HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.25.2017Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
May 25, 2017 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 E 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff P res entation
Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.)
Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
Comments fro m Citizens *
Applic ant Res p o nse
Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s
Commis s ion Ac tion
* Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing
sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the
Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration of the Minutes from the Ap ril 27, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing Secretary
C Public Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t for a Certific ate of Appropriateness (CO A) fo r an
additio n to a histo ric s tructure lo cated at 105 East 5th Street, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f City of
Georgetown, Blo ck 25, Lo t 1-8, 1.32 ac res . (C OA-2017-010)
D His toric Res ource Survey Up d ate -- Sofia Nels on, CNU-A, Planning Direc to r
Adjournment
Page 1 of 23
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 23
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 25, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the Ap ril 27, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC_Minutes _04.27.2017 Backup Material
Page 3 of 23
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2
Meeting: April 27, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Assendorf-Hyde (alternate); Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Patty
Eason; Shawn Hood, Vice-Chair; and Lawrence Romero.
Absent: Karl Meixsell
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Assendorf-
Hyde will serve on the dais in Meixsell’s absence.
Regular Session
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration of the Minutes from the March 23, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Eason asked for clarification of the section about the bylaws to include an explanation as to
why the title was incorrect, that Commissioner-in-Training are now Alternates.
Motion by Eason, second by Romero to approve the minutes with clarification on the
Alternates. Approved 7 – 0.
C. Election of Vice-chair for the 2017-2018 Historic and Architectural Review Commission. Lee
Bain, Chair
Nomination of Shawn Hood as Vice-chair by Browner, second by Bohls. Approved 7 – 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
exterior alterations to a historic structure for the property located at 1501 South Church Street,
bearing the legal description of Hughes 2nd Addition, Block D (PT), 0.225 acres. Matt
Synatschk, Historic Planner
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a two
story addition to the southeast corner of the structure, creating additional living space for the
homeowner. The square footage of the proposed addition is approximately 38% of the
existing structure, but the overall impact is mitigated by the placement of the addition at the
rear of the structure. The addition will extend approximately 5 feet beyond the current east
building wall, lining up with the existing porch. Materials for the addition include a new
window (facing east) and wood siding. The siding will be larger than the existing siding on
the structure, creating the appropriate differentiation.
The modifications to the Church Street façade include restoring an existing window on the
second floor. The current window is broken and covered by an attic vent. This change restores
a historic feature of the structure and complies with the design guidelines by utilizing
Page 4 of 23
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2
Meeting: April 27, 2017
physical documentation to restore previously removed or obscured architectural features.
The proposed dormer window on the south façade allows the expansion of the second floor
living space while reducing the impact on the exterior of the structure. Guideline 7.9 states
“Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.” The proposed dormer complies with this guideline
and limits the impact on the structure by placing it on a non-street facing façade.
The proposed project will result in limited removal of historic materials from the southeast
corner of the structure, but will not result in the loss of any character defining features for the
structure. Overall, the addition is designed in a manner that will not negatively impact the
historic significance of the structure, nor create an incompatible structure in the Old Town
Overlay District. Staff recommends approval.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing.
Motion by Romero to approve the COA as presented. Second by Bohls. Approved 7 – 0.
E. Update on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey – Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Synatschk showed the map of the boundaries of the survey and reported that 1690 properties
were identified in the survey. Over 500 of them were outside the survey area and are
properties that are identified as over 50 years old. He explained that a change in priority for a
structure that was already on the survey will result in a THC form being completed to explain
the change. There is now an identifier for properties that have been demolished so there will
not be a conflict in the report.
Synatschk reported staff will present a workshop to Council on May 9th. There will be a letter
mailed to all 1690 property owners explaining the survey and what it means to them. The
Planning Department also submitted a budget request for an annual mailing to property
owners to catch those owners that change throughout the year. There will be an effort made
to increase communication and publicity about living and owning property in the historic
districts.
Adjournment
Motion by Romero, second by Eason to adjourn at 6:25 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
___________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 5 of 23
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 25, 2017
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an ad d itio n
to a his to ric s tructure loc ated at 105 Eas t 5th S treet, bearing the legal desc riptio n of City of Georgetown,
Blo ck 25, Lot 1-8, 1.32 acres. (COA-2017-010)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for exterio r alteratio ns to a his toric struc ture.
Ac cording to the s ubmitted letter of intent, the ap p licant wishes to c o nstruc t a new porc h o n the wes t
façade o f the s truc ture.
Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the reques t meets the approval c riteria
o f S ectio n 3.13.030 o f the Unified Development C o d e (UDC), as outlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt.
The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
COA-2017-017 Staff Report Backup Material
COA-2017-010 Plans and Specifications Backup Material
Page 6 of 23
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-010 105 East 5th Street Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: May 25, 2017
File Number: COA-2017-010
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition to a historic structure located at 105 East 5th Street, bearing the legal description of City of
Georgetown, Block 25, Lot 1-8, 1.32 acres. (COA-2017-010)
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Taylor Cooper House Porch Addition
Applicant: Winann Ewing
Property Owner: Winann Ewing
Property Address: 105 East 5th Street
Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 25, Lot 1-8, 1.32 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca. 1890
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High Priority
2007 – High Priority
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of an existing porch and
construction of a new porch.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements. Complies
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features Complies
7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character of the
main building
Complies
7.10 The roof form of a new building shall be in character with that of the
primary building
Complies
Page 7 of 23
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-010 105 East 5th Street Page 2 of 3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the High Priority historic structure
located at 105 East 5th Street. The structure was built ca. 1890, and significantly altered in the 1940s.
The alterations included construction of a new addition with nontraditional details, specifically the
decorative porch columns. The alterations also included cladding a portion of the structure with scored
stucco.
The proposed porch is not located on the primary façade of the structure. However, the porch is visible
from the street. The proposed porch is located on the 1940s addition, shading the structure and
providing protection for some of the original details from the elements. Locating the porch on the side
of the structure, and placing it on the addition minimizes the overall impact of the addition. While the
1940s addition has gained historic significance in its own right, the new porch does not negatively
impact the structure.
The proposed porch is a simplified design, using 4 x 4 wooden columns and a shed roof. The design
creates a porch subordinate to the primary structure, complying with the Downtown and Od Town
Design Guidelines.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
A. The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
The application is deemed complete.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards of the underlying
Residential Single Family (RS) zoning
district.
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,
specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay
District;
The proposed project complies with the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines as outlined in the staff analysis.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the historic integrity of the
structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The new addition is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project does not negatively
impact the Old Town Overlay District.
Page 8 of 23
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-010 105 East 5th Street Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted
design standards, and are not in character with
the site or landmarks within the Historic or
applicable Overlay District in question will not be
permitted.
No signage is proposed with this project.
H. The following may also be considered by the
HARC when determining whether to approve a
Certificate for Design Compliance:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
The proposed project adheres to the
requirements of the Design Guidelines,
minimizing the impact upon the historic
structure, adjacent properties and the Old
Town Overlay District. The applicant’s
design utilizes materials and massing that
are compatible with the structure, and
places the addition to the rear, limiting the
impact to the historic structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project as submitted by
the applicant.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 9 of 23
Page 10 of 23
Page 11 of 23
Page 12 of 23
Page 13 of 23
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 25, 2017
SUBJECT:
Histo ric Reso urc e S urvey Update -- Sofia Nels o n, C NU-A, P lanning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is updating the exis ting 1984 and 2007 histo ric res ourc e s urveys. The survey is a
key to o l for the his to ric p res ervatio n p ro gram and s erves as the basis fo r the redevelo p ment and demolition
d ecisions regarding his to ric p ro p erties, as outlined in the City’s Unified Develo p ment Co d e. The s urvey
p ro ject is evaluating the current resources on the 1984 and 2007 s urveys, and c ond uc t an intensive survey
o f the Downtown and Old To wn Overlay Dis tric ts , to c o mp ile a complete lis t o f the p ro p erties b uilt prior
to 1974.
The 2016 Survey identifies 1,690 total properties , broken in to 194 High priority s tructures, 549 Medium
p rio rity struc tures , and 938 Lo w p rio rity struc tures . Of tho s e struc tures , 1,015 are lo cated within the
b o und aries of the Downto wn and Old Town Overlay Districts , while 559 are loc ated o uts id e of the
d is tric ts.
The d raft res ults will b e pub lis hed fo r pub lic review and notificatio n will be s ent to eac h o f the p ro p erty
o wners identified on the s urvey. The notification will includ e info rmation ab o ut the s urvey, and
req uirements for b uilding p ermits.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner and So fia Nels on, CNU-A, Planning Direc to r
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HRS Update Pres entation Backup Material
Page 14 of 23
5/18/2017
1
Historic Resource Survey Update
Presentation Outline
• Part 1- Historic Resource Survey
– What is it?
– How is it Used?
– What properties are included in the survey?
Presentation Outline
• Part 2- Project Status
– Project Schedule
– Project Milestones- Accomplished
– Project Milestones- Pending
– Public Outreach
Part 1- Historic Resource Survey
• What is it?
• Why do we have a resource survey
• Background on past surveys
• How is it Used?
• What properties are included in the survey?
Page 15 of 23
5/18/2017
2
What is a Resource Survey?
A method of documenting historic resources
through fieldwork and research.
Each resource is documented with
photographs, maps, and a written description
on a form.
Why do we have a resource survey?
– City Charter requires a Comprehensive Plan,
with a historic preservation element (Sec 1.08)
– Georgetown participates in the Certified Local
Government Program, providing access to
grant funds.
Past Surveys
Year Survey
Conducted
Date Used to
Determine Historic
Status
Number of Properties
Included
1984 Pre 1935 historic
resources in city limits
and ETJ
900 Properties
2007 Pre 1960 historic
resources in city limits
and ETJ
1,574 properties
How is it Used?
• Used to make informed decisions on:
– Review of projects in the Certificate of
Appropriateness requests
– Review of Demolition requests
– Guides decisions on landmark status and
district boundaries
– Guidance for Preservation Georgetown grant
program
– Possible future use in Main Street façade
grants
Page 16 of 23
5/18/2017
3
Certificate of Appropriateness
• Information provided for CoA review:
– Comparison of 1984, 2007 and 2016 priority
• Tracks changes over time
– Identifying key characteristics of the properties
– Establishing context for the surrounding
properties and districts
City of Georgetown
Historic District
Historic Structure
Historic LandmarkHL
City of Georgetown
New street facing façade
–HARC
HARC Staff Report
City of Georgetown
Page 17 of 23
5/18/2017
4
Certificate of Appropriateness
City of Georgetown
Application Type Historic Landmark
Contributing
Historic
Properties
Non Contributing
Historic
Properties
Outside of District Infill Construction
New Non-Single
Family
Construction
XX X
Additions XXX
Reconstruction,
Alterations or
Changes
XXX
Removal,
Demolition or
Relocation
XXXX
Master Signage
Plan XXX X
Building Height
Exceptions X
Setback
Modifications XXX X
Survey Priorities
City of Georgetown
• Priority Levels provide additional
information for review but do not change
review criteria
• Structures located within a district may be
viewed in a larger context than individual
properties outside of the districts
What properties are surveyed?
City of Georgetown
• Three primary Survey Goals
– Intensive survey of the Overlay Districts
– Intensive survey of all properties outside the
districts included on the 1984 and 2007
surveys
– Reconnaissance level survey of all properties
within the survey area constructed prior to
1975
Example of how the Survey
has been used
124 E. 8th Street
• Constructed in 1905
• Brick construction with pressed
metal street façade
• Non historic canvas awning
installed on primary façade
Page 18 of 23
5/18/2017
5
124 East 8th Street
Rath’s Bakery - 1939
124 East 8th Street
Red’s Dough Shoppe - 1983
124 East 8th Street
Vacant - 1983
124 East 8th Street
Page 19 of 23
5/18/2017
6
124 East 8th Street
Vacant - 2013
124 East 8th Street
600 Degrees Pizzeria - 2015
Part 2- Project Status
• Survey Methodology Used
• Properties Surveyed
• Project Schedule
• Key Findings
• Public Outreach
Methodology/Approach
1. Analysis of previous survey data
2. Review of historic aerials for survey area
3. Conduct field survey
4. Perform data processing and analysis
5. Assignment of Preservation Priorities
6. Recommendations for Local Landmarks
City of Georgetown
Page 20 of 23
5/18/2017
7
Reconnaissance Survey Properties Surveyed
City of Georgetown
Total Number of Properties
• 194 High Priority Structures
• 549 Medium Priority Structures
• 938 Low Priority Structures
• 1015 Properties located within a District
• 559 Properties outside of a District
City of Georgetown
Key Findings
• 163 Properties changed priority from 2007
– 37 upgraded in priority
• 7 Medium to High
• 2 Low to High
• 28 Low to Medium
– 126 downgraded in priority
• All Medium to Low
City of Georgetown
Page 21 of 23
5/18/2017
8
Public Outreach
Historic Resource Survey Committee
• Members include:
– HARC Representative
– Preservation Georgetown Representative
– Planning Director
– Chief Building Official
– Member of the public
• How have they been used?
– Served as scoring committee
– Provided with updates throughout process
City of Georgetown
Mobile Workshop – Spring 2016 Upcoming Outreach
• Survey results posted on website for
review
• Letter to all property owners
• Public Workshop
• Consultant Office Hours
City of Georgetown
Page 22 of 23
5/18/2017
9
Next Steps
1. Post draft Historic Resource Survey for
public review
2. Public notification
3. Public Meeting and Office Hours
4. Submit edits to consultants
5. Final report submitted to the city staff
6. Bring final report to City Council
City of Georgetown
Questions/ Comments
Thank you for your support of this
project!
City of Georgetown
Page 23 of 23