Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.24.2014Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown April 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM at 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. 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 minutes of the March 27, 2014 regular HARC Meeting. B Preservation Brief - The Historic Preservation Commission's Role in Historic Preservation C Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for Exterior Alterations and New Construction (Addition) at Glasscock Edition, Block 5, Lot 1, .16 acres, located at 902 Forest Street. (CDC-2014-010) D Discussion and review of the Texas Open Meetings Act and meeting procedures –- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney E Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. F Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. 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 minutes of the March 27, 2014 regular HARC Meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Minutes 03272014 Backup Material Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5  Meeting:  March 27, 2014   City of Georgetown, Texas  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting  Minutes  Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.  Council and Courts Building  101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626  Members present: Anna Eby, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice‐ Chair; Jennifer Brown; David Paul; Richard  Mee and Mary Jo Winder.  Commissioners in Training present: Ty Gibson, Rodolfo Martinez and Barbara Price  Commissioners absent:  Martine Rousseau  Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; and Karen Frost,  Recording Secretary.  Call to Order by Eby at 6:01 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.  Consideration and possible approval of the revised minutes of the January 23, 2014 regular meeting.  Eby explained the correction that needed to be made to the minutes, in regards to the number of  votes needed for an action to be approved.    Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as presented with the noted changes.  Second by Knight.   Approved 6 ‐0.  B.  Review and possible approval of the minutes of the February 27, 2013 meeting.  Motion by Paul to approve the minutes as written.  Second by Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  C.  Preservation Brief #14 on New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings.  Synatschk presented the report and discussed the definitions of different, appropriate and  subordinate additions and gave examples of the different types of additions.  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)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting a CDC for changing logos on  existing signs and adding an A‐frame sign.    Eby opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.    Motion by Mee to approve the CDC as submitted.  Second by Knight.  Approved 6 – 0.  E. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for signage at City of  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5  Meeting:  March 27, 2014   Georgetown, Block 54, Lot 6 – 8 (pts), .2686 acres, located at 817 S. Austin Avenue.  (CDC‐2014‐008)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting a CDC for a flush mounted sign on  the primary façade of the building.  The business was previously on 8th Street and is moving around  the corner to a space on Austin Avenue.  It was confirmed that the temporary banner would come  down when the permanent sign goes up.  Eby opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.  Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as presented.  Second by Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  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)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting a CDC to replace a sign face of an  existing sign.  The application meets the guidelines and staff recommends approval.    Knight questioned whether the sign background color would be brown or gray, as both colors were  presented on different pictures.  The applicant explained only one color would be used.  Eby opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.    Motion by Knight to approve the application with the suggestion to make the two signs the same  color, whether brown or gray.  Second by Paul.  Approved 6 – 0.  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 Street.  (CDC‐2014‐012)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting approval for signage on a door and  a window.  Staff recommends approval of the frosted white color vinyl.    Eby opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.    Motion by Mee to approve the CDC application as submitted.  Second by Brown.  Approved 6 – 0.  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 Street. (CDC‐2014‐013)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting approval for a pole‐mounted sign  and a flush mounted sign.  Staff recommends approval.  Eby opened the Public Hearing.    Lenore Fillmore, of 1216 S. Main Street, requested the applicant not put the sign by the driveway that  would block her line of site down the street.  The applicant explained they had already decided not to  install the sign she was referring to and it was not included in the application.  They were not asking  for approval of that sign.  Eby closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth.  Motion by Winder to approve the CDC‐2013‐013 as proposed.  Second by Knight.  Approved 6 – 0.  I.  Public Hearing and possible action to reconsider HARC action taken on January 23, 2014 denying a  Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior alterations at Hughes Addition, Block 7 (NE/PT), .33  acres, located at 1402 S. Ash Street.  (CDC‐2013‐061)  Synatschk explained the situation where the commission voted previously 3 – 2 to approve, but per  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5  Meeting:  March 27, 2014   UDC Section 3.13.060 D HARC actions require a majority of the full commission, a 4 person  minimum must vote to approve an item, therefore the original vote was deemed denied.    Motion by Knight to reconsider the case of CDC‐2014‐008.  Second by Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  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 Street (CDC‐2013‐061)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The report is the same as was given in January.  The applicant,  Bryant Boyd explains the stone on the new addition is meant to differentiate between the old and the  new portions of the house.  He presented three options of stone samples for the commissioners to see.   They were red sandstone, tan sandstone and white limestone.  Eby opened the Public Hearing.    Gary Halko, of 1309 Elm Street, was in total support of the application.  He spoke with the Goodes  (owners) about the addition and thinks that they will do the best thing possible and the house  addition will be an asset to the neighborhood.  Eby closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth.  Winder expressed concern that the stone gives prominence to the new addition, thereby not meeting  the design standards or guidelines.    Paul showed an example of an addition showing some variation  from the Preservation Brief earlier.  Knight read guidelines from Chapter 7 of the Design Guidelines.   Commissioners deliberated on what was acceptable to them.  Motion by Winder to approve the addition with the condition that the stonework is limited to the  height of the foundation and height of columns on the side of the garage doors, with a  recommendation of the white limestone as the stone choice.  Second by Paul.  Discussion of options.   Motion failed 0 – 6.  Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as presented with the condition that the stone height of the  addition not exceeds wainscot height and stone skirting can be added to the original house.  The  applicant has the choice of any of the presented stones, with the approval of staff.  Second by Mee.   Approved 5 – 1 (Winder opposed).  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)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting a CDC for a 24 square foot addition  on a street facing face of a medium priority historic structure.  The partially completed addition is  visible from the street and will be clad in wood shingles, creating a differentiation between the  existing asbestos shingle walls.  The applicant declined to speak.  Commissioners tried to get him to  respond to the proposed color of the addition.  Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forward, closed the Public Hearing.  There was discussion among the commissioners regarding whether this was a complete application  or not.    Motion by Knight to approve the application as presented with the wood shake shingles to be  painted the same neutral color as the rest of the house and for staff to review the color once the  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5  Meeting:  March 27, 2014   color was established.  Second by Mee.  Approved 5 – 1 (Paul opposed).  L.  Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior  alterations at Southside Addition, Block 5 (pt), .16 acres, located at 2009 S. Church Street.  (CDC‐2014‐ 009)  Synatschk presented the application and staff report.  The applicant is proposing a 394 square foot  addition 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 applicant is adding a 2’ x 3’ notch into the  side, with different siding, to differentiate between the old and new structures.  Staff recommends  approval of the entire application.  Eby opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forward, closed the Public Hearing.  The commissioners expressed appreciation to the applicants for such a complete application, and to  Synatschk for working with the applicant to add the differentiation and meet the standards.  Motion by Mee to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Winder.  Approved 6 – 0.  M.  Review of Council approved Bylaws of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission.  Frost reviewed the bylaws with the commissioners.  N.  Review and discussion of the City Council Attendance Policy for Board Members.  Frost reviewed the attendance policy of the city as provided in the staff packets and in Ordinance  2012‐085.  O.  Consideration and possible action to elect the Vice‐Chair and Secretary of the HARC.  Motion by Mee to nominate Knight as Vice‐Chair.  Second by Paul.  Approved 6 – 0.  Motion by Knight to nominate Mee as Secretary.  Second by Paul.  Approved 6 – 0.  P.  Consideration and possible action to nominate and elect the Sign Subcommittee members.  Motion by Paul to nominate Knight, Mee and Winder to the Sign Subcommittee.  Second by  Brown.  Approved 6 – 0.  Q.  Discussion and possible action to appoint the HARC Demolition Subcommittee.  Motion by Brown to nominate Winder, Eby and Knight to the Demolition Subcommittee.  Second  by Paul.  Approved 6 – 0.  R.  Consideration and possible action to set date and time for 2014 HARC meetings and 2014 HARC Sign  Subcommittee Meetings.  Motion by Knight to keep the regular HARC meetings on the 4th Thursday at 6:00 p.m.  Second by  Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  Motion by Knight to hold the Sign Subcommittee meetings at 5:30 p.m. on the 4th Thursday, before  the regular HARC meeting, and the second meeting will be the second Monday of the month at  4:00 p.m.  Second by Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  S.  Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.  Gibson asked how the commissioners could review applications that were incomplete when taken in  comparison to those that were very complete.  Synatschk and Eby explained that not all applications  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5  Meeting:  March 27, 2014   were equal and that everyone had to work together.  There is work being done on a more explanatory  checklist of submittal items so that hopefully these issues can be addressed for the non‐professional  submittals.  T.  Reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.  Synatschk reported the Sign Subcommittee will meet on April 14th at 4:00 p.m.  The regular  commission will meet on April 24th at 6:00 p.m.  The Downtown Master Plan’s second reading of the  ordinance at city council will be April 8th.    Eby stated she appreciates knowing when items that are important to HARC are going to city  council.  She asked that those notices continue to be sent.  She also appreciated the work the  commissioners did in working with the regulations of the UDC lately.  Adjournment.  Motion by Knight to adjourn.  Second by Mee. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.       ________________________________    __________________________________          Approved, Anna Eby, Chair    Attest, Nancy Knight      City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Preservation Brief - The Historic Preservation Commission's Role in Historic Preservation ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type NAPC Report - HPC Role in Historic Preservation Backup Material Item B - Preservation Brief City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for Exterior Alterations and New Construction (Addition) at Glasscock Edition, Block 5, Lot 1, .16 acres, located at 902 Forest Street. (CDC-2014-010) ITEM SUMMARY: Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for Exterior Alterations and New Construction (Addition) at Glasscock Edition, Block 5, Lot 1, .16 acres, located at 902 Forest Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatchk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-010 Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit I - Letter of Intent and Elevations Backup Material Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-010 902 Forest Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: April 24, 2014 Agenda Item: C File Number: CDC-2014-010 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance request for Exterior Alterations and New Construction (Addition) at Glasscock Edition, Block 5, Lot 1, .16 acres, located at 902 Forest Street. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: J. Bryant Boyd Design-Build Addition Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd Project Address: 902 Forest Street Relative Location: Southwest corner of W 9th Street and Rock Street Legal Description: Glasscock Edition, Block 5, Lot 1. .16 acres Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 Case History: The project was considered for conceptual review at the January 23, 2014 HARC meeting. APPLICANT’S REQUEST Applicant requests a Certificate of Design Compliance for the following: 1) Replace an existing shed roof with a gabled roof and siding 2) A 320-square foot addition to the south elevation of the existing structure. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1935 Historic Resources Survey Priority: 1984 - Low 2007 - Medium National Register Designation: Eligible for NR Listing Texas Historical Commission Designation: No State Designation STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) to construct a 320-square foot addition to the Medium Priority historic structure located at 902 Forest Street. The addition will be added to the south façade, and be set back from the street (Attachment I). The applicant is proposing new materials for the addition, designed to achieve the necessary differentiation Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-010 902 Forest Street Page 2 of 4 between the historic structure and the new construction. The proposed addition is subordinate to the existing historic structure in size, scale and massing, and enables the structure to remain useful for the current owner. The addition is similar in height to the primary structure, and is approximately 20% of the existing structure. The size and location create a subordinate addition, allowing the primary structure to remain the focus. The addition will be painted to match the existing structure. A previous project on the structure included the enclosure of the porch on the back (west) portion of the building to create additional living space. The porch enclosure included a flat roof with little insulation installed under the roofline. The applicant proposes to remove the flat roof and replace it with a gabled roof to match the roofline of the existing roof. The modification allows for the installation of sufficient insulation to maintain the temperature of the structure, and increase the interior volume of the enclosed porch. The gabled end will be clad in hardi siding, creating the differentiation from the existing wood siding on the west façade. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines indicate that new alterations must be differentiated from the historic structure. The Design Guidelines state that the new roof should be in character with the primary building, but must be differentiated through design or materials. The applicant proposes to maintain the configuration of the existing exposed rafter tails, currently installed at a flatter pitch over the enclosed porch than the original roof. Maintaining the spacing and the reduced pitch, along with the different materials, creates the necessary differentiation to assist in the identification of the non-historic alterations to the structure. The applicant presented the project to the HARC at the January 23, 2014 Commission meeting. Commissioners stated that the contiguous roof over the primary structure, new addition and enclosed porch is in conflict with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Several options were presented, including lowering the roof line, altering the pitch of the roof, or altering the roof shape. The applicant worked with staff to develop a design that achieves the differentiation without creating potential maintenance problems. The application is deemed complete by staff and contains sufficient information to review the proposed project. The proposed project is in compliance with the standards set forth by the Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The new addition and roof do not significantly alter the integrity of the historic structure and are compatible with the surrounding historic properties. The surrounding properties and section of the Downtown Overlay is primarily composed of historic residences converted to offices. Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-010 902 Forest Street Page 3 of 4 The addition and roof extension do not impact the residential character of the structure or the surrounding structures. 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. 7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. 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 re- move 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. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the UDC, the HARC shall determine whether to grant a CDC based on the following criteria: A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; B. Compliance with any design standards of this Unified Development Code; C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Georgetown Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-010 902 Forest Street Page 4 of 4 G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the following condition: The current spacing and pitch of the exposed rafter tails over the enclosed porch shall be maintained. As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received by the City. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I - Applicant’s Letter of Intent, Floor plans and Elevations SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 City of GeorgetownPlanning and Development Services/HARCGeorgetown, TX 78626 Preliminary HARC ReviewJ. Bryant Boyd Design-Build Addition902 Forest Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The attached submittal involves an addition to the office of J. Bryant Boyd Design-Build The Project Scope Summary: A proposed addition of approximately 320 sf to a 1,200 sf 1935 bungalow used as offices for J. Bryant Boyd Design-Build. The proposed addition will use modern materials but will match the existing building details and finishes. The sole exception to this would be the addition of horizontal lap hardi-siding on the sides (please refer to the attached drawings). The upper gable wall (west elevation) will also be horizontal hardi-siding. This will differentiate the new construction from the existing original wood v-groove siding while maintaining an appropriate consistency of style. If possible, the original windows will be reused in the new addition. The windows will be carefully removed and evaluated for potential reuse. If, upon evaluation, any individual windows March 7, 2014 are found to be un-salvageable, new windows will be installed. New wood windows will be used. The roof at the addition will match the existing as closely as possible including slope, roofing, rafter tails, and brackets but will use modern materials. The paint colors will be the same as the existing using the same configuration for field, trim and/or accent. The building has 5 existing parking spaces located in the back of the structure on a pervious cover of decomposed granite. The location and materials parking area will not be changed. The existing wood ramp from the rear door to the parking area will be repaired and/or rebuilt maintaining the original size & configuration. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to HARC for an informal preliminary review and discussion. We look forward to hearing any comments and/or concerns regarding this project. Sincerely, J. Bryant Boyd, AIA March 7, 2014 2 Subject Property harc submital for cdc Existing Elevations 902 Forest Street Georgetown, Texas The paint colors will be the same as the existing using the same configuration for field, trim and/or accent. March 7, 2014 3 Proposed Floor Plan harc submital for cdc Proposed Floor Plan March 7, 2014 4 Proposed Elevations harc submital for cdc March 7, 2014 5 Proposed Elevations harc submital for cdc March 7, 2014 6 Site Plan harc submital for cdc Existing Site Plan & Floor Plan March 7, 2014 7 Site Plan harc submital for cdc Proposed Site Plan & Floor Plan March 7, 2014 8 Satellite Image harc submital for cdc 902 Forest Street Satellite View Attachment I - 902 Forest City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and review of the Texas Open Meetings Act and meeting procedures –- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: Discussion and review of the Texas Open Meetings Act and meeting procedures –- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: MCS City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. ITEM SUMMARY: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: MCS City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. ITEM SUMMARY: Staff updates and reminder of future meetings FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: MCS City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Adjournment. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary