Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.22.2022Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown September 22, 2022 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the S eptember 8, 2022, regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommittee - Jes s ica Lemanski, P lanning S pec ialis t C C onceptual review of a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for an addition that c reates or adds to a street facing façade, removal of historic architec tural features for a property loc ated 1811 Eubank S treet, bearing the legal desc ription Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition (2022-46-C O A) - Maddis on O ’Kelley, P res ervation and R edevelopment Manager D P resentation and dis cus s ion of HAR C bylaws and Meeting P rocedure - Maddison O 'Kelley, P res ervation and R edevelopment Manager E Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily Page 1 of 85 acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 85 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 22, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the S eptember 8, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommittee - Jessic a Lemans ki, P lanning S pecialist IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Jes s ica Lemanski, P lanning S pec ialis t AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Page 3 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 1 of 3 September 8th, 2022 Commissioners Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Jennifer Powell; Karalei Nunn; Tom W. Davis; Linda C. Burns; Alton Martin Alternate Commissioners Present: Pierce P. Macguire Commissioners Absent: Lawrence Romero Alternate Commissioners Absent: Williams “Jud” Harris Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nathaniel Waggoner, Assistant Planning Director; Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Program Manager; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist Meeting called to order by Chair Michael Walton at 6:02 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Review Commission On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Commission meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Commission considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Commission agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Commission meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the Commission and the public. For Commission Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Review Commission. Legislative Regular Agenda B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 25th, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Committee - Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist Chair Walton opened the floor to Commissioners for questions or discussion. No discussion. Motion to approve Item B as presented by Commissioner Burns. Second by Commissioner Davis. Motion approved unanimously (6-0). Page 4 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 2 of 3 September 8th, 2022 C Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property located at 800 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 and 8 (E/PT), Block 50, City of Georgetown. (2022-47-COA) – Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O’Kelley presented the staff report and established that the applicant would like to install one internally illuminated hanging sign under the existing building canopy. The sign is proposed to be constructed of metal components, with white acrylic housing that would create a halo lighting effect around the brushed aluminum letters applied to the face of the signs. The sign is proposed to be 54” x 18” or 6.75 sq. ft. in size and hang from the existing metal canopy supports, providing a minimum 7’ of clearance above the sidewalk. The sign is located in Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay. O’Kelley provided context for existing internally illuminated signs within the downtown areas and established that the proposed sign is consistent with existing signage on the building in size. There are currently two hanging signs each measuring installed underneath the building canopy. The existing signs are not internally illuminated, nor do they appear to be constructed of aluminum material as proposed for the subject sign. A Certificate of Appropriateness (2021-51-COA) for two additional signs was approved underneath the building canopy. The two signs are the same size and material as the subject sign and are internally illuminated through acrylic channel letters. O’Kelley provided historical context to the previous uses of the building, displayed pictures of the in relation to the Historic Resource Survey in 1984, and noted that the building is a historic landmark. O’Kelley reviewed the approval criteria and stated that staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 3 of the 5 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Unified Development Code, and 5 out of the 8 approval criteria guidelines as outlined in Section 3.13.020 of the Unified Development Code. As required by the Unified Development Code, 1 sign was posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request. Chair Walton opened the floor to Commissioners for questions or discussion. Dr. Michael Volling, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and noted that not illuminating this sign is inconsistent with the illumination of the surrounding signs on the building. He believes the sign meets the character and would benefit the neighborhood in terms of aesthetics. Commissioner Powell asked if the other two signs were approved last year before the Historic Design Guidelines were updated. O’Kelley clarified no, the other two internally illuminated signs on the building were the first ones approved by HARC after the Historic Design Guidelines update. Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. Motion to approve Item C as presented by Commissioner Davis. Second by Alternate Macguire. Chair Walton opened the floor to Commissioners for discussion. Commissioner Nunn commented that it is odd that internally illuminated signs are not allowed within the Historic Design Guidelines if the Commission is approving them anyways. Page 5 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 3 of 3 September 8th, 2022 Motion approved (6-1) (Commissioner Nunn denied). D Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property located at 800 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 and 8 (E/PT), Block 50, City of Georgetown. (2022-47-COA) – Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Due to an error in the posted agenda, where the caption for Item D (2022-46-COA) was a duplicate of the previous item, the required public notification requirements of the State of Texas were not met, and the Review Commission cannot take up the item at this meeting. E Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director City Council will have a workshop and update on a new parking garage on Tuesday, September 13th at 2 pm. There will also be a conceptual workshop and review for this garage at the next scheduled HARC meeting (subject to change). Staff is working on a presentation on HARC’s Bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order. Any specific questions should be directed to Staff Liaison. On September 27th, an item concerning hiring a consultant for the Unified Development Code rewrite will go to City Council. Nelson requested that a person with historical background participate in the rewrite subcommittee so that there will be a variety of perspectives. Commissioner Powell asked for expansion on the criteria for carports within the Historic Review Guidelines. Chair Walton asked there be more expansive guidelines on Certificates of Appropriateness for demolitions in the Historic Review Guidelines and suggested there be more options than just full approval of demolitions. Nelson announced that this is Nathaniel Waggoner’s last HARC meeting, as he will be moving to the City of Georgetown’s Transportation Department as the Transportation Planning Coordinator. HARC recognized Nat for his service to the City and the Review Commission and thanked him for his hard work. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Chair Walton. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Meeting adjourned at 6:27 pm. Michael Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary Page 6 of 85 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 22, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onc eptual review of a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an addition that creates or adds to a s treet fac ing faç ade, removal of his toric arc hitectural features for a property located 1811 Eubank S treet, bearing the legal des cription Lot 7-8, Bloc k 8, Eubank Addition (2022-46-C O A) - Maddison O ’Kelley, P res ervation and R edevelopment Manager IT E M S UMMARY: R equested C hanges: T he applic ation is req uesting a C O A to cons truct an additio n that is 1,874 s q . ft. of air-c ond itioned s pace to the rear of the exis ting struc ture. T he applic ant would also like to remove an exis ting pergo la and re- des ign the front o f the ho me to inc lude a p o rc h ad d ition with a gab le that will extend from the hous e to provide s helter. In ac commodating the c o ns truc tion of the p ro p o s ed additio n and ho me reno vatio n, the applicant is proposing to demolish p o rtions o f the no rth and eas t fac ing exterio r walls . No s quare footage of the home will be removed in the demolition of the exterior walls. T he applic ant is propos ing to replac e the as phalt roof material with s tanding-s eam metal. T he applic ant is als o proposing to d emo lis h an existing no n-his toric ac cessory s truc ture at the rear of the property and c onstruc t a new, detac hed 274 s q. ft. ac cessory struc ture in its plac e. S taff’s Analysis: In ac cordance with S ection 3.13.030 of the Unified Development C ode, staff has determined that the applicant has met 2 out of 7 applicable criteria for approval. Questions for the Commission: 1. Is the gable addition appropriate for this hous e per Des ign G uidelines 3.5.E.1? 2. Does the acc es s ory s tructure have an appropriate roof per DG 3.4.F.2-3? 3. Are the windows appropriate for this hous e per DG 3.5.G .2-3? 4. W hat information would HAR C like to s ee added? Public Comments: P ublic notific ation for this item has not been published as this is not a public hearing and no ac tion will be taken by the C ommission. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: T he applic ant has paid the required applic ation fee. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Maddison O 'Kelley, P res ervation and R edevelopment Manager Page 7 of 85 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Pres entation Exhibit Page 8 of 85 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: September 16, 2022 File Number: 2022-46-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates or adds to a street facing façade and removal of historic architectural features for a property located 1811 Eubank St. bearing the legal description Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition (2022-46-COA) - Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1811 Eubank St. Residence Applicant: Wang Architects, c/o Alexia Noble Property Owner: Kristin Diane Best Trustee of Kristin Diane Best Revocable Trust Property Address: 1811 Eubank St. Legal Description: Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: 2019-85-COA Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: 2019-85-COA, the extension of the height of the existing fence and addition of a pergola structure in the front and side yards HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1970 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✓ Addition that creates or adds to a street facing façade ✓ Removal of historic architectural features STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The property under consideration is located at the intersection of Eubank Street and 17th ½ Street. The parcel contains a 1,694 sq. ft. house, a 728 sq. ft. garage, and a 193 sq. ft. accessory structure. Page 9 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 2 of 16 The HRS identifies the construction date of the house as 1970. The HRS also identifies the style of the house as bricked Ranch with a cross-hipped roof, double-hung windows and a partial-width inset front porch, single front door with modifications to the attached garage, conversion to a living space and a pergola addition to the front entry. The 2016 HRS identifies the property as a low priority resource, noting that the property lacks significance and integrity due to the garage conversion. Requested Changes: The application is requesting a COA to construct an addition that is 1,874 sq. ft. of air-conditioned space to the rear of the existing structure. The applicant would also like to remove an existing pergola and re- design the front of the home to include a porch addition with a gable that will extend from the house to provide shelter. In accommodating the construction of the proposed addition and home renovation, the applicant is proposing to demolish portions of the north and east facing exterior walls. No square footage of the home will be removed in the demolition of the exterior walls. The applicant is proposing to replace the asphalt roof material with standing-seam metal. The applicant is also proposing to demolish an existing non-historic accessory structure at the rear of the property and construct a new, detached 274 sq. ft. accessory structure in its place. Justification for Requests: The property owner would like to update the home to meet contemporary lifestyle demands. Technical Review: This house is identified as a Ranch style on the Historic Resource Survey. A ranch style house is most often identified by its low, long roof, its large overhanging eaves, its single story, and its asymmetrical form. The exterior of a Ranch style house is typically brick, wood, or stucco. The most common roof assemblies for a Ranch style house are cross hipped, side-gabled, or hipped. The architectural details on a Ranch style house are minimal. The absence of ornamentation is a character-defining feature for this affordable home product that spanned across America from about 1935 to about 1975. Front Porch The proposed new roof projection will extend 8’ from the street-facing, western, front façade and span 21’ 6” across the front of the house at a height of 10’ 8”. The street-facing façade measures 43’ 6” in length. The new porch roof will have a gable and a 4:12 pitch to match the home. Two columns are to be added to give the impression of minor support for the new roof. This is a minimal Ranch but has a somewhat complex roof form for a minimal ranch hip. Gable modifications to Ranch style homes were not unusual as retrofits, however, the proposed gable addition is not reminiscent of the original architecture of the home. Page 10 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 3 of 16 Windows The applicant proposes the following adjustment to the windows: A. Along the western façade facing Eubank Street, the applicant proposes to renovate the former garage that was converted into living space with the replacement of an existing, non-historic window, with a new floor-to-ceiling window. B. A similar window, to that which is described above, will replace an existing window to the south on the same (western) elevation. C. One additional floor-to-ceiling window that will have partial visibility from the street is to be located on the western elevation of the new rear addition, facing Eubank Street. Existing and Proposed (windows labeled by letter below to correspond to description above) The same window style will also be added to the south and east elevations, but they will not be visible to the street due to an existing fence and orientation away from the street. On the north façade of the proposed rear addition facing 17th and ½ Street the applicant intends to install two windows, one of which is floor to ceiling with divided light, however, there is limited visibility of Page 11 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 4 of 16 the north façade of the addition due to an existing detached garage. The applicant intends to demolish sections of the exterior walls on the north street-facing façade of the existing home to reconstruct them and proposes to construct a glass folding door that opens to a patio labeled “Outdoor Breakfast Area” on the provided site plan. The Old Town Design Guidelines identify sliding glass doors that open onto a patio as a characteristic of Ranch style homes. Ranch style houses tended to have large, street facing windows, like the proposed widows. However, Ranch style house includes divided light windows, or windows with multiple panes of glass rather than one large pane of glass. The reason this is important, aside from windows being a significant character defining feature for any building, is because the Ranch house would have been constructed as an affordable home type. Large, single panes of glass would have been an expense, beyond a reasonable cost of construction of this house type. Rear Addition The rear addition will cover approximately 658 sq. ft. of the existing home. No square footage of the existing home will be removed to accommodate the construction of the addition. The applicant intends to a demolish portions of the north and east facing exterior walls in the construction of the proposed addition and renovation of the existing home. The north façade is considered street-facing and is visible from East 17 ½ Street and the east elevation is not visible from the street. The new addition will be situated behind the existing house. However, because it is off-center, a portion of the structure will be visible from Eubank Street. The footprint of the new addition is approximately 10.5% the size of the original house. The new addition’s roof will be approximately 10.5% the size of the existing house’s hipped roof with a 4:12 pitch. The height of the rear addition is 10’ 7”, which is compatible with the existing house height of 11’6”. The rear addition will be used for a new bedroom with a closet, full bath, and laundry room. The materials of the rear addition appear to be similar to the primary: a standing seam metal roof and painted brick siding. Accessory Structure The detached accessory structure is to be constructed to the southeastern corner of the property near the location of an existing accessory structure that is proposed to be demolished. The existing accessory structure is not identified on the Historic Resources Survey and is therefore not included within the scope of work requiring HARC approval for this application. The proposed detached accessory structure will be 274 sq. ft. and is to contain a sleeping space with a bathroom and a kitchenette. Windows for the structure are to face north, into the backyard of the property, with a transom that is to face east, towards the neighbors. The roof style is a (half) hipped roof that measures to the ridge 11’ 2” from finished grade. At this point, without material specifications, the accessory structure appears appropriate for the neighborhood. The structure’s mass, scale, and form meet the necessary design guideline criteria. Page 12 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 5 of 16 Finally, the entire roof is to be renovated with a new material: standing-seam metal, which is an approved material in the Design Guidelines. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 28of the 41 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.4.F Accessory Structures F.1 Accessory structures should be located in the rear of the property. F.2 Accessory structures should be a simplified historic style of the primary dwelling and should be subordinate (smaller and simpler) to the primary dwelling. F.3 Accessory structures should not be attached to the primary structure. Complies The accessory structure is to be located in the rear of the property, will be simple in style, and is not attached to the primary structure. 3.5.C Massing, Scale and Form A variety of building sizes exist in this area. While contemporary design approaches are encouraged, developments should continue to exhibit a variety of sizes, similar to the buildings seen traditionally in the neighborhood. Partially Complies The proposed additions and alterations appear to be appropriate in mass and scale. The rear addition and the accessory structure are appropriate in form. The alteration required of the porch to the roof of the house is not appropriate in form as it does not match the form of the existing building. C.1 The overall mass of a new building or addition should convey a sense of human scale. That is floor to floor heights on the ground floor should not exceed 15 feet on the ground floor and 12 feet on the second floor. Building materials should reflect a sense of scale that would appear as if one or two persons could lift Complies The mass and scale of the proposed additions are similar to the mass and scale of other structures in the neighborhood. Page 13 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 6 of 16 the material. Monumental proportions are not appropriate. The first-floor height is 9’ with a vaulted ceiling at 15’. 3.5.E Roof E.1 Form The primary form should either be a gable end that faces the street or a cross gable that runs parallel to the street. Gable, hipped, pyramidal and gambrel roofs are appropriate. E.2 Dormers a. Dormers are also appropriate but must be designed so that there is a relationship to windows on the main building. b. Dormers may also be front facing and centered, but should not occupy more than 40% of the roof plane. In other words, dormers should not be so large as to appear to be adding an additional story to a structure. c. Dormers on the side should not occupy more than 60% of the roof plane. Complies New roof and the proposed additions will retain the hipped form and 4:12 pitch for the additions and detached structure. Dormers are not proposed for this project. E.3 Roof Pitch. Primary roof line should be between 5:12 and 10:12 in slope depending on the style of the house. Complies The house is a Ranch style which is characterized by its low-pitched roof. The proposed pitch is 4:12. E.4 The following materials may be acceptable depending on the building style: • Dimensional asphalt shingle roofs that emulate wood shingles. • Real clay tile roofs • Slate tiles • Terra-cotta tiles • Standing seam metal roofs with a double munch or double lock seam, no more than 1.5 inches high and 18-inch-wide pans. • Grade A, smooth machine cut, real wood shingles treated with fi re retardant. Shingles should be about 3/8” thick by about 5 inches wide. • Built-up and membrane roofs are only appropriate on slopes less than 1:10 and should be screened by a low parapet Complies The proposal utilizes a standing seam metal roof to replace all roofing material for the existing house, the proposed rear addition, and the new gable addition at the front of the house. Page 14 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 7 of 16 E.5 Eaves and Overhangs. Overhangs should be between 18 inches and 24 inches to provide shade over windows in summer months. Complies The overhangs are 18 inches. 3.5.F Porches F.1 Front porches contribute to the ambiance of the street and encourage social interaction. Porches are recommended as a character defining feature. Partially Complies The current structure has an inset entry under the main roof which contributes to the Ranch style. Applicant is proposing a porch that extends out from the hipped, main roof, which is not characteristic of the Ranch style. F.2 Location Porches should be located and accessible from the first floor of the structure. Complies The porch is located on and accessible from the first floor. F.3 Porch Size Porches should at least cover half of the first-floor façade facing the street horizontally. Complies The length of the first floor is 43’ 6”. One half of this is 21’ 9”. The length of the proposed gable addition to cover the “porch” is approximately one half of the first floor façade at 21’ 6”. F.4 Depth of Porch The minimum depth of the porch should not be less than six feet and the maximum depth of the porch should not exceed 10 feet. Complies The depth of the porch is 8’. F.5 Porches Bulk a. Porches should appear to be “added on to the building” rather than cut out of the building. In other words, porches should have their own roof that isn’t integral to the rest of the building. Complies The proposed roof addition for the porch is not integral to the rest of the building. The proposed gable addition is in response to this house’s style, Ranch, which typically do not have designated porches. On a Ranch, the porch is typically a result of deep eaves from the low, long roof. F.6 Porch Roofs A minimum of 60% of the front porch should be covered by a roof or a trellis. Complies 100% of the porch is covered by a roof. F.9 Open Porch The front porch should be open and not enclosed by any materials except screens. Complies The front porch is not enclosed. Page 15 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 8 of 16 F.10 Height of Porch Floor The floor of the front porch should be raised above grade and no lower than one step below the first floor. Complies The floor of the porch is above grade. F.11 Porch Roof Height No portion of the eave of a roof or trellis should be more than twelve feet in height when measured from the floor of the porch or exceed the ceiling height of the first floor. Complies The roof height of the porch is 10’ 8”. F.12 Porch Columns Porch columns should visually be able to support the porch roof. If the porch roof and decorative elements like spindles are thin and delicate then the columns can be thin. If the porch roof is substantial with large beams, then the porch columns need to be more substantial. Complies The proposed columns give the visual impression that they support roof and, stylistically, the columns are appropriate for a Ranch house because they are thin and without ornamentation. F.13 Porch Foundation a. The porch must be supported by columns or foundation walls affixed to the ground. The columns should be no less than 18 inches by 18 inches. Not Applicable Underground support of the porch is not identified at this time. F.14 Painted Wood All exposed wood used for porches should be painted, not stained. The exception is that floor decking can be stained. Does Not Comply The proposed columns are wood, according to the applicant, but their treatments are unidentified at this stage. G.2 Windows a. Windows should generally comprise 30-45% of the front façade. b. The windows should be about twice as tall as they are wide and should have the same sill and head height on each floor of the building. The exception is Modern Ranch houses. c. Windows facing the street should have all the same sill height on each floor of the structure. Accent or feature windows are excepted. Windows on stair cases should follow the pitch of the stairs. d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in each bay (wall plane) that faces the street. e. Gang windows together rather than using one large single pane window. Ganged windows should be separated by a no less than 7” wide trim piece. Partially Complies The windows generally comprise 30-45% of the front façade. As is permitted for Ranch style houses, not all of the windows share the same head and sill heights with the windows facing the street on the west elevation. The windows on the west elevation, facing the street, are asymmetrical due to the asymmetry of the house itself. The windows do not comply in that the proposed street-facing windows are not at least twice as tall as they are wide and the windows are stylistically inappropriate because Ranch houses most often have windows with divided lights rather than full, single-pane windows. Page 16 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 9 of 16 f. A window should have trim that is at least 4.5" wide. The window should be recessed from the trim by at least 2”. g. Shutters should be the same size as the window they are adjacent to so if they were to be closed they would cover the window. Single or double shutters are appropriate. G.3 Window Materials a. Windows should be made of wood or aluminum-clad wood or fiberglass clad wood. The profiles and jamb conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and profile thickness. Does Not Comply The proposed windows are aluminum. b. Windows with muntins shall have dimensional muntins on the exterior of the glass and with a spacer inserted between the glass in insulated windows. Dimensional muntins on the interior are optional. Not Applicable Muntins are not included in this proposal. c. Window glass may be insulated and/or low-e glass but shall be clear and not tinted. Complies The windows are clear and not tinted. 3.5.H Exterior Building Materials H.1 Building materials for new construction should be visually compatible with the predominant materials of this area. Materials for additions should be the same materials as the predominant materials of the existing building. Complies The applicant is proposing to match the existing brick for the rear addition. H.2 New materials should relate to the scale, durability, color, and texture of the predominant materials of Old Town and in the case of building additions, to the existing structure. Complies The applicant is proposing to match the existing brick for the rear addition. This proposed building material appears to relate to the scale, durability and color of the surrounding area. H.4 New materials should have a demonstrated durability in the Central Texas climate. For example, some façade materials used in new construction are more susceptible to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or brick. Vinyl siding is not allowed. Complies The durability of the proposed brick siding is the same or better than the historic siding in some cases. H.6 Building Wall Materials Complies Page 17 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 10 of 16 The following exterior building materials are appropriate for new construction: a. Horizontal wood or cementitious wood siding with a 4-7 inch exposure (smooth not weathered finish). b. Wood shingle in a vertical pattern with 3” to 7” reveal. c. Stone, brick or other masonry with dimensions that are human scale, that is with the appearance that they could be laid by hand. d. Combinations Creative combinations of the above are encouraged to recreate natural textures, so long as they meet the overall objective of conveying a sense of permanence, human scale and proportion. e. Use of Wood Shingles Wood shingles should be used as second story cladding, on attic dormers, gable ends and porch roof gables. f. Use of Brick & Block • Brick is encouraged, but the style of brick should be similar to the brick already found in the neighborhood, and should be no larger than 2 2/3” X 8” with mortar joints no larger than 1/4”. • Brick should not be used on upper floors unless brick is found on the floors below. • Concrete masonry units (CMU) or concrete block should not be used as an exposed exterior material. g. Use of Stone • Native Texas stone is an appropriate exterior material if used in the scale of other stone found in the neighborhood. • Use of synthetic stone is not appropriate unless the structure already has synthetic stone. h. Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged. • Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate. • Asphalt shingles are not appropriate. The applicant intends to match the brick siding and exterior paint color to the primary. Page 18 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 11 of 16 • Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate. 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. Partially Complies The rear addition complies because it will maintain a rectangular plan, like the primary structure. The rear addition also complies as it incorporates mass, scale, form, and windows similar to the primary as well as architectural features of the eaves and ridge similar to the original structure. The new accessory structure complies in mass, scale, and form as well. The proposed gabled porch addition does not comply because it is stylistically inappropriate for this house. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Partially Complies The proposed rear addition complies because it is smaller than the primary, is situated towards the back of the primary, and utilizes similar features of the primary such as long windows and a hipped roof. The location of the proposed gable addition to the center of the front façade of the house is stylistically inappropriate in that it creates symmetry where ranch style homes typically have asymmetrical facades. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Complies The rear addition is distinguishable because it is off-center from the primary. The gable porch addition will be distinguishable because it is out of character with the house. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Partially Complies The rear addition’s architectural details will mimic architectural features of the primary features, such as the deep eaves and the new windows. The proposed street-facing gable porch addition does compete with the primary façade which was designed to be low, long, Page 19 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 12 of 16 and dominate the landscape with straight lines. The proposed gable addition does not comply. K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character-defining elevation. Partially Complies One addition is at the rear of the house but the other is an addition to the character-defining elevation. b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one-story houses. Complies The addition is located on the first floor. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Partially Complies One addition is at the rear of the existing structure, but the second is on the street-facing elevation and disrupts the original character. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). Partially Complies The proposed rear addition complies with this criteria, but the gable addition is on the character-defining façade. 3.5.K Roof K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Partially Complies The existing roof is a hipped roof. The rear addition proposes a smaller hipped roof and complies. The proposed front addition includes a gable and does not match the character of the house. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Partially Complies The proposed roof is hipped on the rear addition and the accessory structure. The roof addition on the front of the house is a gable. b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies Applicant proposes to match the slope of the primary structure at 4:12. d. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies Page 20 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 13 of 16 The proposed roof, on the rear addition and the front gable addition, appear symmetrical to match the existing. K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. Complies The new exterior materials will be compatible with the existing exterior materials on the primary. b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies The applicant is proposing to match the existing brick for the rear addition. A new metal seam standing roof is proposed for the entire structure. c. Materials should strive to be the same color, size, and proportion and used in the same manner as the original house but not necessarily used in the same overall proportions. This allows the addition to be recognized as an addition. Complies The proposed materials are compatible with the existing structure in size, color, and general proportion. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. Complies The proposed rear addition and accessory structure will repeat the existing hipped form of the original roof. The accessory structure is detached from the house and will appear as distinguishable from the original house in scale and form. The proposed windows on the rear addition are to match the new windows on the street-facing faced of the house. The new windows are used to unify the original structure and the rear addition. The front gable addition is distinguishable from the original house in that it would be out of character. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 2 out of 8 of these criteria. Page 21 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 14 of 16 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies The information contained within the application was enough to allow adequate review. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Complies The proposed additions and accessory structure comply with the UDC. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Partially Complies The proposed gable addition does not comply with the following SOI standards: 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 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 rear addition and accessory structure comply with the following SOI standards: 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. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies The proposed rear addition and accessory structure are compliant with the Design Guidelines in terms of form, massing, scale and materials. The front gable porch addition is not compatible with the Design Guidelines in Page 22 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 15 of 16 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS that it is not appropriate for the style of the house. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Partially Complies The integrity of the building has already deteriorated over time due to the conversion of the garage and potential window replacement. The gable addition would further deteriorate the integrity of the house because it would alter the look away from a Ranch style. On their own, the rear addition and the accessory structure will maintain the existing level of integrity. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies The proposed additions and accessory structure are compatible with surrounding properties in that they are all compatible with surrounding massing and scale. The proposed gable porch addition is not compatible because it disrupts the cohesive roof, the asymmetrical façade. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies On their own, the rear addition and the accessory structure will maintain the existing level of integrity. The gable addition detracts from the character of the overlay district because it would alter a stylized building. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable Not proposed in this application. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys Exhibit 5 – Public Comments SUBMITTED BY Page 23 of 85 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 16 of 16 Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Page 24 of 85 Location 2022-46-COA Exhibit #1 S A U S T I N A V E BR U S H Y S T S M A I N S T S C H U R C H S T W 18TH ST PA I G E S T K N I G H T S T ASHST E 19TH 1/2 ST E 1 9 T H S T E 17TH 1/2 ST E 20TH S T E 18TH S T E 17TH 1 / 2 S T CYRUS A V E E 17TH ST E U B A N K S T CYRUS A V E E 17TH 1 / 2 S T A L L E Y W 19TH ST W 18TH ST EL M S T 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels City Limits Georgetown ETJ Page 25 of 85 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com September 01, 2022 Nat Waggoner Historical and Architecture Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: 1811 Eubank Street, Georgetown Dear Mr. Waggoner and Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: We are pleased to submit this project on behalf of our client, Kristin Best. We are proposing the design of a new addition on the back part of the existing residence and a new accessory structure. The proposal also calls for a new entrance/porch on the front facing side of the primary structure. Included here are pages to further describe the rationale for the proposed project’s design: Page 1, Site Map Page 2-3, Existing Conditions Page 4, Survey Page 5, Roof Plan/Site Plan Page 6, Existing Demo Ground Floor Plan Page 7, Proposed Ground Floor Plan Page 8-11, Elevations Page 12-13, Accessory Structure Elevations Page 14-16, Conceptual Renderings Page 17, Materials/Color The house is defined as “ranch style” per the Historic Resource Survey, which is a somewhat generic term. The house was renovated in the interim, and no longer looks like the house as recorded in the 2016 Survey. The owner is requesting that we ‘move the needle’ of the house’s architectural style towards mid-century modern – with floor to ceiling windows and ample daylighting to the interior spaces throughout the house. We understand that the accessory structure will need to go through the ADU / SUP process separately from HARC. Page 26 of 85 Yours truly, We look forward to presenting this project to you at an upcoming meeting. We will have additional information at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you for your time. Gary Wang, AIA Wang Architects Page 27 of 85 Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 1811 Eubank St, Georgetown, TX 78626 Residence for Kristin Best September 1, 2022 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 28 of 85 E 17 1 / 2 S T R E E T E U B A N K S T R E E T PROJECT LOCATION K N I G H T S T R E E T E 18TH S T R E E T 1ASite MapJuly 15, 2022 N Page 29 of 85 2Existing Conditions Existing North front facade along E 17 1/2 Street Page 30 of 85 2Existing Conditions Existing South front facade along Eubank Street Page 31 of 85 3Mid Century Modern Precedents Page 32 of 85 4Survey By Other N.T.S. July 15, 2022 N Page 33 of 85 PROJECT INFORMATION LOT AREA: 14423 ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RS) OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENCE AREA: 1694 SF EXISTING GARAGE: 728 SF EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA: 193 SF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AC AREA: 179 SF PROPOSED NEW ACCESORRY STRUCTURE AREA: 274 SF NEW TOTAL AC BUILDING AREA: 1874 SF SIDE SET BACK: 6’ E 17 1/2 SREET SETBACK: 15’, 25’ IF GARAGE EUBANK STREET SETBACK: 20’ REAR SET BACK: 10’ EXISTING FAR: 0.18 NEW FAR: 0.20 IMPERVIOUS COVER: LOT AREA: 14,423 SF BUILDING: 2121 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: 259 SF GARAGE: 996 SF DRIVEWAY: 592 SF FLATWORK: 669 SF POOL AREA: 873 TOTAL: 5510 SF IC 38.2% COVERAGE 5Proposed Site Plan 1/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 N 1712 ST EU B A N K S T N 6' SIDE SETBACK 20 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE 15' B.L. SET BACK EXISTING GARAGEEXISTING POOL EXISTING COVERED STRUCTURE EXISTING HOUSE NEW ADDITION NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEW COVERED PORCH EXISTING SHED NEW CONSTRUCTION Page 34 of 85 BEDROOM #2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATHROOM #1 FOYER/DINING KITCHEN LAUNDRY SITING ROOM LN ST DINING N 6' SIDE SETBACK 20 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K EXISTING STRUCTURE BEDROOM #1 EXISTING BATHROOM TO BE REMOVED EXISTING KITCHEN TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING MILLWORK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PORCH TO BE REMOVED CONCRETE DECK EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TUB TO BE REMOVED 6Existing Demo Ground Floor 1/8” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 N NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME, HISTORIC ADDITION, OR A PORCH Page 35 of 85 BEDROOM #2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATHROOM #1 PRIMARY BATHFOYER LAUNDRY LN ST EXISTING GARAGE DINING N 6' SIDE SETBACK 20 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K BEDROOM #1 KITCHEN CLOSET OUTDOOR BREAKFAST AREA FAMILY ROOM SKYLIGHT RE F EXISTING RANGE EXISTING COUNTER DEPTH REFRIGERATOR NO GATE NEW COVERED PORCH NEW FOLDING GLASS DOOR NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING MILLWORK CLOSET GUEST KITCHENETTE BATH LINENS SHOWER TRANSOM SOLAR TUBE FLOOR TO CEILING WITH INTEGRATED DOOR FLOOR TO CEILING FLOOR TO CEILING FLOOR TO CEILING MILLWORK PANTRY FLOOR TO CEILING FLOOR TO CEILING FLOOR TO CEILING TRANSOM WINDOW WALL W/ INTEGRATED DOOR 7Proposed Ground Floor Plan 1/8” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 N Page 36 of 85 8Existing Front Facing Side (West) Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 FINISHED FLOOR 0'-6" EXISTING GARAGE 1 3 EXISTING DETACHED PERGOLA Page 37 of 85 9Existing Street Side (North) Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 1 3 Page 38 of 85 10Existing Side (East) Elevation 3/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 1' 3' 1 3 EXISTING SHED Page 39 of 85 11Existing Side (South) Elevation 3/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 Page 40 of 85 8Proposed Front Facing Side (West) Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 FINISHED FLOOR 0'-6" NEW ADDITION EXISTING NEW COVER PORCH NEW ADDITION EXISTING GARAGE 1 3 1' 3' NEW ADDITION 1 3 Page 41 of 85 9Proposed Street Side (North) Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 NEW ADDITION EXISTING 1 3 1 3 EXISTING GARAGE NEW COVER PORCH Page 42 of 85 10Proposed Side (East) Elevation 3/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 NEW ADDITION NEW ADDITIONEXISTING EXISTING GARAGE1' 3' 1 3 Page 43 of 85 11Proposed Side (South) Elevation 3/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 NEW ADDITIONEXISTING EXISTING GARAGE NEW COVER PORCH Page 44 of 85 8Proposed East and West Elevation 3/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 1' 3' GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" VAULT HEIGHT 13'11" WALL HEIGHT 8' GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" VAULT HEIGHT 13' 11" WALL HEIGHT 8' 1' 3' Page 45 of 85 8Proposed North and South Elevation 3/16” = 1’-0” July 15, 2022 GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" VAULT HEIGHT 13' 11" WALL HEIGHT 8' GROUND FLOOR 0' - 0" VAULT HEIGHT 13' 11" WALL HEIGHT 8' Page 46 of 85 12Conceptual Rendering N.T.S. July 15, 2022 Page 47 of 85 13Conceptual Rendering N.T.S. July 15, 2022 Page 48 of 85 14Conceptual Rendering N.T.S. July 15, 2022 Page 49 of 85 15Materials/Color N.T.S. Brick paint: Sherman Williams Alabaster Match exterior paint color color pallette Current exterior conditions Trim paint: Sherman Wiliams Tricorn black with natural wood accents New roof - Berridge B Dark gray stading seam metal roof Western Window Systems multi- slide door systems, fi xed windows, and corner windows Western Window Systems window precedent Glacier White Smooth texture ACME Brick siding to match existing brick Black alluminum window mullionProposed exterior conditions for main structure, gable addition, and accessory structure Georgetown Precedent of metal roof Western Window Systems Classic Line - Series 670 Windows Page 50 of 85 Conceptual Review Additions at 1811 Eubank 2022-46-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission September 22, 2022 Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Page 51 of 85 2 Item Under Consideration 2022-46-COA Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates or adds to a street facing façade and removal of historic architectural features for a property located 1811 Eubank St. bearing the legal description Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition (2022-46-COA) -Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Page 52 of 85 3 Questions for HARC 2022-46-COA 1.Is the gable addition appropriate for this house per Design Guideline 3.5.E.1? 2.Does the accessory structure have an appropriate roof per DG 3.4.F.2-3? 3.Are the windows appropriate for this house per DG 3.5.G.2-3? 4.What information would HARC like to see added? Page 53 of 85 4 Item Under Consideration Page 54 of 85 5 Page 55 of 85 6 Current Context -Location Page 56 of 85 7 Ranch Style Homes Identifying Features Typical Roof Forms Source: A Field Guide to American Houses, Second Edition (2015) Page 57 of 85 8 2016 HRS Photo(s) North and West Facades (Facing Southeast)West Façade Detached Garage (Facing Southeast) Page 58 of 85 10 Current Context East Page 59 of 85 11 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 60 of 85 12 Demolition Plan Page 61 of 85 13 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 62 of 85 14 Proposed Project Style Elements Page 63 of 85 15 Proposed Project Style Elements -Accessory Page 64 of 85 17 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Southeast Page 65 of 85 18 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials West Page 66 of 85 19 Materials Page 67 of 85 20 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 D Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Partially Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;Partially Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not Applicable Page 68 of 85 21 Questions for HARC 2022-46-COA 1.Is the gable addition appropriate for this house per Design Guideline 3.5.E.1? 2.Does the accessory structure have an appropriate roof per DG 3.4.F.2-3? 3.Are the windows appropriate for this house per DG 3.5.G.2-3? 4.What information would HARC like to see added? Page 69 of 85 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 22, 2022 S UB J E C T: P res entation and disc ussion of HAR C bylaws and Meeting P roc edure - Maddis on O 'Kelley, P reservation and R edevelopment Manager IT E M S UMMARY: C ity staff will provide the C ommis s ion an overview of HAR C meeting procedure and c onduct and open the item for dis cus s ion. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Not applicable. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Maddison O 'Kelley, P res ervation and R edevelopment Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Bylaws Cover Memo Pres entation Exhibit Page 70 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 2019 Page I of8 CITY OF GEORGETOWN HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION BYLAWS ARTICLE I. NAME AND PURPOSE Section 1.1. Name. Historic and Architectural Review Commission ("Commission" or "HARC"). Section 1.2. Purpose. a. The Commission has the power and it shall be its duty: 1. To make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of Historic Overlay Districts and Historic Landmarks; 2. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review; 3. To approve or disapprove Certificates of Appropriateness; 4. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant t, on new construction or the restoration, alteration or maintenance of any historic resource or other building within the districts; and 5. To perform any other functions requested by the City Council. See Ordinance Chapter 2.50. b. The Commission shall have the express authority to delegate review of specific projects (as defined by majority vote of the Commission) to either: 1. A Subcommittee of the Commission composed of at least three members; or 2. City Staff as designated by the City Manager. c. Any permit issued pursuant to such delegation of authority shall require the signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Commission and any denial may be appealed to the full Commission. Page 71 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 26, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Section 1.3. Delegation of a Demolition Subcommittee. a. The HARC shall appoint a Demolition Subcommittee to review and provide a recommendation to the HARC on requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or a contributing historic structure, in accordance with the process established in the Unified Development Code. 1. The Demolition Subcommittee shall be composed of at least three members. 2. The members of the Demolition Subcommittee shall consist of two HARC members and the Building Official. 3. Whenever possible, one of the HARC members to be appointed to the Demolition Subcommittee shall meet one or more of the following categories: 1. Licensed Architect, or 2. Structural Engineer, or 3. Historic Preservationist. b. The Demolition Subcommittee may consult with a licensed architect, structural engineer or historic preservationist to review the request, and make a preliminary report to the subcommittee. In this event, the report shall be made part of the subcommittee's recommendation to the HARC. ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP Section 2.1. Number of Members. The Commission will be composed of not less than seven (7) Members. Section 2.2. Eligibility. a. At least two Commission Members shall be property owners in the historic Downtown Overlay District. All Commission Members shall be either registered voters of the City or owners of real property that is designated as historic, either in the City's historic survey or with a state or federal historic designation and located within the Downtown or Old Town Overlay Districts. Commission Members who Page 72 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 26, 2022 Page 3 of 8 are registered voters must have resided within the City for one year preceding their appointment. b. Whenever possible, the Commission shall include a minimum of two Members who are property owners in the Downtown Overlay District and a maximum of two Members from each of the following categories having a demonstrated interest in the downtown area or skills in design review. Members of the Commission may meet one or more of the categories: 1. licensed architect; 2. landscape architect, professional planner or urban designer; 3. historian or person with expertise in historic preservation; 4. developer, contractor or realtor; and · 5. property owner or non-owner tenant within the Downtown Overlay District. Citizens-at-large with an interest in historic preservation or urban design shall be appointed to the Commission to fill remaining appointments. Section 2.3. Appointment of Commission Members and Alternate Members a. Members of the Commission shall be appointed pursuant to and in accordance with the City Charter. b. The City Council shall also appoint two persons, who would be qualified to serve on HARC as Alternate Members. Alternate Members shall serve as alternates with voting privileges for any absent Commissioner. Alternate Members shall be eligible to be appointed to the position of Commissioner upon the expiration of the term of a regular Commissioner upon the creation of a vacancy on the Commission Section 2.4. Terms of Office. Generally, terms of office for each Member shall be two (2) years. Generally, a Member may serve two (2) consecutive terms. Refer to Ordinance Section 2.36.030A for additional provisions regarding terms of office. Section 2.5. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur during a term shall be filled as soon as reasonably possible and in the same manner as an appointment in accordance with the City Charter. If possible, the Member shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled. Page 73 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 26, 2022 Page 4 of 8 An appointment to fill a vacated term is not included as a term for purposes of counting consecutive terms. Section 2.6. Compensation and Expenditure of Funds. Members serve without compensation. The Commission and its Members have no authority to expend funds or to incur or make an obligation on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by the City Council. Members may be reimbursed for expenses authorized and approved by the City Council and the Commission. Section 2.7. Compliance with City Policy. Members will comply with City Ordinances, Rules and Policies applicable to the Commission and the Members, including but not limited to Ethics Ordinance Chapter 2.20 and City Commissions, Committees and Boards Ordinance Chapter 2.36. Section 2.8. Removal. Any Member may be removed from their position on the Commission for any reason, or for no reason, by a majority vote of the City Council. ARTICLE Ill. COMMISSION OFFICERS Section 3.1. Officers. The Commission Officers are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Chairman is recommended by the Mayor and the City Council shall approve the recommendation by a vote of the majority of the Council during the annual appointment process. Should the Mayor fail to recommend a Chairman for each board, committee, or commission, and/or the Council fails to approve any Chairman recommended by the Mayor, a majority of the Council plus one may approve appointment of a Chairman to serve as a Chairman without a recommendation of the Mayor. The other Commission Officers are elected by a majority vote of the Members at the first meeting after the annual appointment process. Section 3.2. Terms of Office for Commission Officers. Commission Officers serve for a term of one year. In the event of vacancy in the office of Chairman, the Vice- Chairman shall serve as Chairman until the City Council appoints a replacement Chairman. A vacancy in the other offices shall be elected by majority vote of the Members at the next regularly scheduled meeting, or as soon as reasonably practical for the unexpired term. If possible, a Commission Officer shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled. Page 74 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 26, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Section 3.3. Duties. a. The Chairman presides at Commission meetings. The Chairman shall generally manage the business of the Commission. The Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Chairman by the Commission. b. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Vice-Chairman by the Commission. The Vice-Chairman presides at Commission meetings in the Chairman's absence. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman in the Chairman' s absence or disability. c. The Secretary shall perform the duties delegated to the Secretary by the Commission. ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS Section 4.1. Time and Date of Regular Meeting. The Commission shall meet twice a month on the same week of the month, the same day of the week, at the same time, and at the same place. The regular date, time and place of the Commission meeting will be decided by the Members at the first meeting of the Commission after the annual appointment process. Section 4.2. Agenda. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman, the Director of Planning and Development or designee (as Historic Preservation Officer), the City Manager or designee, or at the request of a Member. The party (or individual) requesting the agenda item will be responsible for preparing an agenda item cover sheet and for the initial presentation at the meeting. Items included on the agenda must be submitted to the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the Commission meeting at which the agenda item will be considered. Agenda packets for regular meetings will be provided to the Members in advance of the scheduled Commission meeting. Agenda packets will contain the posted agenda, agenda item cover sheets, and written minutes of the last meeting. Section 4.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman or by request of three (3) Members. Section 4.4. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members. A quorum is required for the Commission to convene a meeting and to conduct business at a meeting. Page 75 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 26, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Section 4.5. Call to Order. Commission meetings will be called to order by the Chairman or, if absent, by the Vice-Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the meeting shall be called to order by the Secretary, and a temporary Chairman shall be elected to preside over the meeting. Section 4.6. Conduct of Meeting. Commission meetings will be conducted in accordance with these Bylaws and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures, as applicable to the Commission. See Ordinance Chapter 2.24. Section 4.7. Voting. 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, 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 Commission Members. Unless otherwise provided by law, if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved by a majority of the Commission Members present at the meeting. Section 4.8. Minutes. A recording or written minute shall be made of all open sessions of Commission meetings. The Staff Liaison is the custodian of all Commission records and documents. Section 4.9. Attendance. Members are required to attend Commission meetings prepared to discuss the issues on the agenda. A Member shall notify the Chairman and the Staff Liaison if the Member is unable to attend a meeting. Excessive absenteeism will be subject to action under Council policy and may result in the Member being replaced on the Commission. See Ordinance Section 2.36.010D. Excessive absenteeism means failure to attend at least 75% of regularly scheduled meetings, including Commission meetings and Subcommittee meetings. If a Member is removed from the Commission that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be appointed to the Commission in accordance with Section 2.5 above. Section 4.10. Public Participation. In accordance with City policy, the public is welcome and invited to attend Commission meetings and to speak on any item on the agenda. A person wishing to address the Commission must sign up to speak in accordance with the policy of the Council concerning participation and general public comment at public meetings. Sign-up sheets will be available and should be submitted to the Chairman prior to the start of the meeting. If any written materials are to be provided to the Commission, a copy shall also be provided to the Staff Liaison for Page 76 of 85 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 26, 2022 Page 7 of 8 inclusion in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers shall be allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak but may take up to six minutes if another individual who signs up to speak yields the time to the speaker. If a person wishes to speak on an issue that is not posted on the agenda, they must file a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the scheduled meeting. The written request must state the specific topic to be addressed and include sufficient information to inform the Commission and the public. A person who disrupts the meeting may be asked to leave and be removed. Section 4.11. Open Meetings. Public notice of Commission meetings shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. All Commission meetings and deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Section 4.12. Closed Sessions. The Commission may conduct closed sessions as allowed by law, on properly noticed closed session matters, such as consultation with attorney on legal matters, deliberation regarding the value of real property, competitive utility matters, and economic development negotiations. A recording or certified agenda shall be made of all closed sessions of Commission meetings. ARTICLE V. REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL The Commission shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how the Commission may best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports from the Commission at regularly scheduled Council meetings. ARTICLE VI. SUBCOMMITTEES Section 6.1. Formation. When deemed necessary by a majority of the Commission, Subcommittees may be formed for specific projects related to Commission matters. Section 6.2. Expenditure of Funds. No Subcommittee, or member of a Subcommittee, has the authority to expend funds or incur an obligation on behalf of the City or the Commission. Subcommittee expenses may be reimbursed if authorized and approved by the Commission or by City Council. Section 6.3. Open Meetings. Subcommittee meetings and deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Page 77 of 85 HARC Bylaws and Meeting Procedures September 22, 2022 Page 78 of 85 Bylaws -Overview Article I –Name and Purpose Article II -Membership Article III –Commission Officers Article IV -Meetings Article V –Reports to City Council Article VI -Subcommittees Page 79 of 85 Bylaws -Overview Article I –Name and Purpose •Section 1.2 Purpose -Item 3: To approve or disapprove COAs -Item 4: To render advice and guidance to applicants Article II -Membership Article III –Commission Officers Article IV –Meetings •Section 4.6 Conduct of Meeting -References UDC Chapter 2.24 Article V –Reports to City Council Article VI -Subcommittees Page 80 of 85 Meeting Conduct Chapter 2.24 –City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures •UDC Sec.2.24.100 –General Rules –Right of Floor •UDC Sec.2.24.110 –Code of Conduct •UDC Sec. 2.24.120 -Parliamentary Procedure Robert’s Rules of Order •More resources forthcoming. Page 81 of 85 Vote Chair and/or commission can ask questions, clarifications of Staff, Applicant and/or Representative Motion and 2nd Public Hearing The Commission asks questions of both Staff and applicant/representative Chair invites Applicant and/or Representative to address the Commission Staff makes presentation to Commission Public Hearing Procedures Page 82 of 85 Motion Making Motion Made Call for a Motion Failure to approve a positive motion shall be deemed a denial, per 2.24.140 (H) Boards and Commission ordinance No Motion Made Motion Seconded No Second Commission Votes Page 83 of 85 Voting A VOTE is taken on the motion presented -Chair clearly states who made the motion and Second.Chair will ask for a show of hands, then states the vote for the record (i.e. unanimous, 5 –2, etc.) On most cases the Commission should: •Approve •Approve with conditions* •Deny** or •Postpone -continue action to the following meeting if there is valid reason not to act * A motion to approve with conditions should specify the conditions the applicant needs to meet for COA issuance. ** A motion to deny should specify the Design Guideline(s) the Commission is concerned with for the reason of denial. Page 84 of 85 Questions and Discussion Page 85 of 85