciated the new application, but felt the 3D drawings misrepresented the size and scale of the development. Brown liked the idea of using an iron fence instead of a stone wall around the perimeter, to open up the front façade. Knight was asked to provide exact items that she felt were missing from the application. She listed lighting, mechanicals, trash-screening, and concern about the ten foot buffer. She appreciated the materials board, but felt there should have been color samples in the package. There was discussion among the commissioners regarding what was asked of the applicant and what was brought forward. They discussed the need for consistency of the applications. After much discussion, the following motion was made. Motion by Urban to approve the CDC for 201 E. 9th Street with the following amendments to the application: The approval included these conditions: · Require more modulation on the side facing 9th street both sides of the building. · Require more openings/windows on the sides facing 9th street and on the back of the property, so that the building appears more residential in nature. · The front fence shall be an open style, made of wrought iron. · The rear buffer should be reviewed to ensure compliance with UDC buffer yards, considering it backs up to residential property · The rear fence shall be solid, so that no light from vehicles passes through to impact the residential property behind it. · Consider (not required) a different, darker color palette on the shutters and courtyard wall. · Consider changing the rear façade from stucco to masonry. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 1. (Knight opposed.) 4. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior alterations and signage at Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), .16 acres, located at 1004 and 1006 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-002) Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval to alter a Medium Priority historic structure located in the Area 2 of the Downtown Historic Overlay. The Applicant proposes to install new awnings across the length of the structure, with signage included on the awning. Applicant also proposes a multi-tenant sign to be mounted on existing poles in the parking lot. The current poles are 14 feet high, but will be reduced to 10 feet in height to comply with Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code. Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed it. There was a question about the location of the signage (lettering) on the awning. It was Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6 Meeting: January 23, 2014 explained that the ReImagine portion of the sign would be centered between the two tenant spaces it occupies in the building. Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Urban. Approved 5 – 0. 5. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior alterations and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1 (WC/PT), .4434 acres located at 118 E 8th St. (CDC-2014-003) Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks CDC approval from HARC for awning signage. The current awnings will be replaced in kind with a change of name for the agent. Commissioners did not have questions. Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, close it. Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as requested provided the awning is the same as the existing. Second by Urban. Approved 5 – 0. 6. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior alterations at Snyder Addition, Block 50(S/PT), .66 acres, located at 1604 Olive St. (CDC-2013-060) Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed project for the historic structure located at 1604 Olive Street is designed to rehabilitate the existing structure while increasing the usability and livability of the space. The 1955 structure was altered in the 1970’s, which included enclosing the garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the section of the house that previously contained the garage, and add a 1,237 square foot addition. Due to the setback from the street and the corner location, the property has limited options for expansion without severely impacting the primary structure. Winder commented that since this is a non-contributing structure, she feels is should be and is compatible with the neighborhood. Motion by Winder to approve the CDC as presented. Second by Knight. Approved 5 – 0. 7. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. (CDC-2013-061) Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed project for the 1912 Mary De Bardeleben House, a High Priority Historic Structure, is designed to rehabilitate the existing structure while increasing the usability and livability of the space. The National register eligible historic structure is one of many structures in the historic core constructed by the Belford Lumber Company. Due to the significant setback from the street, the property has limited options for expansion without severely impacting the primary structure. Bryant Boyd, the architect for the owner, was available for comments or questions. Eby opened the Public Hearing. Ross Hunter, of 908 S. Walnut Street, expressed concerns that the house will lose its historic value, style, look and character if this application is approved. He cited design guidelines 14.7, 14.12, and 14.15. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6 Meeting: January 23, 2014 The Public Hearing was closed with no further speakers coming forth. Bryant Boyd provided additional 3D pictures. He explained that he is helping this family make this house more livable. He explained that the only part of the original structure that was being touched/ removed was the screened porch. Any new portions of the house would be of different materials so as to distinguish the difference. They will be using landscaping to diminish the long lines of the front of the house. Urban questioned the work changing the historic priority status of the house. Synatshck explained that the new portions of the house would be clearly different than the existing materials so it would maintain its high priority status. Knight expressed concern about the abrupt change of materials from wood to stone and the overwhelming use of stone on the front wall. She suggested using the stone only for the skirting and column footings. Winder agreed that the stone overpowers the wood siding and is too prominent. Joel Goode, the owner, discussed his options with the commissioners and stated he would reduce the amount of stone if it meant he could get approval for the CDC. Motion by Knight to approve the CDC provided the sand stone would not be used on the façade, but only for the skirting and the columns. Motion died with no second. Winder moves to approve the CDC with the condition that the stone is eliminated and either wood siding, clapboard or wood shingles are used to differentiate the new portion of the façade. Motion died with no second. Motion by Winder to approve the CDC with the condition that the stone cladding be replaced with wood or wood like siding and approved for use on the underpinning and columns. Second by Knight. Motion failed, 2 – 3. (Eby, Brown and Urban opposed.) Motion by Urban to approve CDC-2013-061 as presented. Second by Brown. Failed 3 – 2. (Winder and Knight opposed.) *Approval is denied in accordance with UDC Section 3.13.060 (D), which states an application before HARC must be approved by a majority vote of all members of the Commission. Consequently it takes four (4) affirmative votes to approve a CDC. 8. Discussion on proposed project at 902 Forest St. Bryant Boyd made a presentation of a proposed change to a residential structure that was built in 1925 and is a medium priority listed structure. The applicant wants to add on to the existing structure and Boyd presented proposals of how he would do this, asking the commissioners to comment. There was discussion of differentiation and how to define that. Not everyone sees that the same way. There was also discussion of coming to consensus on expectations of the commission as a whole and how the applicants should try to address those expectations. It was noted that there would be training for the commission once the new members are added in March. 9. Questions and comments from HARC Commissioners in Training. None at this time. 10. Updates from staff and reminder about the February 10, 2014 Sign Subcommittee and the February 27, 2014 HARC meetings. Synatschk stated that after the posting of this agenda, it was determined that there would Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Meeting: January 23, 2014 not be a sign subcommittee meeting on February 10. 11. Adjournment. Eby adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Anna Eby, Chair Attest, Tim Urban City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible approval of the minutes of the February 27, 2014 meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Feb 27, 2014 Minutes Backup Material Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6 Meeting: February 27, 2014 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting DRAFT Minutes Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Nancy Knight, Acting Chair; Jennifer Brown; David Paul; and Richard Mee. Commissioners in Training present: Martine Rousseau and Raymond Wahrenbrock Commissioners absent: Anna Eby, Mary Jo Winder and Tim Urban Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; Dave Hall, Building Official; Skye Masson, Asst. City Attorney; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Knight at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. * Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes. This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meeting Act, Texas Government Code 551. Legislative Agenda: A. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for exterior alterations at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 6 – 8 (PTS), .14 acres, located at 718 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-001) Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed project at 718 S. Austin Avenue includes a projecting sign, canopy mounted signage and window and door signage. Additionally, the applicant seeks approval for a playbill box on the south façade and new exterior lighting along the south façade. The structure is identified in the 2007 Historic Resource Survey as a medium priority structure. However, the completed restoration project removed the slip cover and restored many of the character defining features, leading to a High priority designation. The proposed signage includes door mounted signage incorporated in to the new door handles, canopy mounted aluminum letters, window signage, a hanging sign and a projecting sign on the south façade. The applicant had also requested replacing the front doors with wooden doors, but that was denied by staff based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Since there was no record of wooden doors previously, the aluminum frame doors should remain aluminum frame doors. Staff recommended approval of the signage and lighting. There were no questions of the commissioners. Knight opened and closed the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth for this item. Motion by Mee to approve the application for the CDC as submitted. Second by Paul. Approved 4 – 0. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6 Meeting: February 27, 2014 B. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition request to demolish the historic structure located at 706 W 14th St., bearing the legal description of Lot 1, Block A, Friendly Will Baptist Church Subdivision, Section 1. (CDC-2014-004) Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant seeks approval for a Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) for Demolition to demolish the historic structure located at 706 W 14th St. The existing structure is listed as a Low priority structure on the 1984 Historic Resources Survey and a Medium priority structure on the 2007 Historic Resources Survey. The applicant wishes to demolish the existing structure to construct a new 7,400-square foot structure with associated parking on the subject property to accommodate the growth of church members since the existing structure was built, and to meet all their current needs. Synatschk stated that Section 13.03.010 D of the Unified Development Code, as most recently updated in 2011 requires a CDC for demolition of any property that is listed on the List of Priority Structures in the historic Resources Survey. Synatschk read the definition of a Medium Priority Structure. He also explained that Dr. Tara Dudley, a professional architectural historian with education and experience to fully satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards, recently conducted research on the historic context of this structure in relation to previously designated historic markers related to Georgetown’s African-American community. The result of the report was that this property meets the survey requirements for a High Priority Structure with a local level of significance. Synatschk also read the definition of High Priority Structures. These properties contribute significantly to the local history or broader historical pattern and are considered to be the most significant resources in the city. The applicant notified staff of their intent to submit a CDC request for demolition in November 2013 and a demolition subcommittee met with them in January 2014 to discuss the application requirements. The subcommittee had a site visit and met with the applicants. The subcommittee requested that the applicant submit a restoration bid from a restoration contractor, a historic context and national register evaluation report to document the significance of the structure to the congregation and the community, and discuss possible mitigation options as well. Synatschk explained the criteria that commissioners must use to determine a demolition approval, and read Section 3.13.020 D.1 of the UDC. He also read from Chapter 7 of the Design Guidelines in reference to Demolition. He included Section 3.13.040 Supplemental Criteria – Demolition or Relocation Approval which gives additional criteria to be considered. He also explained that since there were only four members present that the vote of the commission would need to be unanimous (4 – 0) to meet the requirements of the UDC. He also explained that the design of the proposed new church would not be reviewed by HARC as it is outside the Old Town Overlay District. The application for CDC is for demolition only. The commissioners could approve the CDC, approve the CDC with conditions, or deny the CDC. If the CDC were approved, the applicant would be able to apply for a demolition permit by March 28, 2014, 60 days after the notice was posted on the property. He also explained per Section 3.13.070 the requirements that must be met before a demolition permit would be issued. Then Section 3.13.010.D.2, if the commission does not approve the CDC for demolition. If the application is delayed, Section 3.13.050 must be followed. The applicant, Jerrod Worsham, Estimating VP of Jimmy Jacobs Construction, was available for Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6 Meeting: February 27, 2014 questions and comments. Worsham wanted to ensure that the commissioners knew the cost of refurbishing the existing structure exceeded demolition and new construction costs. He read a list of the structural problems of the structure. Pastor Rudy Williams stated that in the present situation, the church did not have any room for classrooms; the church has a congregation of over 300 members; and they would not all fit into the existing small fellowship hall. They had looked at other options to keep the building many years ago, but this was the better option. He stated they could put on a new roof and add fixtures to the building, but that would not be enough for the congregation. He stated they could raise enough money for a new church, but not enough for refurbishing the existing structure. This was their last resort. Knight questioned the difference in the costs, and Worsham estimated that the new structure would cost approximately $1.1 million, while refurbishing the church, using the current structure and adding on, would cost approximately $1.4 million. Knight opened the Public Hearing, there were several speakers. Susan Firth, of 1403 Olive Street, spoke for the Heritage Society. She asked that the commissioners help with the preservation of this structure and deny the demolition permit. Will Jenkins, Associate Pastor of the Friendly Will Baptist Church, stated they understand that this is a historical building of significance but reminded them that it is also a house of God. The building is a part of their heritage, but a hindrance to the culture. They want to be proud of the appearance of where they want to worship. He also stated it was too expensive to keep the old structure. Jeff Flowers, of 117 Aspen, stated the Holy Spirit brought him from Chicago and he found Friendly Will Church. He loves the church family and wants to change it for the new century. Loretta Sedwick, of 2012 Olin Cove, a member of the church, stated her entire family are members of the church and she asked that they be allowed to build a new church for her grandson so he would not have to go somewhere else. Melzie Smith, of 1306 Hart Street, stated he had been here for 74 years and thought it was time for a change. Donald Lewis, of 101 Roble Rojo Dr in Shady Oaks, has been a member of the church for four years, he adopted the vision of the pastor and loves the family, but can’t stay there anymore in the current space. He stated he didn’t feel the commissioners churches look like that. Bertha Williams, of 2101 Railroad, Apt 3116, a lifetime member of the church for 77 years, stated lots of things need to be done away with and this is one of them. Raymond Wahrenbrock, of 1901 Westwood Ln, suggested putting a metal building inside the existing rock structure and extending beyond the building to maintain the historical structure. He asked the commissioners to delay the demolition until all documents are gathered as required and photos taken of both the interior and exterior. Paula Dimery, has been there many years, her father was a pastor there, she said the air quality in the building was as bad as an “elephant sitting on her chest” and she needs to be comfortable when worshipping. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6 Meeting: February 27, 2014 Danny Mendoza, of 300 Shale Dr., is a member of the church and needs a change for the future. He stated the stone and rocks don’t mean anything to the members, the building is old and they want new for the comfort of their children and the older members. Elizabeth Martinez, of 300 Shale Rd, was born and raised in the church; she believes in the church and feels love there, but needs fresh air in the church. Paulette Taylor, of 705 W 8th Street, has been a member for over 60 years. The church is 109 years old and in 1905 men hand mortared the rocks together to make the church. They were looking to make an edifice, not a foundation. This structure is currently stifling the growth of the church and they will lose members if there is not enough room. If they pour money into the restoration of this building, they will not have enough money for growth. They are at a crossroads. With no further speakers coming forth, Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioners deliberated. Paul asked Synatschk if conversations had occurred with the church regarding money for preservation. Synatschk responded the church has indicated they are not interested in restoration, only demolition. There is an organization called the Friends of the Texas Historical Commission that offers assistance, but they will most likely not be able to provide enough funds for this project. Mee asked for a definition of “eminent threat to public safety”. Dave Hall, Building Official, spoke on the integrity of the structure. He explained the building needs to be boarded up to prevent further vagrants from entering the building. The building is currently deemed hazardous and should not be occupied; however it is not in immediate danger of collapsing. There are no plumbing fixtures and the electrical wiring is a fire hazard. He explained that the exterior walls and roof would probably not withstand a 90 mph wind, as required by the building code. He explained that without maintenance and occupants, the building has deteriorated to the point that it cannot be occupied at this time. The Commissioners questioned the representative from JJC about what thought had been put into using the existing stone, at least the front façade, and incorporating that into the new building. The response was that the church did not request that and it would cost too much for them so it was not an option. Knight explained that HARC exists because of the foresight of members of the community to have a Main Street Program and to have the Design Guidelines that help protect and rebuild the downtown area. If buildings had been demolished instead of restored downtown, the Square would not be what it is today. And maintenance of those structures is very important. This is a very emotional discussion, but the Guidelines are very specific. She stated she did not feel the church had done what they could do to protect the historical significance of the structure. Other commissioners commented that there were not enough criteria met to approve the demolition. Pastor Williams stated the church’s first objective was to provide a new building for the community, that they needed a change. There was discussion of possible option for the church to help maintain a portion of the history. The JJC representative and the Pastor explained that it was too expensive to protect or use any of the existing structure because each stone would have to be removed, and then rebuilt with new mortar on top of a new slab. The existing base is Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6 Meeting: February 27, 2014 rubble and not secure. Paul commented that people all over the country repair rubble and mortared stone buildings and that it can be done. The response was that the church did not want to go that direction. Motion by Knight to deny CDC-2014-004 based on not meeting the criteria set forth in UDC Section 3.13.040. We further would like to include a delay in the demolition based on UDC Code 3.13.050 where we as HARC may require additional conditions to be met as part of this delay during this period, and during this period for staff to meet with the applicant for other funding options that would be available to them, (and) for the applicant to get with the builder to ascertain expenses associated with the retention of the façade and for that façade to be included in the new design. Second by Paul. Approved unanimously, 4 – 0. Then Knight amended the motion to include the applicant can come back (to HARC) as soon as they are ready. There is no time frame associated with the main motion, it can be 10 days, 90 days, up to 365 days. Second by Paul. Approved unanimously, 4 – 0. The Commission took a 10 minute recess. The meeting was called back to order at 7:53 p.m. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition request to demolish the historic structure located at 1718 Leander St., bearing the legal description of Outlot Division A, Block 12 (PT), .90 acres. (CDC-2014-005) Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant requested approval to demolish the historic structure located 1718 Leander St. The existing structure is not listed on the 1984 Historic Resources Survey and is listed as a Low priority structure on the 2007 Historic Resources Survey. The applicant wishes to demolish the existing structure to construct new residential structures. The Low priority structure was previously used as a private residence and is currently vacant. The original portion of the structure was built in 1947 and has seen multiple additions since the original date of construction. Most of the additions were completed without permits and do not meet current building codes. Most of the character defining features of the structure have been removed or destroyed, significantly reducing the historic significance of the structure. Synatschk reported that this structure is unsalvageable. Staff recommended approval of the demolition. Knight opened the Public Hearing. Synatschk presented a letter to the commission that was written by Susan Firth, representing the Heritage Society, recommending approval of the demolition. Knight closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. The commissioners deliberated and agreed there was nothing left of this structure that was worth rehabilitating. Motion by Mee to approve the demolition for CDC-2014-005 as it meets all the criteria as set forth in UDC Section 3.13.040. Second by Brown. Approved 4 – 0. D. Review and possible action on the minutes from the January 23, 2014 regular meeting. David Paul noted that he was absent at this meeting but the minutes reflected that he was both present and absent. The minutes will be changed to reflect his absence. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Meeting: February 27, 2014 Motion by Knight, second by Mee to approve the minutes as amended. Approved 4 – 0. Synatschk reminded everyone of the next few meetings. He also stated that this would have been Tim Urban’s last meeting and that he would be missed. The Downtown Master Plan Final Draft will be presented to the public on March 3 at 5:30 in the library. HARC training will be held on March 17 at 4:00 in the library. The next HARC regular meeting will be Thursday, March 27 at 6:00 in the council Chambers. No sign subcommittee has been appointed yet, so there will not be a subcommittee meeting until after March 27. Raymond Wahrenbrock, CIT, is moving to the Building Standards Commission. He will be missed and he was thanked for his years of service to the commission. Adjournment. Motion by Knight to adjourn. Second by Mee. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Nancy Knight, Acting Chair Attest, Richard Mee City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Preservation Brief #14 on New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatchk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Preservation Brief #14 Backup Material PRESERVATION BRIEFS New Ex terior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks National Park Service U.S . Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services A new exterior addition to a historic building should be considered in a rehabilitation project only after determining that requirements for the new or adaptive use cannot be successfully met by altering non- significant interior spaces. If the new use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an exterior addition may be an acceptable alternative. Rehabilitation as a treatment "is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values." The topic of new additions, including rooftop additions, to historic buildings comes up frequently, especially as it relates to rehabilitation projects. It is often discussed and it is the subject of concern, consternation, considerable disagreement and confusion. Can, in certain instances, a historic building be enlarged for a new use without destroying its historic character? And, just what is significant about each particular historic building that should be preserved? Finally, what kind of new construction is appropriate to the historic building? The vast amount of literature on the subject of additions to historic buildings reflects widespread interest as well as divergence of opinion. New additions have been discussed by historians within a social and political framework; by architects and architectural historians in terms of construction technology and style; and by urban planners as successful or unsuccessful contextual design. However, within the historic preservation and rehabilitation programs of the National Park Service, the focus on new additions is to ensure that they preserve the character of historic buildings. Most historic districts or neighborhoods are listed in the National Register of Historic Places for their significance within a particular time frame. This period of significance of historic districts as well Figure 1. The addition to the right with its connecting hyphen is compatib le with the Collegiate Gothic-style library. The addition is set back from the front of the library and uses the same materials and a simplified design that references , but does not copy, the historic bui ldin g. Photo: David Wakely Photography. as individually-listed properties may sometimes lead to a misunderstanding that inclusion in the National Register may prohibit any physical change outside of a certain historical period -particularly in the form of exterior additions. National Register listing does not mean that a building or district is frozen in time and that no change can be made without compromising the historical significance. It does mean, however, that a new addition to a historic building should preserve its historic character. 1 2 Figure 2. The new section on the right is appropriately scaled and reflects the design of the historic Art Deco-style hotel. The apparent separation created by the recessed connector also enables the addition to be viewed as an individual building. Guidance on New Additions To meet Standard 1 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which states that "a property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment," it must be determined whether a historic building can accommodate a new addition. Before expanding the building's footprint, consideration should first be given to incorporating changes-such as code upgrades or spatial needs for a new use-within secondary areas of the historic building. However, this is not always possible and, after such an evaluation, the conclusion may be that an addition is required, particularly if it is needed to avoid modifications to character-defining interior spaces. An addition should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building and, thus, meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Standards 9 and 10 apply specifically to new additions: (9) "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." (10) "New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." The subject of new additions is important because a new addition to a historic building has the potential to change its historic character as well as to damage and destroy significant historic materials and features. A new addition also has the potential to confuse the public and to make it difficult or impossible to differentiate the old from the new or to recognize what part of the historic building is genuinely historic. The intent of this Preservation Brief is to provide guidance to owners, architects and developers on how to design a compatible new addition, including a rooftop addition, to a historic building. A new addition to a historic building should preserve the building's historic character. To accomplish this and meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, a new addition should: • Preserve significant historic materials, features and form; • Be compatible; and • Be differentiated from the historic building. Every historic building is different and each rehabilitation project is unique. Therefore, the guidance offered here is not specific, but general, so that it can be applied to a wide variety of building types and situations. To assist in interpreting this guidance, illustrations of a variety of new additions are provided. Good examples, as well as some that do not meet the Standards, are included to further help explain and clarify what is a compatible new addition that preserves the character of the historic building. Figure 3. The red and buff-colored parking addition with a rooftop playground is compatible with the early-20th century school as well as with the neighborhood in which it also serves as infill in the urban setting. Preserve Significant Historic Materials, Features and Form Attaching a new exterior addition usually involves some degree of material loss to an external wall of a historic building, but it should be minimized. Damaging or dest roying significant materials and craftsmanship should be avoided, as much as possible. Generally speaking, preservation of historic buildings inherently implies minimal change to primary or "public" elevations and, of course, interior features as well. Exterior features that distinguish one historic building or a row of buildings and which can be seen from a public right of way, such as a street or sidewalk, are most likely to be the most significant. These can include many different elements, such as: window patterns, window hoods or shutters; porticoes, entrances and doorways; roof shapes, cornices and decorative moldings; or commercial storefronts with their special detailing, signs and glazing patterns. Beyond a single building, entire blocks of urban or residential structures are often closely related architecturally by their materials, detailing, form and alignment. Because significant materials and features should be preserved, not damaged or hidden, the first place to consider placing a new addition is in a location where the least amount of historic material and character-defining features will be lost. In most cases, this will be on a secondary side or rear elevation. One way to reduce overall material loss when constructing a new addition is simply to keep the addition smaller Figure 4. This glass and brick structure is a harmonious addition set back and connected to the rear of the Colonial Revival-style brick house. Cunningham/Quill Architects. Photos: © Maxwell MacKenzie. in proportion to the size of the historic building. Limiting the size and number of openings between old and new by utilizing existing doors or enlarging windows also helps to minimize loss. An often successful way to accomplish this is to link the addition to the historic building by means of a hyphen or connector. A connector provides a physical link while visually separating the old and new, and the connecting passageway penetrates and removes only a small portion of the historic wall. A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and the new interiors, and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards. Compatible but Differentiated Design In accordance with the Standards, a new addition must preserve the building's historic character and, in order to do that, it must be differentiated, but compatible, with the historic building. A new addition must retain the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Keeping the addition smaller, limiting the removal of historic materials by linking the addition with a hyphen, and locating the new addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side elevation of a historic building are techniques discussed previously that can help to accomplish this. Rather than differentiating between old and new, it might seem more in keeping with the historic character 3 4 simply to repeat the historic form, material, features and detailing in a new addition. However, when the new work is highly replicative and indistinguishable from the old in appearance, it may no longer be possible to identify the "real" historic building. Conversely, the treatment of the addition should not be so different that it becomes the primary focus. The difference may be subtle, but it must be clear. A new addition to a historic building should protect those visual qualities that make the building eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service policy concerning new additions to historic buildings, which was adopted in 1967, is not unique. It is an outgrowth and continuation of a general philosophical approach to change first expressed by John Ruskin in England in the 1850s, formalized by William Morris in the founding of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, expanded by the Society in 1924 and, finall y, reiterated in the 1964 Venice Charter-a document that continues to be followed by the national committees of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (lCOMOS). The 1967 Administrative Policie s for Historical Areas of the National Park System direct that " ... a modern addition should be readily distinguishable from the older work; however, the new work should be harmonious with the old in scale, proportion, materials, and color. Such additions should be as inconspicuous as Fi gure 5 . This addition (a) is constructed of matchin g bri ck and attached by a re cessed connector (b) to the 1914 apartm ent building (c). The design is compatibl e and th e addition is smaller and subordinate to th e historic building (d). possible from the public view." As a logical evolution from these Policies specifically for National Park Service-owned historic structures, the 1977 Secretary of th e Int erior 's Standards for Rehabilitation, which may be applied to all historic buildings listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register, also state that "the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." Preserve Historic Character The goal, of course, is a new addition that preserves the building's historic character. The historic character of each building may be different, but the methodology of establishing it remains the same. Knowing the uses and functions a building has served over time will assist in making what is essentially a physical evaluation. But, while written and pictorial documentation can provide a framework for establishing the building's history, to a large extent the historic character is embodied in the physical aspects of the historic building itself- shape, materials, features, craftsmanship, window arrangements, colors, setting and interiors. Thus, it is important to identify the historic character before making decisions about the extent-or limitations-of change that can be made. Figure 6. A new addition (left) is connected to the garage which separates it from the main block of the c. 1910 former florist shop (right). The addition is traditional in style, yet sufficiently restrained in design to distinguish it from the historic building. A new addition should always be subordinate to the historic building; it should not compete in size, scale or design with the historic building. An addition that bears no relationship to the proportions and massing of the historic building-in other words, one that overpowers the historic form and changes the scale- will usually compromise the historic character as well. The appropriate size for a new addition varies from building to building; it could never be stated in a square or cubic footage ratio, but the historic building's existing proportions, site and setting can help set some general parameters for enlargement. Although even a small addition that is poorly designed can have an adverse impact, to some extent, there is a predictable relationship between the size of the historic resource and what is an appropriate size for a compatible new addition. Generally, constructing the new addition on a secondary side or rear elevation-in addition to material preservation-will also preserve the historic character. Not only will the addition be less visible, but because a secondary elevation is usually simpler and less distinctive, the addition will have less of a physical and visual impact on the historic building. Such placement will help to preserve the building's historic form and relationship to its site and setting. Historic landscape features, including distinctive grade variations, also property should not be covered with large paved areas for parking which would drastically change the character of the site. Despite the fact that in most cases it is recommended that the new addition be attached to a secondary elevation, sometimes this is not possible. There simply may not be a secondary elevation-some important freestanding buildings have significant materials and features on all sides. A structure or group of structures together with its setting (for example, a college campus) may be of such significance that any new addition would not only damage materials, but alter the buildings' relationship to each other and the setting. An addition attached to a highly-visible elevation of a historic building can radically alter the historic form or obscure features such as a decorative cornice or window ornamentation. Similarly, an addition that fills need to be respected. Any new landscape features, including plants and trees, should be kept at a scale and density that will not interfere with understanding of the historic resource itself. A traditionally landscaped Figure 7. A vacant side lot was the only place a new stair tower could be built when this 1903 theater was rehabilitated as a performing arts center. Constructed with matching materials, the stair tower is set back with a recessed connector and, despite its prominent location , it is clearly subordinate and differentiated from the historic theater. 5 6 Figure 8. The rehabilitation of this large, early-20th century warehouse (left) into affordable artists' lofts included the addition of a compatible glass and brick elevator/stair tower at the back (right). Figure 9. A simple, brick stair tower replaced two non-historic additions at the rear of this 1879 school building when it was rehabilitated as a women's and children's shelter. The addition is set back and it is not visibLe from the front of the school. Figure 10 . The small size and the use of matching materials ensures that the new addition on the left is compatible with the historic Romanesque Revival-style building. in a planned void on a highly-visible elevation (such as a U-shaped plan or a feature such as a porch) will also alter the historic form and, as a result, change the historic character. Under these circumstances, an addition would have too much of a negative impact on the historic building and it would not meet the Standards. Such situations may best be handled by constructing a separate building in a location where it will not adversely affect the historic structure and its setting. In other instances, particularly in urban areas, there may be no other place but adjacent to the primary fa<;:ade to locate an addition needed for the new use. It may be possible to design a lateral addition attached on the side that is compatible with the historic building, even though it is a highly-visible new element. Certain types of historic structures, such as government buildings, metropolitan museums, churches or libraries, may be so massive in size that a relatively large- scale addition may not compromise the historic character, provided, of course, the addition is smaller than the historic building. Occasionally, the visible size of an addition can be reduced by placing some of the spaces or support systems in a part of the structure that is underground. Large new additions may sometimes be successful if they read as a separate volume, rather than as an extension of the historic structure, although the scale, massing and proportions of the addition still need to be compatible with the historic building. However, similar expansion of smaller buildings would be dramatically out of scale. In summary, where any new addition is proposed, correctly assessing the relationship between actual size and relative scale will be a key to preserving the character of the historic building. Design Guidance for Compatible New Additions to Historic Buildings There is no formula or prescription for designing a new addition that meets the Standards. A new addition to a historic building that meets the Standards can be any architectural style-traditional, contemporary or a simplified version of the historic building. However, there must be a balance between differentiation and compatibility in order to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged. New additions that too closely resemble the historic building or are in extreme contrast to it fall short of this balance. Inherent in all of the guidance is the concept that an addition needs to be subordinate to the historic building. A new addition must preserve significant historic materials, features and form, and it must be compatible but differentiated from the historic building. To achieve this, it is necessary to carefully consider the placement or location of the new addition, and its size, scale and massing when planning a new addition. To preserve a property's historic character, a new addition must be visually distinguishable from the historic building. This does not mean that the addition and the historic building should be glaringly different in terms of design, materials and other visual qualities. Instead, the new addition should take its design cues from, but not copy, the historic building. Figure 11. The addition to this early-20th century Gothic Revival-style church provides space for offices, a great hall for gatherings and an accessible entrance (left). The stucco finish, metal roof, narrow gables and the Gothic-arched entrance complement the architecture of the historic church. Placing the addition in back where the ground slopes away ensures that it is subordinate and minimizes its impact on the church (below). A variety of design techniques can be effective ways to differentiate the new construction from the old, while respecting the architectural qualities and vocabulary of the historic building, including the following: • Incorporate a simple, recessed, small-scale hyphen to physically separate the old and the new volumes or set the addition back from the wall plane(s) of the historic building. • Avoid designs that unify the two volumes into a single architectural whole. The new addition may include simplified architectural features that reflect, but do not duplicate, similar features on the historic building. This approach will not impair the existing building'S historic character as long as the new structure is subordinate in size and clearly differentiated and distinguishable so that the identity of the historic structure is not lost in a new and larger composition. The historic building must be clearly identifiable and its physical integrity must not be compromised by the new addition. 7 8 Figure 12. This 1954 synagogue (left) is accessed through a monumental entrance to the right. The new education wing (far right) added to it features the same vertical elements and color and, even though it is quite large, its smaller scale and height ensure that it is secondary to the historic resource. Figure 13. A glass and metal structure was constructed in the courtyard as a restaurant when this 1839 building was converted to a hotel. Although such an addition might not be appropriate in a more public location, it is compatible here in the courtyard of this historic building. Figure 14. This glass addition was erected at the back of an 1895 former brewery during rehabilitation to provide another entrance. The addition is compatible with the plain character of this secondary elevation. • Use building materials in the same color range or value as those of the historic building. The materials need not be the same as those on the historic building, but they should be harmonious; they should not be so different that they stand out or distract from the historic building. (Even clear glass can be as prominent as a less transparent material. Generally, glass may be most appropriate for small-scale additions, such as an entrance on a secondary elevation or a connector between an addition and the historic building.) • Base the size, rhythm and alignment of the new addition's window and door openings on those of the historic building. • Respect the architectural expression of the historic building type. For example, an addition to an institutional building should maintain the architectural character associated with this building type rather than using details and elements typical of residential or other building types. These techniques are merely examples of ways to differentiate a new addition from the historic building while ensuring that the addition is compatible with it. Other ways of differentiating a new addition from the historic building may be used as long as they maintain the primacy of the historic building. Working within these basic principles still allows for a broad range of architectural expression that can range from stylistic similarity to contemporary distinction. The recommended design approach for an addition is one that neither copies the historic building exactly nor stands in stark contrast to it. Revising an Incompatible Design for aNew Addition to Meet the Standards Figure 15. The rehabilitation of a c. 1930 high school auditorium for a clinic and offices proposed two additions: a one-story entrance and reception area on this elevation (a); and a four-story elevator and stair tower on another side (b). The gabled entrance (c) first proposed was not compatible with the flat-roofed auditorium and the design of the proposed stair tower (d) was also incompatible and overwhelmed the historic building. The designs were revised (e-fJ resulting in new additions that meet the Standards (g-h). 9 10 Incompatible New Additions to Historic Buildings New Addition Figure 16. The proposal to add three row houses to the rear ell of this early-19th century residential property doubles its size and does not meet the Standards .. Figure 17. The small addition on the left is starkly different and it is not compatible with the eclectic, late-19th century house. ---- Figure 19. The upper two floors of this early-20th century office building were part of the original design, but were not built. During rehabilitation, the two stories were finally constructed . This treatment does not meet the Standards because the addition has given the building an appearance it never had historically. New Addition Figure 20. The height, as well as the design, of these two-story rooftop additions overwhelms the two-story and the one-story, low-rise historic buildings. Figure 18. The expansion of a one-and one-half story historic bungalow (left) with a large two-story rear addition (right) has greatly altered and obscured its distinctive shape and form. New Additions in Densely-Built Environments In built-up urban areas, locating a new addition on a less visible side or rear elevation may not be possible simply because there is no available space. In this instance, there may be alternative ways to help preserve the historic character. One approach when connecting a new addition to a historic building on a primary elevation is to use a hyphen to separate them. A subtle variation in material, detailing and color may also provide the degree of differentiation necessary to avoid changing the essential proportions and character of the historic building. A densely-built neighborhood such as a downtown commercial core offers a particular opportunity to design an addition that will have a minimal impact on the historic building. Often the site for such an addition is a vacant lot where another building formerly stood. Treating the addition as a separate or infill building may be the best approach when designing an addition that will have the least impact on the historic building and the district. In these instances there may be no need for a direct visual link to the historic building. Height and setback from the street should generally be consistent with those of the historic building and other surrounding buildings in the district. Thus, in most urban commercial areas the addition should not be set back from the fa<;:ade of the historic building. A tight urban setting may sometimes even accommodate a larger addition if the primary elevation is designed to give the appearance of being several buildings by breaking up the facade into elements that are consistent with the scale of the historic building and adjacent buildings. New Addition Fig ure 21 . Both wings of this historic L-shaped building (top), which fronts on two city streets, adjoined vacant lots. A two-story addition was constructed on one lot (above, left) and a six-story addition was built on th e other (above , right). Like the historic building, which has two different facades , the compatible new additions are also different and appear to be separate structures rather than part of the historic building. Figure 22. The proposed new addition is compatible with the historic buildings that remain on the block . Its design with multiple storefronts helps break up th e mass . 11 12 Rooftop Additions The guidance provided on designing a compatible new addition to a historic building applies equally to new rooftop additions. A rooftop addition should preserve the character of a historic building by preserving historic materials, features and form; and it should be compatible but differentiated from the historic building. However, there are several other design principles that apply specifically to rooftop additions. Generally, a rooftop addition should not be more than one story in height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the proportion and profile of the historic building. A rooftop addition should almost always be set back at least one full bay from the primary elevation of the building, as well as from the other elevations if the building is free-standing or highly visible. It is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor to relatively low buildings, such as small-scale residential or commercial structures, even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the fac;ade. Constructing another floor on top of a small, one, two or three-story building is seldom appropriate for buildings of this size as it would measurably alter the building's proportions and profile, and negatively impact its historic character. On the other hand, a rooftop addition on an eight-story building, for example, in a historic district consisting primarily of tall buildings might not affect the historic character because the new construction may blend in with the surrounding buildings and be only minimally visible within the district. A rooftop addition in a densely-built urban area is more likely to be compatible on a building that is adjacent to similarly-sized or taller buildings. A number of methods may be used to help evaluate the effect of a proposed rooftop addition on a historic building and district, including pedestrian sight lines, three- dimensional schematics and computer-generated design. However, drawings generally do not provide a true "picture" of the appearance and visibility of a proposed rooftop addition. For this reason, it is often necessary to construct a rough, temporary, full-size or skeletal mock up of a portion of the proposed addition, which can then be photographed and evaluated from critical vantage points on surrounding streets. Figure 23. Colored flags marking the location of a proposed penthous e addition (a) were placed on the roof to help evaluate the impact and visibility of an addition planned for this historic furniture store (b). Bas ed on this evaluation , the addition was constructed as proposed . It is minimally visible and compatible with the 1912 structure (c). The tall parapet wall con ceal s the addition from the street below (d). Figure 24. How to Evaluate a Proposed Rooftop Addition. A sight-line study (above) only factors in views from directly across the street, which can be very restrictive and does not illustrate the full effect of an addition from other public rights of way. A mock up (above , right) or a mock up enhanced by a computer-generated rendering (below, right) is essential to evaluate the impact of a propos ed rooftop addition on the historic building. Figure 25. It was possible to add a compatible, three-story, penthouse addition to the roof of this five-story, historic bank building because the addition is set far back, it is surrounded by taller buildings and a deep parapet conceals almost all of the addition from be/ow. Figure 26. A rooftop addition would have negatively impacted the character of the primary facade (right) of this mid-19th century, four-story structure and the low-rise historic district. However, a third floor was successfully added on the two-story rear portion (be/ow) of the same building with little impact to the building or the district because it blends in with the height of the adjacent building. 13 14 Figure 27. Although the new brick stair/elevator tower (left) is not visible from the front (right), it is on a prominent side elevation of this 1890 stone bank. The compatible addition is set back and does not compete with the historic building. Photos: Chadd Gossmann, Aurora Photography, LLC. Designing a New Exterior Addition to a Historic Building This guidance should be applied to help in designing a compatible new addition that that will meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation : • A new addition should be simple and unobtrusive in design, and should be distinguished from the historic building-a recessed connector can help to differentiate the new from the old. • A new addition should not be highly visible from the public right of way; a rear or other secondary elevation is usually the best location for a new addition. • The construction materials and the color of the new addition should be harmonious with the historic building materials. • The new addition should be smaller than the historic building-it should be subordinate in both size and design to the historic building. The same guidance should be applied when designing a compatible rooftop addition, plus the following: • A rooftop addition is generally not appropriate for a one, two or three-story building-and often is not appropriate for taller buildings. • A rooftop addition should be minimally visible. • Generally, a rooftop addition must be set back at least one full bay from the primary elevation of the building, as well as from the other elevations if the building is freestanding or highly visible. • Generally, a rooftop addition should not be more than one story in height. • Generally, a rooftop addition is more likely to be compatible on a building that is adjacent to similarly-sized or taller buildings. Figure 28 . A small addition (left) was constructed when this 1880s train station was converted for office use. The paired doors with transoms and arched windows on the compatible addition reflect, but do not replicate, the historic building (right). Summary Figure 29. This simple glass and brick entrance (left) added to a secondary elevation of a 1920s school building (right) is compatible with the original structure. Because a new exterior addition to a historic building can damage or destroy significant materials and can change the building's character, an addition should be considered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be met by altering non-significant, or secondary, interior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way, then an attached addition may be an acceptable alternative if carefully planned and designed. A new addition to a historic building should be constructed in a manner that preserves significant materials, features and form, and preserves the building's historic character. Finally, an addition should be differentiated from the historic building so that the new work is compatible with -and does not detract from -the historic building, and cannot itself be confused as historic. Additional Reading Byard, Paul Spencer. The Architecture of New Additions: Design and ReguLation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. Day, Steven, AlA. "Modernism Meets History: New Additions to Historic Structures." Preservation Seattle [Historic Seattle's online monthly preservation magazine.] May 2003 . www.historicseattle.orglpreservationseattle/publicpolicy/ defaultmay2.htm. Incentives! A Guide to the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program for Income-Producing Properties. "Avoiding Incompatible Treatments: New Additions & Rooftop Additions." Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/. Interpreting the Standards Bulletins (ITS). Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/. New Additions to Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at www.nps. gov /history/hps/tps/. O'Connell, Kim A. "Making Connections." Traditional Building. March/April 2004. (Vol. 17, No.2), pp. 12-15. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings . Washington, D .C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, rev. 1990. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. (Authors: W. Brown Morton, III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D . Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl. Project Directors: Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks.) Washington, D.C.: U .S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/. Semes, Steven W. "Differentiated and Compatible: The Secretary's Standards revisited." Traditional Building. February 2009. (Vol. 22, No.1), pp. 20-23. Semes, Steven W. The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. (In association with The Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America.) New York, NY: W.w. Norton & Company, 2009. Figure 30. The small addition on the right of this late-19th century commercial structure is clearly secondary and compatible in size, materials and design with the historic building. 15 16 Acknowledgements Figure 31. An elevator/stair tower was added at the back of this Richardsonian Romanesque-style theater when it was rehabilitated. Rough-cut stone and simple cut-out openings ensure that the addition is compatible and subordinate to the historic building. Photo: Chuck Liddy, AlA. Anne E. Grimmer, Senior Architectural Historian, Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service, revised Preservation Brief 14, written by Kay D. Weeks and first published in 1986. The revised Brief features all new illustrations and contains expanded and updated design guidance on the subject of new additions that has been developed by the Technical Preservation Services Branch since the original publication of the Brief. Several individuals generously contributed their time and expertise to review the revision of this Preservation Brief including: Sharon C. Park, FAIA, Chief, Architectural History and Historic Preservation, Smithsonian Institution; Elizabeth Tune and Karen Brandt, Department of Historic Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia; and Phillip Wisley and David Ferro, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State. The Technical Preservation Services professional staff, in particular Michael J. Auer, Jo Ellen Hensley, Gary Sachau and Rebecca Shiffer, also provided important guidance in the development of this publication. All illustrations are from National Park Service files unless otherwise credited. Front cover image: Detail of new addition shown in Figure 4. Photo: © Maxwell MacKenzie. This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. The Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service, prepares standards, guidelines and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public audience. Additional information about the programs of Technical Preservation Services is available on the website at www.nps.govlhistorylhps/tps. Comments about this publication should be addressed to: Charles E. Fisher, Technical Preservation Publications Program Manager, Technical Preservation Services-2255, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240 . This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the author and the National Park Service are appreciated. ISBN: 978-0-16-085869-7 U.S. Government Printing Office Stock Number: 024-005-01280-0 August 2010 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1-4 (PTS), .0842 acres, located at 107 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2014-006) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-006 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-006 107 E. 7th St. Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: D File Number: CDC-2014-006 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1-4 (PTS), .0842 acres, located at 107 E. 7th Street AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Galaxy Bakery Signage Applicant: Ira Thorpe Project Address: 107 E. 7th Street Relative Location: North side of E. 7th Street, between Main and Church Streets Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 39, Lot 1-4 (PTS), .0842 acres Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 1 APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance for new business signage. Signage includes a projecting sign, window and door signs, a sign mounted on the fence along the patio and a portable sign to be placed on the sidewalk during business hours. Sign Type Projecting Size 4.90 sq feet Materials Vinyl printed on MDO Location Mounted above the primary entrance Sign Type Door Size 2.2 sq feet Materials Vinyl applied to glass Location Mounted on side entry door Sign Type Window Size 4.90 sq feet Materials Vinyl applied to glass Location Mounted on primary facade Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-006 107 E. 7th St. Page 2 of 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1907 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - High 2007 - Medium National Register Designation: Non Contributing Structure in NR District Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed signage plan selects from the list of appropriate sign types for the Downtown Overlay District. Each sign will be professionally crafted and installed to insure longevity of the products. The use of the cupcake logo reflects the historic use of symbols on businesses. Each sign is designed to satisfy the maximum square footage allotted per sign by the Design Guidelines. The building has entrances on multiple facades, creating a need for multiple signage types and locations. Sign Type Flush mounted Size 4.90 sq feet Materials Vinyl printed on MDO Location Mounted on rear fence Sign Type Portable Size 4.90 sq feet Materials Plastic with Dry Erase material Location Mounted on rear fence Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-006 107 E. 7th St. Page 3 of 3 APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The proposed project complies with the following Design Guidelines: 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.6 A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered. 9.8 A window sign may be considered. 9.10 A projecting sign may be considered. 9.13 A portable sign may be considered, in the Downtown Overlay District. 9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. 9.18 Using a symbol for a sign is encouraged. 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of signage plan as presented ATTACHMENTS Applicant’s proposed signage plan, including renderings and material samples. SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 6-8(PTS), .2686 acres, located at 817 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2014-008) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: MCS ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-008 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-008 817 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: E File Number: CDC-2014-008 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 6-8(PTS), .2686 acres, located at 817 S. Austin Avenue AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Tribal Impressions Business Signage Applicant: Ray Shawley Project Address: 817 South Austin Avenue Relative Location: East side of South Austin Avenue, between 8th and 9th Streets Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lot 6-8(PTS), .2686 acres Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 1 APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant is requesting a flush mounted sign on the primary façade of the building. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1935 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Medium 2007 - Low National Register Designation: Non Contributing Structure in NR District Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation Sign Type Flush mounted Size 24 sq feet Façade Width 28.5 feet Materials Vinyl printed on MDO Location Mounted on façade above primary entrance Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-008 817 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 2 STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed sign project is in compliance with the Design Guidelines, satisfying the requirements for size, color and location. The placement of the sign does not obscure any character defining features of the structure and complements the existing paint scheme of the façade. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.6 A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered. 9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of CDC-2014-008 as presented. ATTACHMENTS Renderings are included with the staff report SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 1-2,7-8 (E/PT), located at 202 South Austin Ave. (CDC-2014-011) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-011 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-011 202 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: F File Number: CDC-2014-011 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 1-2,7-8 (E/PT), located at 202 South Austin Ave AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Signage for BIG – Brookwood in Georgetown Applicant: Anne Muilmann Project Address: 202 South Austin Avenue, Bldg 2 Relative Location: Southwest corner of South Austin Avenue and 2nd Street Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 1-2,7-8 (E/PT) Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant is requesting new business signage, including one section of a multi-tenant freestanding sign and a flush mounted sign on the primary façade of the structure. Sign Type Flush mounted Size 15.8 sq feet Façade Width 30 linear feet Materials Printed aluminum Location Mounted on façade next to primary entrance Sign Type Pole mounted multi-tenant Size 14.8 sq feet Materials Vinyl printed on MDO Location Mounted on façade next to primary entrance Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-011 202 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1930 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Not Recorded 2007 - Low National Register Designation: Not listed Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant’s request for a flush mounted sign and a sign on the multi-tenant pole sign is in compliance with the design guidelines. The size and colors are appropriate for the structure and the use of multi-tenant signs for properties with multiple tenants is strongly encouraged. Pole mounted signs are appropriate in Area 2 for properties set back from the street edge. Neither sign impacts the character defining features of the property. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.5 Freestanding or pole mounted signs may be considered. 9.6 A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered. 9.12 A directory sign for multi-tenant buildings must be considered. 9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of CDC-2014-011 as presented. ATTACHMENTS The applicant’s Letter of Intent and Renderings are included with this staff report. Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-011 202 South Austin Avenue Page 3 of 3 SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner 1 51.375 x 41.5 MDO full color single sided order #: 53130 1 70.375” x 32.5” 040 Alum Will need physical colol approval prior to print production full color single sided order #: 53130 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1(W/PT), .0551 acres, located at 308 W. 8th St. (CDC-2014-012) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-012 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-012 308 West 8th Street Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: G File Number: CDC-2014-012 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1(W/PT), .0551 acres, located at 308 W. 8th St AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Signage for Little Tim’s Barber Shop Applicant: Timothy Frederick Project Address: 308 West 8th Street Relative Location: South side of 8th Street, between Rock and MLK Streets Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1(W/PT), .0551 acres Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant is requesting window and door signage for the business at 308 West 8th Street. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1950 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Not Recorded 2007 - Medium National Register Designation: Not listed Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation Sign Type Door Size 2.1 sq feet Materials Vinyl applied to glass Location Mounted on primary door Sign Type Window Size 1.12 sq feet Materials Vinyl applied to glass Location Mounted on primary store front window Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-012 308 West 8th Street Page 2 of 2 STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed window and door signage is in compliance with the Design Guidelines. The signage complements the style and color of the structure, and has no negative impact on the character defining features. The barber pole in the window utilizes historic imagery to identify the business. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.8 A window sign may be considered. 9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. 9.18 Using a symbol for a sign is encouraged. 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of CDC-2014-012 as presented. ATTACHMENTS The applicant’s Letter of Intent and Renderings are included with the staff report. SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for signage at Morrow Addition, Block O (PT), .3083 acres, located at 1208 S. Main St. (CDC-2014-013) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-013 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-013 1208 S. Main Street Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: H File Number: CDC-2014-013 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Signage at Morrow Addition, Block O (PT), .3083 acres, located at 1208 S. Main St. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: AccuBuild Signage Applicant: Drew Moore Project Address: 1208 S. Main St Relative Location: West side of Main Street, south of University Ave Legal Description: Morrow Addition, Block O (PT), .3083 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance for business signage within the Old Town Overlay District. The request includes a pole mounted sign in front of the structure and a flush mounted sign on the north façade. Sign Type Pole mounted Size 32 sq feet Materials Vinyl printed on MDO Location Mounted in front yard of structure Sign Type Flush mounted Size 19.5 sq feet Materials Vinyl printed on MDO Location Mounted on north facing facade Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-013 1208 S. Main Street Page 2 of 2 HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1927 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - High 2007 - High National Register Designation: Contributing Structure in NR District Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant’s request conforms to the applicable design guidelines for signage. The size, placement and colors are appropriate for the structure and do not mask any character defining features of the building. Each sign is mounted in close proximity to an entrance, allowing for multiple signs for the structure. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or business offered within. 9.5 Freestanding or pole mounted signs may be considered. 9.6 A flush-mounted wall sign may be considered. 9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building facade. 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of CDC-2014-013 as proposed by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS Renderings are included with the staff report SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to reconsider HARC action taken on January 23, 2014 denying a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. (CDC-2013-061) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2013-061 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2013-061 1402 S. Ash Street Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: I File Number: CDC-2013-061 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Discussion and possible action to reconsider HARC action taken on January 23, 2014 denying a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Residential addition for 1402 Ash Street Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd for Joel & Lynn Goode Project Address: 1402 Ash Street Relative Location: Southwest corner of S. Ash St & 14th St Legal Description: Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town STAFF ANALYSIS CDC-2013-061 was presented to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on January 23, 2014. Only 5 commissioners were present for the meeting. After the case presentation, the motion to approve CDC-2013-061 was approved by a 3 – 2 vote. UDC Section 3.13.060 D requires the majority vote of all members of the commission to approve a Certificate of Design Compliance. Failure to receive at least 4 votes results in the denial of the CDC. Therefore, CDC-2013-061 is denied and must be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the motion to reconsider CDC-2013-061. SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. (CDC-2013-061) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2013-061 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 1402 South Ash Street Certificate of Design Compliance Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: January 16, 2014 Item: 7 File No: CDC-2013-061 Project Planner: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Report Date: January 16, 2014 Staff Recommendation: Approval Item Description Public Hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres, located at 1402 S. Ash St. Item Details Project Name: The Goode Residence Addition and Remodel Project Address: 1402 S Ash St Location: Southwest corner of S. Ash St and 14th St Legal Description: Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33 acres Overlay: Old Town Applicant/Owner: J. Bryant Boyd for Joel & Lynn Goode Applicable Guidelines: 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.6, 7.7, 7.9, 7.10, 14.18 Historic and Architectural Review Commission 1402 South Ash Street Certificate of Design Compliance Page 2 of 4 Applicant’s Request The applicant seeks CDC approval for adding a new 1,631 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the house. Staff Analysis The proposed project for the 1912 Mary De Bardeleben House, a High Priority Historic Structure, is designed to rehabilitate the existing structure while increasing the usability and livability of the space. The National register eligible historic structure is one of many structures in the historic core constructed by the Belford Lumber Company. Due to the significant setback from the street, the property has limited options for expansion without severely impacting the primary structure. The following guidelines apply to this project: Guideline 4.4 – Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • The existing garage siding siding and other materials should be repaired rather than replaced. Complete replacement of all materials regardless of their condition is not an appropriate treatment for this structure. Guideline 5.1 – Maintain existing wall materials and textures • The historic wood siding and other materials should be repaired or replaced in kind with the same materials. Any materials removed from the structure for the construction of the addition shall be retained for future maintenance of the structures. Guideline 5.2 – Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the materials. • The historic materials should be repaired for use on the project. Complete replacement of materials is not allowed. If materials must be replaced due to severe deterioration, the replacement materials should be installed on the rear of the structure, with original materials being consolidated on the facades visible from the public right of way. Historic and Architectural Review Commission 1402 South Ash Street Certificate of Design Compliance Page 3 of 4 Guideline 7.1 – Avoid alterations that would damage historic features • While the new addition will alter the structure, it will not damage any unique historic features. The materials from the demolition should be saved and used on other portions of the structure as needed. Guideline 7.2 – Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and the historic character retained. • The proposed project will retain the historic character of the High Priority Historic Structure. • While the new addition will alter the structure, it will not damage any unique historic features. The materials from the demolition should be saved and used on other portions of the structure as needed. Guideline 7.6 – Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. • Applicant proposes an addition with clearly delineated roof lines and other features, setting it apart from the primary structure. Guideline 7.7 – Place an addition at the rear of the building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. • The proposed addition will be added to the rear of the structure and will not significantly alter the existing roof line. Guideline 7.9 – An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. • The proposed addition is compatible in scale and materials with the historic structure, and retains the character of the primary structure. Guideline 7.10 – The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. • The addition will have a pitched roof, with a similar pitch to accommodate the two story addition. Historic and Architectural Review Commission 1402 South Ash Street Certificate of Design Compliance Page 4 of 4 Guideline 14.18 – The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building • The roof of the proposed addition will blend with the design and materials of the existing historic roof. Public Comments As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for the following items: Construction of a new addition to the primary structure Attachments Applicant’s letter of request, photos, and renderings Submitted By Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner James Bryant Boyd, AIA 902 Forest Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Tel: 512.930.1686 Fax: 512.863.7794 www.jbryantboyd.com jbboyd@jbryantboyd.com 1 Request for CDC 1402 Ash Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Summary This project involves a partial remodel (247 sq. ft.) of a 2-story historic residence located at 1402 Ash Street with a 2 story 1,631 square foot heated addition and three car garage. The existing structure will receive wood repair and paint - character and materials to remain the same. The residence is located at the southwest corner of Ash Street and East 14th Streets. Justification Statement The existing residence will not be significantly affected by the addition. Historical integrity of the existing residence will remain intact. Due to some deterioration, repairs are needed. Overall repairs include deck, wood siding and foundation underpinning. The addition is set 81’ from the front property line to the southwest corner of the lot and will not impact the front elevation of the existing residence. Project Scope 1. The existing deck repair will include removing deteriorated lumber and replacing with new lumber. 2. Wood siding, trim, facsia boards or any other deteriorated wood will be removed, replaced and painted to match existing paint color. 3. Paint will be scraped where necessary and repainted to match existing paint color. 4. The existing screened porch and roof will be removed to accommodate remodel and connect the addition. 5. The existing detached garage structure will remain intact and will receive wood and paint repair as needed. 6. The colors on the exterior of the addition will match the existing with the exception of the stone work in the front elevation of the addition. See page 6 for example of new stone color. 7. Underpinning of the existing residence, currently of stucco on lathe, is crumbling. It will be replaced with a concrete footing and stone to match the stone on the addition; thus, tying the new and existing together. We appreciate the opportunity to present this request to HARC. Sincerely, James Bryant Boyd, AIA December 12, 2013 December 12, 2013 2 Subject Property harc submital for cdc Goode Residence Addition 1402 Ash Street Georgetown, Texas December 12, 2013 3 Subject Property harc submital for cdc rear/left elevation viewrear/left elevation viewrear elevation right elev. / detached garageright elev. / detached garageright elevation view right elevationfront viewfront elevation December 12, 2013 4 Proposed Elevations harc submital for cdc new existing new existing existing new existing new Right ElevationRear Elevation Left ElevationFront Elevation December 12, 2013 5 Proposed Floor Plan harc submital for cdc Proposed Site Plan & Floor Plan December 12, 2013 6 Satellite Image harc submital for cdc Example of stone color The colors on the exterior of the addition will match the existing with the exception of the stone work in the front elevation of the addition. December 12, 2013 7 Satellite Image harc submital for cdc 1402 Ash Street Satellite View City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Exterior Alterations at Clamp's Addition Revised, Block (NW/PT), .1785 acres, located at 801 S. Walnut Street. (CDC-2014- 007) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-007 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-007 801 South Walnut Street Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: K File Number: CDC-2014-007 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Exterior Alterations at Clamp's Addition Revised, Block F (NW/PT), .1785 acres, located at 801 S. Walnut Street AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 801 S Walnut Street Addition Applicant: Richard Harwell Project Address: 801 S. Walnut Street Relative Location: Southeast corner of Walnut and 8th Streets Legal Description: Clamp's Addition Revised, Block F (NW/PT), .1785 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance to construct a bay window on the north façade of the structure. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1929 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Low 2007 - Medium National Register Designation: Not listed Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance to construct 24 square foot addition on a street facing façade of the Medium priority historic structure located at 801 S. Walnut Street. The addition enlarges a dining area inside the structure and impacts the secondary façade along 8th St. The primary façade of the structure faces Walnut Street. The partially completed addition will be clad in wood shingles, creating a differentiation between the existing asbestos Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-007 801 South Walnut Street Page 2 of 2 shingle walls. The new windows are wood clad vinyl windows, which replicate the appearance of the historic wooden windows. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or re- move original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. The project is in compliance with the Design Guidelines for additions to a residential structure. Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. ATTACHMENTS The applicant’s renderings and photos are included with the staff report. SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Exterior Alterations at Southside Addition, Block 5pt, .16 acres, located at 2009 S. Church Street. (CDC-2014-009) ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-009 Staff Report Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-009 2009 South Church Street Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Agenda Item: L File Number: CDC-2014-009 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for Exterior Alterations at Southside Addition, Block 5pt, .16 acres, located at 2009 S. Church Street AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 2009 S. Church Street Residential Addition Applicant: C.J. Bedair Project Address: 2009 S. Church St Relative Location: Northeast corner of S. Church and E 19th Streets Legal Description: Southside Addition, Block 5pt, .16 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant requests a Certificate of Design Compliance for an addition to a Low priority historic structure located in the Old Town Historic Overlay District. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1910 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Low 2007 - Low National Register Designation: Not listed Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a 394 square foot addition on the Low priority historic structure, which would include a Master suite and additional storage space. The current structure is 816 square feet and is clad in horizontal wood siding. The lot includes several accessory structures, limiting the options for placing the addition. The addition will be placed on the rear of the structure, but due to the location on a corner lot, will be visible from 19th Street. After consultation with staff, the applicant agreed to include a 2’ x 3’ setback in the wall and use Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-009 2009 South Church Street Page 2 of 3 different materials within the area to differentiate the addition. The small setback creates the visual appearance of a connector without sacrificing a significant amount of floor space. Connectors are an appropriate architectural form for creating the necessary differentiation. The new addition will be clad in horizontal siding, with vertical siding inside the connector space. The roof line will mimic the connector, highlighting the division between the original construction and the addition. The roofline will also step down over the addition, creating additional distinction between the two components. The addition will remain subordinate to the original structure and is sized appropriately. The addition conforms to the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and is appropriate for the structure. The proposed design allows the applicant to construct the addition within the constraints of the property and does not require the demolition of any accessory structures on the site. Significant alterations to the proposed design would result in demolition of one or more of the accessory structures. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features 7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed design complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines in scale, materials and style of the addition. Staff recommends approval of CDC-2014-009 as presented ATTACHMENTS Applicant’s Letter of Intent, architectural renderings and photos are included with the staff report. Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-009 2009 South Church Street Page 3 of 3 As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS WINDOW 1 – SPECS QTY 3 WINDOW 2 – SPECS QTY 1 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review of Council approved Bylaws of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2011 Signed Bylaws Backup Material City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and discussion of the City Council Attendance Policy for Board Members. ITEM SUMMARY: Ord. No. 2012-85, § 2; Ord. No. 2012-52, § 2; Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A) 75% minimum attendance excused absences for sick leave and military leave warning letter (2 absences) removal letter (3 absences ) FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Attendance Policy Ordinance Cover Memo Ordinance Number: _____________ Page 1 of 3 Description: Boards Attendance Ordinance Date Approved: ____________ 2012 ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN (“CITY”) AMENDING CHAPTER 2.36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE ATTENDANCE POLICY FOR CITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the current attendance policy for City commissions, committees and boards is a Member’s attendance at a minimum of 75 percent of regularly scheduled meetings and subcommittee meetings; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the attendance policy to allow a limited number of excused absences for a Member’s personal medical care or medical care of a Member’s immediate family member that will not count against the Member’s 75 percent attendance requirement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Section 2. Chapter 2.36, Section 2.36.010 of the Code of Ordinances is amended as shown below. Sec. 2.36.010. - Duties of members. A. Commission, committee, and board members (hereinafter referred to as "Members") will represent unconflicted loyalty to the interests of the residents of Georgetown. This accountability supersedes any conflicting loyalty such as that to advocacy or interest groups and membership on other boards or staffs. This accountability supersedes the personal interest of any Board Member acting as an individual. B. Unless otherwise specified by federal law, state law, the City Charter, or other provisions of this Code of Ordinances, committees, commissions, and boards are responsible to and shall act as an advisory body to the Council and shall perform such duties and exercise such additional powers as may be described by ordinances and the Local Government Code not inconsistent with the provisions of the City Charter Committees, commissions, and boards play a unique and important role in this advisory capacity, assisting the Council to carry out its responsibilities for making the decisions which shape City policy. C. Each Member is responsible to attend meetings prepared to discuss the issues on the agenda. D. Attendance by Members is integral to success of the commission, committee or board. It is Council policy to require a minimum of 75 percent attendance of each Member at each regularly scheduled meeting including subcommittee meetings. A Member shall be allowed two excused absences for the Member’s personal medical care or required medical care of a Member’s immediate family member (as defined by City Ordinance) that shall not count against the 75 percent attendance requirement .Written notice shall be sent to a Member and the Member's City Council representative when it appears the Member may violate the attendance policy by being absent from more than 25 percent of regularly scheduled meetings, including subcommittee meetings. Excessive absenteeism may result in the Member being replaced by the Council. If a Member is removed from Ordinance Number: _____________ Page 2 of 3 Description: Boards Attendance Ordinance Date Approved: ____________ 2012 a committee, commission or board, that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be appointed to the Board in accordance with Section 2.36.040. E. Committees, commissions, and boards, and their Members, shall comply with applicable City ordinances, rules and policies. F. Members shall act and conduct themselves in a manner which will promote trust in their integrity, impartiality, and their devotion to the best interests of the City. During meetings, Members shall preserve order and decorum and shall conduct themselves in a manner which will not, either by conversation or activity, delay or interrupt the proceedings. Members shall not indulge in personalities, use offensive language, arraign the motives of other Members, charge deliberate misrepresentation, or use language tending to hold any Members, Council Members, the public, or the staff, in contempt. Members will comply with the directions of the presiding office. G. Each Member shall vote on all agenda items, except on matters involving a conflict of interest, substantial financial interest or substantial economic interest under state law, the City's Ethics Ordinance (Chapter 2.20, Code of Ordinances), or other applicable Laws, Rules and Policies. In such instances the Member shall make the required disclosures and shall refrain from participating in both the discussion and vote on the matter. The Member may remain at the dais or leave the dais, at the Member's option, while the matter is being considered and voted on by the other Board Members. Unless otherwise provided by law, if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved by a majority of the Board Members present at the meeting. H. Members are encouraged to be active in discussions and activities of the commission, committee or board, seeking to be innovative, creative, and freely sharing the skills and knowledge which prompted their appointment. I. Communication between the Council and the committees, commissions and boards is important to fulfilling their purpose. Committees, commissions and boards shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how to best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports from the committees, commissions and boards at regularly scheduled Council meetings. J. Unless otherwise required by law, committees, commissions, and boards shall meet once a month. Meetings will be conducted in accordance with the bylaws of the committee, commission or board, and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures (Chapter 2.24, Code of Ordinances), as applicable. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members and is required for the committee, commission or board to convene a meeting and to conduct business at a meeting. Committee, commission and board meetings shall be noticed, conducted and recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. K. Committees, commissions, and boards, and their Members, have no authority to expend funds or make obligations on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by City Council. L. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred by them in the performance of their duties as Members when authorized by their respective committee, commission or board and the City Council. Section 3. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the oth er provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance Number: _____________ Page 3 of 3 Description: Boards Attendance Ordinance Date Approved: ____________ 2012 ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING on the 24th day of July, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING on the ______ day of ________, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ________________________________ _____________________________________ Jessica Brettle , George G. Garver, City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to elect the Vice-Chair and Secretary of the HARC. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to nominate and elect the Sign Subcommittee members. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to appoint the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to set date & time for 2014 HARC meetings and 2014 HARC Sign Subcommittee Meetings. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft HARC Meeting Dates Backup Material Georgetown, Texas 14 Draft date: February 2014 UDC Development Manual Historic and Architectural Review Commission (4th Thursday) and HARC Sign Subcommittee (2nd Monday & 4th Thursday) Applications may be submitted at any time. The Agenda Deadline is not a submittal deadline; it is the last day an item may be added to a meeting agenda to meet notifi cation requirements. Additional time is needed for processing and review of applications, therefore you are encouraged to submit your application as early as possible in advance of this date to avoid delays. Please refer to the Application Review Timelines chart in this Development Manual to estimate overall processing time. All issues must be resolved before an item can be added to an agenda. Staff will determine when your application is ready for the public meeting and notify you accordingly. Historic & Architectural Review Commission HARC Sign Subcommittee Agenda Deadline HARC Meeting Agenda Deadline Sign Subcommittee Meeting Dec 9, 2013 Jan 23, 2014 Nov 27, 2013 Jan 13, 2014 Jan 13, 2014 Feb 27 Dec 9, 2013 Jan 23 Feb 10 Mar 27 Dec 23, 2013 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 24 Jan 13, 2014 Feb 27 Apr 7 May 22 Jan 22 Mar 10 May 12 Jun 26 Feb 10 Mar 27 Jun 9 Jul 24 Feb 26 Apr 14 Jul 7 Aug 21 Mar 10 Apr 24 Aug 11 Sep 25 Mar 26 May12 Sep 8 Oct 23 Apr 7 May 22 -- Nov - No Meeting* Apr 23 Jun 9 Oct 27 Dec 11* May 12 Jun 26 Dec 8 Jan 22, 2015 May 23 Jul 14 Jun 9 Jul 24 Jun 25 Aug 11 Jul 7 Aug 21 Jul 23 Sep 8 Aug 11 Sep 25 Aug 27 Oct 13 Sep 8 Oct 23 Sep 24 Nov 10 Oct 27 Dec 11* Nov 26 Jan 12, 2015 * November and December regular meetings are combined due to the Holidays. The combined meeting is held on the second Thursday of December. * *Applications may be submitted at any time. This date refl ects the earliest meeting when an application may be scheduled based on the agenda deadline. However, there is no guarantee that an application will be in a form ready for scheduling. City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. ITEM SUMMARY: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC. ITEM SUMMARY: a) Promotion (Cindy, Marcy, Jim, Vicki): 5th Anniversary Swirl; updates on other action plan projects b) Economic Restructuring (Marcy, Jim, Julie, Vicki): Breakfast Bites; Granbury Trip; College Town Committee; updates on other action plan projects c) Design (Amanda, Julie, David): Main Street Mural call for art; updates on other action plan projects d) Organization (David, Cindy, Amanda): Board action plan update and committee suggestions; updates on other action plan projects FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Adjournment. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary