Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_07.23.2015Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown July 23, 2015 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building, 101 East 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens * Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action * Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. Legislative Regular Agenda B Review and possible approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2015 regular meeting. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2015 Sign Subcommittee meeting. C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for a residential addition and setback modification for the property located at 711 East 8th Street bearing the legal description of Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres. D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for Page 1 of 89 demolition of the property located at 605 East University Avenue, bearing the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 84-85 (PT), 0.631 acres; Dimmit Addition, Block 84-85 (PT), 0.3939 acres; and Dimmit Addition, Block 84, SE Corner E Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations for the property located at 1610 East 15th Street bearing the legal description of University Park, Block 6, Lot 1-5. F Discussion and possible direction on proposed infill construction project at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres G Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. H Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Page 2 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens * Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action * Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Page 3 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Review and possible approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2015 regular meeting. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2015 Sign Subcommittee meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Minutes 06.25.2015 Backup Material HARC SS Minutes 06.25.2015 Backup Material Page 4 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   City of Georgetown, Texas  Historic and Architectural Review Commission  Minutes  Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.  Council and Courts Building  101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626  Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice‐Chair; Justin Bohls; Jennifer Brown; Richard Mee  and Mary Jo Winder.  Commissioners in Training present: Lawrence Romero; Jan Daum; Patty Eason  Commissioners absent: Shawn Hood  Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Laurie Brewer,  Assistant City Manager and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.  A. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:03 with the reading of the order of business to be conducted.  Legislative Regular Agenda  B. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the May 28, 2015 meeting.   Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted.  Second by Knight.  Approved 6 – 0.  C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 122 East 8th Street, bearing the legal  description of City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 1 (NEC/PT), 0.026 acres (CDC‐2015‐016)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting a CDC to expand the business to an  adjacent business and match the paint colors to the original structure.  This will provide a cohesive  storefront for the business.  No additional signage is required at this time.  Staff recommends  approval.  There were no questions.  Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no citizens coming forth, closed the Hearing.  Motion by Knight to approve the CDC application as submitted.  Second by Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal  description of Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres (CDC‐2015‐017)  Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance  for exterior alterations and an addition to the structure located at 1804 South Ash Street. The  proposed project includes the removal of an existing porch and construction of a new porch,  enclosing the existing carport, adding exterior shutter panels and painting the two story structure.   He reported proposed changes conflict with the Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior  Standards for Rehabilitation by significantly altering the façade and adding conjectural features.  However, based upon the current historic status of the structure, staff has determined that the  changes have limited impact on a non‐significant structure and is supportive of the project, with the  recommendations of locating windows similar in design to the current windows and investigating  other options for the 2nd floor open space  Page 5 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6  Meeting:  June 25, 2015     Tom Nichols, the applicant/architect explained that the owners want to paint the brick of the house,  bringing it back into character with the old town neighborhood.  They want to replace the windows  with casement windows because the current windows are not up to code.  They want to enclose the  second floor porch over the front door to seal off the existing leaks to that portion of the house. The  beam over the carport area is failing and so that will be replaced and overhead doors will be  installed. The electric panel on the front of the house will be relocated.  The chimney will be extended  above the roofline and brought up to code also.  Bohls asked if Nichols would consider looking for more compatible windows and Nichols said he  would look.    Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no citizens coming forth, closed the Hearing.  Motion by Knight to approve the CDC as submitted, without the recommendations by staff.   Second by Mee.   Commissioners discussed the application and were okay with the windows and porch design and  stated the alterations were compatible with the neighborhood.  Vote to approve, 6 – 0.  E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  infill construction for the property located at 605 East University Avenue, bearing the legal  description of Dimmit Addition, Block 84‐85 (PT), 0.631 acres; Dimmit Addition, Block 84‐85 (PT),  0.3939 acres; and Dimmit Addition, Block 84, SE Corner (CDC‐2015‐020)  Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing an infill construction project which  includes three three‐story apartment buildings. The proposed project is located in the Old Town  Overlay District, fronting University Avenue. While the Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines request a residential type setback, this project is located on the commercial edge of the  Overlay District, adjacent to several multi‐story commercial structures, religious institutions and  educational facilities. The rear of the property will include parking and other surface amenities,  providing a buffer for the residential district.   The proposed design maintains a human scale through the mixed materials and modulation of the  façades, eliminating the single wall along any of the street facing façades, complying with Guideline  14. The grade change and use of multiple buildings breaks the project into modules, as outlined by  Guidelines 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6. The use of masonry materials, both brick and stone, along with the  metal roof, is compatible with the overall characteristic of the district and complies with Guideline  14.8.   This current project does not comply with the design standards of the underlying C‐1 (Local  Commercial) zoning district. The CDC approval criteria outlined in UDC Section 3.13.030 requires  compliance with the design standards of the code, including the site design standards for each zoning  district. The applicant has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), allowing  for the creation of a unique zoning district for the project. The PUD application is a rezoning  application and will be reviewed by staff for presentation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and  City Council for final approval.   Additionally, the proposed project requires a Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition. The  Page 6 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   applicant has submitted the application and staff will present the application to the Demolition  Subcommittee at a future date. UDC Section 3.13.040 includes the approval of a CDC for the new  construction prior to the issuance of a CDC for demolition, when the new project requires HARC  review. The CDC for infill construction requires HARC review; therefore, the HARC is reviewing the  infill application prior to taking action on the demolition application.   Based upon the above information, HARC approval for CDC‐2015‐020 is conditional upon the  approval of the CDC application for demolition and City Council approval of the PUD.  Lee McIntosh, applicant/ developer explained that he has lived in Georgetown for many years and  has looked at this property for many years.  He recently purchased the property from the Healthcare  Foundation with a vision of something aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood and something  that makes sense for the community and the Foundation.  The structure itself is in very poor shape,  he feels complete rehabilitation is the only option.  He wants to answer the questions of the neighbors  and address any concerns.  Winder asks for the original site plan and the location of the future buildings.  Synatschk showed  those building locations.  There is confirmation of the location of the historic structures.  There was  concern that if the commission approves the infill construction at this meeting that the demolition  would automatically be approved.  Synatschk explained that the infill construction CDC had to be  conditional on both the demolition approval and the PUD rezoning.  One action did not include the  other actions. If the demolition or rezoning does not get approved, then the application for infill  would have to be changed.  Knight questioned the height of the structure.  Synatschk stated it would be 35 feet from grade.  Bain opened the Public Hearing and explained the process.  Peter Dana, 1101 Walnut, expressed appreciation of the HARC efforts to review these issues.  Mr.  Dana expressed concern that the proposed buildings are too large for this neighborhood and the 35  feet in height does not include the parapets that are depicted on the plans, so the actual heights of the  buildings are at least 38 feet from grade.  He also expressed concern that there was not a review of the  parking lots for screening, the outdoor lighting would be too bright and there would be removal of  trees.  He suggested a two story building would be more welcome.  Susan Firth, Chair of Georgetown Heritage Society, spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The  Board feels an apartment complex development would be welcome as would adaptive reuse.  She  explained that this infill construction does not meet the criteria of Chapter 14 of the Design  Guidelines for rehabilitation versus infill construction.  She cited that this project should maintain a  front yard appearance, be of human scale and match the character of the neighborhood.  They  disagree with the supporting staff report and requested a denial of the application by the  Commission.  Bain closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth.  Synatschk explained that Mr. Dana’s concerns will be addressed by staff during the review of the  actual site plan with the UDC requirements.  Those items are not for review of the Commission.    Mr. McIntosh responded that he feels the application is in compliance with all the requirements,  including 100% impervious cover.  As part of the development standards, he is required to bring the  development to the street, as per urban development standards.  And incorporating the use of the  Page 7 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   structures that he can, 60% of the building is gone, 80% of the exterior is gone.  The Commission  cannot stop the demolition; it can delay it, but not stop it.  He is trying to provide a project that meets  the needs of the community.  Motion by Knight to deny CDC application CDC‐2015‐020 based on the findings in the Design  Guidelines outlined on pages 145 and 146, as well as Guideline 14.1, the project does not meet  setback requirements using a residential type setback; Guideline 14.4 does not provide a variety of  heights; and 14.5 a structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience.  While this  project meets some of the Guidelines in Chapter 14, it does not meet all the Guidelines or the  spirit of the chapter.  Second by Mee.  Discussion pursued. Knight stated she feels this way because the scale and mass of this building,  although broken into modules as suggested, does not match the character of the other larger scale  buildings in the area.  Synatschk explained that this property is in the Downtown Gateway Overlay  and that bringing the structure up to the front of the lot meets the requirements of that zoning district  and that area.  Knight argues that compatibility is not being met.  Bohls explains that as being a  neighbor that lives close to this site, he understands that the height is necessary to making this  feasible, and would rather have the large building than a run‐down smaller one.  He stated that as  with the Georgetonian, this new project could enhance the neighborhood.  Winder questioned the current zoning of the property.  It is currently zoned C‐3.  Rezoning to MU‐ DT for multi‐family is one of the actions that it is still to be undertaken.  Winder questioned why this  review was happening before the zoning and demolition requests.  Synatschk explained that Council  wants all reviews to be held before going to Council so therefore, the rezoning hearing at Council will  be held after the CDC hearing by HARC. Winder stated that the character of University Avenue is so  mixed and diverse that she feels this property is not out of character with the other nearby structures.    Bain asked for Synatschk to address the commissioner’s comments.  He explained that the Design  Guidelines that were called out in the motion were written mainly for residential infill and for  commercial uses that are being put in residential structures that have been converted.   The strict  setbacks for residential standards do not fit the commercial aspect of this site on this main road.   There was further discussion of meeting the “mass and scale” that are called out in the guidelines.   Winder suggested stepping back the third floor to minimize the mass.    Knight also read from page 147 of the Guidelines: “New construction in the historic district is  encouraged if the proposed design and siting are compatible with the District’s character.  When  siting new construction, compatibility with existing setbacks, the spacing of buildings, and the  orientation of buildings should be considered.  Compatibility of proposed landscaping, lighting,  paving, signage, and accessory buildings is also important.”  Knight feels the commission should  review all these items.  Bohls discusses that the UDC calls out standards that are not part of this  review and they have to trust staff to review those items.  Winder asked for history and context of all buildings coming to the commission, even when it is not a  demolition application.  Bain called the question.  Knight reread.  The vote was 3 – 3.  Mee, Knight and Brown voted for  denial.  Winder, Bohls and Bain voted against.    Motion by Winder to continue this item to the next HARC meeting to allow the applicant to  further design the project and to provide more resources for evaluation.  No second.  Motion died.  Page 8 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   Bohls asked the applicant if he would be willing to build this as a two‐story building.  McIntosh  responded no because it would not meet the economic criteria.  He feels this project meets the rules  but was denied because the commissioners don’t like it.    There was discussion over the word “compatible” and how it should be interpreted.  No consensus.    Motion by Bohls to approve the application as submitted and conditionally upon the approvals of  the demolition and rezoning applications.  Second by Bain.  Vote was tied 3 – 3.  Winder, Bohls  and Bain voted for approval.  Mee, Knight and Brown voted against.  Without a four vote  approval, which is a majority, the application is denied.  The applicant stated he did not wish to continue this item.  He will appeal the vote to Council.  Bain called for a 5 minute break.  F.   Discussion and possible action to support the Cityʹs application for an update of the National Register  Districts ‐ Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  Synatschk asked for support for the City’s application.  This is a requirement of the application.  The  city’s consultant has provided the research and written the report which will be submitted with the  application.  Commissioner Winder asked that the Commissioners be able to review the report before  it is submitted.  Synatschk stated he would send it out.  Motion by Knight to approve the letter of recommendation for this application.  Second by  Winder.  Approved 6 – 0.  G.   Consideration and possible action to appoint the members of the Historic Resource Survey  Subcommittee ‐ Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  Synatschk explained staff wishes to create the Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee to assist staff  throughout the survey process. The Survey Subcommittee will work with City staff and the selected  project consultant to manage the survey project and provide updates to the Historic and  Architectural Review Commission. The Subcommittee will work closely with staff to ensure timely  completion of the survey and assist with the coordination of additional research and identifying  stakeholders for inclusion in the process.   Article VI of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission bylaws authorizes the Commission  to create subcommittees for specific projects related to Commission matters. Subcommittees with  non‐members require City Council approval prior to their formation. Council approved the  Subcommittee on June 9, 2015.  The proposed Survey Subcommittee will be comprised of the following people:  1. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Chair or designee; 2. City of Georgetown Planning  Director or designee; 3. Chief Building Official or designee; 4. Citizen at Large with an interest in  historic preservation; and 5. Georgetown Heritage Society President or designee  Motion by Knight to approve the Subcommittee as submitted with Renee Hanson nominated for  the Citizen at Large position.  Second by Mee.  Approved 6 – 0.  H.  Consideration and possible action to appoint Demolition Subcommittee and establish a meeting date.  Frost requested reviewing the amended bylaws, then appointing the Demolition Subcommittee.  The bylaws were reviewed, including the addition of the Demolition Subcommittee and omission of  Page 9 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   the Sign Subcommittee.    Nomination by Mee to appoint Nancy Knight and Shawn Hood to the Demolition Subcommittee.   Dave Hall, the Building Official is already named to the subcommittee.  Second by Winder.   Approved 6 – 0.  The group agreed to meet on the second Monday of each month at 4:00 p.m. and at 4:00 p.m. on the  regular meeting dates of the fourth Thursday, as needed.  I.    Discussion on revisions proposed to certain application checklists, review processes and other  department operations to conform to the May 2015 UDC Amendments and new Certificate of  Appropriateness process.  Davila presented a quick overview of the checklists and publication in regards to the new  regulations.  Comments and questions may be directed to her.  J.   Presentation of revised bylaws, as approved by City Council on June 23, 2015.   See item H. above.  K.  Questions and Comments from Commissioners in Training.  There were no questions.  L.   Updates from Staff and reminder of future meetings  Synatschk stated the Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee would be meeting later in the month.   The Demolition Subcommittee would meet on July 13th to discuss an application for 605 E. University,  and the regular meeting will be held on July 23rd, as scheduled.  Adjournment.  Motion by Bain to adjourn, second by Knight.  The meeting was adjourned at 8:04  p.m.     ________________________________          _______________________________          Approved, Lee Bain, Chair             Attest, Richard Mee   Page 10 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 1 of 2  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   City of Georgetown, Texas  Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Sign Subcommittee  Minutes  Thursday, June 25, 2015, 5:45 p.m.  Council and Courts Building, located at 101 E. 7th Street  Georgetown, TX 78626  Members present: Nancy Knight, Chair; Jennifer Brown, and Richard Mee  Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.   (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose  authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)  A.  The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Sign Subcommittee, appointed by the  Commission, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on Certificates of Design Compliance  applications for Signage based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines and Unified Development Code. The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular  Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or  legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code  Chapter 551.   Welcome and Meeting Procedures:  Call to Order by Knight at 5:45 p.m.   *Those who wish to speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording  secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the  Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.  Legislative Agenda:  B. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the May 28, 2015 Sign Subcommittee meeting.  Motion by Mee to approve as submitted.  Second by Brown.  Approved 3 – 0.    C. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for  Signage at City of Georgetown, Block 38, Lot 2‐3, 1(PT), 0.3581 acres , located at 109 West  7th Street (CDC‐2015‐018)    Synatschk presented the staff report.  The applicant’s request for new business signage is in  compliance with the design guidelines. The request is for the installation of door signage, canopy  signs and hanging signs. The sign placement is appropriate as defined by the architectural features of  the structure. The window sign is appropriate for businesses located in high pedestrian areas. The  signs comply with the size requirements of the Guidelines and do not exceed the allowable colors.    Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed it.    Motion by Mee to approve the CDC for CDC‐2015‐018 as submitted.  Second by Brown.  Approved  3 – 0.    Page 11 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Sign Subcommittee Page 2 of 2  Meeting:  June 25, 2015   Knight adjourned the meeting at 5:48 p.m.       ________________________________          _______________________________          Approved, Nancy Knight, Chair            Attest, Richard Mee    Page 12 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for a residential addition and setback modification for the property located at 711 East 8th Street bearing the legal description of Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for a residential addition in the Old Town Overlay District. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to construct a two story addition, including a garage and additional living space. The applicant’s request includes approval to use the underlying Residential Single family (RS) zoning district setbacks. Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request will meet the approval criteria of Sections 3.13.030 and 4.09.020 B of the Unified Development Code (UDC), with the modifications outlined in the attached Staff Report. The modifications include altering the design of the upper story. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required application fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-052 Staff Report Cover Memo CDC-2014-052 Exhibit 1 - Location Aerial Map Exhibit CDC-2014-052 Exhibit 2 - Plan Documents Exhibit CDC-2014-052 Exhibit 3 - Exterior photographs Exhibit Page 13 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 1 of 8  Meeting Date: July 23, 2015   File Number:  CDC‐2014‐052    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a  residential addition and a setback modification on the property located at 711 East 8th Street bearing the  legal description of Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres.    AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  711 East 8th Street Residential Addition  Applicant:  James Grove  Property Owner: James Grove  Property Address:  711 East 8th Street  Legal Description:  Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres  Historic Overlay:  Old Town Overlay District  Case History: This case was first considered by the HARC on February 26, 2015. Per the  applicant’s request, the HARC voted to postpone the request to allow the  applicant time to revise the application to address the HARC’s concerns. On July  6, 2015, the applicant submitted a request to re‐instate the application and  revised drawings     HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  1912  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low Priority  National Register Designation: None  Texas Historical Commission Designation: None    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for a two‐story, 1,700‐square foot  residential addition. The HARC COA application includes two requests, which may be considered as  one application.     The COA request includes the following:  1. COA approval for the construction of the upper story utilizing the Residential Single family  zoning district setback requirements  2. COA approval for the setback modification, allowing the proposed project to be built within the  setbacks  3. CDC approval for the construction of a residential addition to a street facing façade    Page 14 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 2 of 8  These three items may be approved with one motion, or considered separately.        APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES  The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted  Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:    GUIDELINES FINDINGS  14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can  be clearly seen  Complies  14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back  from the front to minimize the visual impacts  Complies  14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy or remove original  architectural details and materials of the primary structure  Complies  14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials,  character and architectural style with the main building  Does not comply  14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character‐ defining façade  Complies  14.18 The roof of the new addition shall be in character with that  of the primary building  Complies    STAFF ANALYSIS  The subject property is located at 711 E. 8th St. in the Old Town Overlay District, and consists of an  approximate 1,200‐square foot single‐story residential structure (Exhibit 1). It is surrounded by single‐ family residences on all sides, and it is bounded by Pine Street to the east, 8th Street to the south, and a  40‐foot wide right‐of‐way (ROW)/easement to the north, which was originally dedicated for a  residential street but never constructed. The current use for the site is a single‐family residence, and the  property is zoned Residential Single‐Family (RS). The property currently takes driveway access from  Pine Street, which will remain unchanged.    The Residential Single‐Family (RS) setbacks apply to this project and are as follows:     20’ from the east (side) property line adjacent to Pine Street (due to the driveway access)   6’ from the west (side) property line (western adjacent property, located at 705 East 8th Street)   10’ from the north (rear) property line (city right‐of‐way/easement)    Additionally, the zoning regulations for the Old Town Overlay District require upper story  construction to be set back 15 feet from the rear property line and 10 feet from the side property line,  creating a tiered structure and reducing the impact of the second story on adjacent properties.  However, the Historic and Architectural Review Committee has the ability to allow the applicant to  utilize the base zoning district standards of 10 and 6 feet, respectively.  Page 15 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 3 of 8              The property owner wishes to construct an approximate 1,700‐square foot addition within an 800‐ square foot footprint (Exhibit 2). The proposed addition includes a first floor 2‐car garage and an 800  square foot second story living space. While the applicant’s letter of intent states that a kitchen will be  included, the applicant has since decided to remove the kitchen from the project.      The addition is proposed to be constructed to the north wall of the existing residential structure 6 feet  and 0 feet from the existing west and north property lines, respectively, within the current required  rear setback and additional Old Town setbacks (Exhibit 3). The applicant was informed that the City  had abandoned the 40‐foot ROW, but maintained a utility easement. The applicant moved forward  with the design work based upon the information provided by staff. In reviewing the application, staff  determined that the ROW had not been fully abandoned, and therefore the subject property did not  include any portion of the ROW/easement. Consequently, the proposed addition requires the review of  a setback modification by the HARC to encroach into the required rear setback, and allowance to utilize  the setback requirements for the underlying zoning district by the HARC, in accordance with UDC  Sections 3.13.030 D and 4.08.080.D, respectively.      The UDC provisions referenced above reduce the impact of proposed infill construction on the adjacent  properties. Based upon the proposed location, allowing the applicant to utilize the underlying RS  zoning district setback requirements will not adversely impact any adjacent properties. The largest  potential impact, the reduction of the north setback, is mitigated by the location of the existing 40‐foot  ROW/easement, which provides a 40‐foot buffer between the subject property and the property to the  north. The west side of the proposed addition overlooks the subject property’s back yard, reducing the  Page 16 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 4 of 8  impact of the proposed addition on the adjacent property to the west. Because of this, allowing the  property owner to build to the required setbacks for the underlying RS zoning district will not have an  adverse effect on surrounding properties and allows the applicant to utilize their property as proposed.     The 2015 Unified Development Code amendments, effective July 1, 2015, transferred review of setback  modification requests to the HARC. Therefore, the COA application includes the request for setback  modifications. In addition to the requested exceptions from the side and rear setback requirements for  upper stories, HARC must also review the proposed addition in accordance with applicable  Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.     The addition, as proposed, will be constructed along a secondary façade, limiting the impact on any  character defining features of the building, in compliance with Guideline 14.15. Additionally, the  proposed addition will be located in the rear yard and set further back than the existing building line  on Pine Street, minimizing the impact on the existing structure by allowing the original structure to  stay in the foreground (Guidelines 14.14 and 14.17). The proposed roof design is consistent with the  original structure, but has a different pitch, creating differentiation between the historic structure and  the addition. Moreover, the additional setback from Pine Street and use of different materials create the  necessary differentiation between the historic structure and addition, complying with Guideline 14.13.     Guideline 14.16 states that “an addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character and  architectural style of the main building.” The materials and architectural style of the proposed addition  are compatible with the historic structure. However, the scale and character are not compatible with  the historic structure. The proposed addition is 145% of the square footage of the existing structure,  with flat vertical walls lacking the details, attributes and features that distinguish the addition from the  existing historic structure. The design guidelines allow for a larger addition, but suggest the use of a  connector to separate the addition from the existing structure, when feasible. The guidelines also  suggest the use of dormers instead of creating a full second floor.     The applicant worked with staff following the February case, developing a new design incorporating  both staff comments and HARC comments, while accomplishing the project needs. The changes from  the original design include the creation of a connector between the original structure and the addition,  adding additional windows to create more of a human scale, changing the size of the windows to  reflect the style of the existing structure and changing the roof pitch. The incorporated changes allow  the project to comply with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines while accomplishing the  applicant’s project requirements.       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  Page 17 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 5 of 8  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  A. The application is complete and the information  contained within the application is correct and  sufficient enough to allow adequate review and  final action;  The application was submitted on December  12, 2014, and deemed complete by staff on  January 5, 2015. The applicant voluntarily  pulled the application in March and  requested to be placed on the July 23, 2015  agenda.   B. Compliance with any design standards of the  Unified Development Code;  The proposed project does not comply with  the standards of the underlying RS zoning  district. Approval of the setback  modification is required to comply with the  UDC.  C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design  Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,  specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay  District;  The proposed project does not comply with  one of the six applicable guidelines due to  the incomparability of the scale and  character of the addition as noted in the  analysis above.   D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is  preserved.  The addition, as proposed, reduces the  impact on the existing Low priority historic  structure by setting back from the existing  building line and utilizing compatible  materials.   E. New buildings or additions are designed to be  compatible with surrounding historic properties.  The proposed project is compatible with the  surrounding historic properties. The block  contains structures of various size and  design, reducing the impact of the proposed  addition.   F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The proposed project has a limited effect on  the Old Town Overlay District. Two‐story  additions are in character with other  properties in the district.   G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted  design standards, and are not in character with  the site or landmarks within the Historic or  applicable Overlay District in question will not be  permitted.  The proposed project does not include any  signage.  H. The following may also be considered by the  HARC when determining whether to approve a  Certificate for Design Compliance:  1. The effect of the proposed change upon the  general historic, cultural, and architectural  nature of the site, landmark, or District.  The proposed project has limited impact  upon the overall character of the Old Town  Overlay District. Utilizing a connector or  altering the second floor design would  increase compliance with Criterion H.1 by  limiting the impact on the structure and the  Page 18 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 6 of 8  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  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.  surrounding properties.          SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FOR SETBACK  MODIFICATION  FINDINGS  A. Whether the proposed setback modification is  solely a matter of convenience;  The proposed setback modification allows  the property owner to construct the addition  within the confines of the lot  B. Whether there is adequate room on the site to  allow the proposed addition or new structure  without encroaching in to the setback;  The site constraints limit the placement of  the structure, necessitating the request for  the setback modification.  C. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and  in context within the block in which the subject  property is located;  Many of the structures in the Old Town  Overlay District are built on or over the  property lines and the proposed addition  will not conflict with the context of the  surrounding block.  D. Whether the proposed addition or new structure  will be set closer to the street than other units  within the block;  The proposed addition will be set back from  the existing structure, placing it further from  the street.  E. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a  structure removed within the past year;  The proposed addition does not replace a  structure removed within the last year.   F. Whether the proposed structure will replace a  structure that previously existed with relatively  the same footprint and encroachment as  proposed;  The proposed addition is new construction  and is not replacing a previous structure.  G. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure The proposed addition is not replacing  Page 19 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 7 of 8  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FOR SETBACK  MODIFICATION  FINDINGS  that is replacing another structure, whether the  proposed structure is significantly larger than the  original;  another structure.  H. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition,  the scale of the addition compared to the original  house;  The proposed addition is larger than the  existing structure. However, the applicant  has incorporated design elements in to the  addition that comply with the Downtown  and Old Town Design Guidelines.  I. The size of the proposed structure compared to  similar structures within the same block;  The proposed addition is a comparable size  to other structures located within the block.   J. Whether the proposed addition or new structure  will negatively impact adjoining properties,  including limiting their ability to maintain  existing buildings;  The proposed addition will encroach in to  the north setback, which is adjacent to a 40  foot City right of way. The addition will not  impact the neighbor’s ability to maintain  their property.   K. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance  of the proposed addition or new structure and/or  any adjacent structures; and/or  The proposed addition will encroach in to  the north setback, which is adjacent to a 40  foot City right of way. The addition will not  impact the property owner’s ability to  maintain their property.  L. Whether the encroachment would enable existing  large trees or significant features of the lot to be  preserved.  The encroachment allows the preservation  of the existing structure, and allows the  proposed addition to comply with the  Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines.   Page 20 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2014‐052 711 East 8th Street Page 8 of 8    STAFF RECOMMENDATION    The COA includes three separate items for review, which may be addressed separately.     1. COA approval for the construction of the upper story utilizing the Residential Single family  zoning district setback requirements  2. COA approval for the setback modification, allowing the proposed project to be built within the  setbacks  3. CDC approval for the construction of a residential addition to a street facing façade    Based upon the findings outlined in the staff report, staff recommends approval of all three  components of the project.    As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this application.      ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Location Aerial Map  Exhibit 2 – Plan Documents  Exhibit 3 – Exterior photographs of current structure    SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 21 of 89 711 East  8th Street  CDC‐2014‐052  Subject Property  City Right of Way   Page 22 of 89 Page 23 of 89 Page 24 of 89 Page 25 of 89 Page 26 of 89 Page 27 of 89 Page 28 of 89 Page 29 of 89 Page 30 of 89 Page 31 of 89 Page 32 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for demolition of the property located at 605 East University Avenue, bearing the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 84-85 (PT), 0.631 acres; Dimmit Addition, Block 84-85 (PT), 0.3939 acres; and Dimmit Addition, Block 84, SE Corner ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for demolition of the historic structure located at 605 East University Avenue. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to demolish the structure to prepare for a future development project. Staff recommends approval with conditions f the request based upon the findings that it complies with Sections 3.13.030 and Section 3.13.040 of the Unified Development Code, as outlined in the attached staff report. The recommendation for approval includes the condition that all salvageable materials must be salvaged and the salvaged brick incorporated into the design of the future project. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2015-019 Staff Report Backup Material CDC-2015-019 Exhibit 1 - Plans and Specifications Exhibit CDC-2015-019 Exhibit 2 - 1984 Historic Resource Survey Form Exhibit CDC-2015-019 Exhibit 3 - HARC Demolition Subcommittee Recommendation Exhibit CDC-2015-019 Exhibit 4 - Public Comment Exhibit Page 33 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐019 605 East University Avenue Page 1 of 5  Meeting Date: July 23, 2015   File Number:  CDC‐2015‐019    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for  demolition of the property located at 605 East University Avenue, bearing the legal description of  Dimmit Addition, Block 84‐85 (PT), 0.631 acres; Dimmit Addition, Block 84‐85 (PT), 0.3939 acres; and  Dimmit Addition, Block 84, SE Corner  AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  605 East University Demolition  Applicant:  Lee McIntosh   Property Owner: Georgetown Health Foundation  Property Address:  605 East University Avenue  Legal Description:  Dimmit Addition, Block 84‐85 (PT), 0.631 acres; Dimmit Addition, Block 84‐85      (PT), 0.3939 acres; and Dimmit Addition, Block 84, SE Corner  Historic Overlay:  Old Town Overlay District  Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.     HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  1922  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium   2007 ‐ Low  National Register Designation: None  Texas Historical Commission Designation: None    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance to demolish the historic structure  located at 605 East University Avenue in preparation for redeveloping the site.     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  The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines do not apply to this project.       Page 34 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐019 605 East University Avenue Page 2 of 5    STAFF ANALYSIS  The property owner wishes to demolish the Medium Priority structure located at 605 East University  Avenue. The current structure was built in 1922 as the first hospital in Georgetown and significantly  altered in the 1960s. The alterations included the demolition of approximately 33% of the building,  including the primary façade, and the construction of a brick addition, creating a new primary façade.  The structure continued to serve as the primary hospital in Georgetown until the 1970s and was  converted to offices and other medical uses following the opening of a new hospital.     The 1984 historic resource survey form describes the structure’s condition as “fair, severely altered”  and states that “original façade completely obscured.” The survey form also states that the structure is  significant for its historic use, not the structure itself. The 1960s alterations resulted in the removal of  the primary façade, and most of the character defining features of the architectural style.     The interior of the 1960s addition was subsequently remodeled following the closure of the hospital  and contains no historically significant features. The remaining portion of the original structure is  significantly deteriorated.    The HARC Demolition Subcommittee, comprised of Commissioner Nancy Knight, Commissioner  Shawn Hood and City of Georgetown Chief Building Official Dave Hall, met on July 13th to discuss the  application. The meeting included a site inspection and follow up discussion regarding the application.  Following their deliberations, the Demolition Subcommittee voted to recommend approval of the  demolition request with the condition that the applicant salvage the usable materials from the  structure. The condition included using the exterior brick as accent details on the future project and  offering any other salvageable materials for re‐use in other projects.       CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL  In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the  following criteria:    SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  A. The application is complete and the information  contained within the application is correct and  sufficient enough to allow adequate review and  final action;  The application was submitted on June 8,  2015 and deemed to be complete.   B. Compliance with any design standards of the  Unified Development Code;  The design standards of the UDC are not  applicable to this project.   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 Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines are not applicable to this project.   Page 35 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐019 605 East University Avenue Page 3 of 5  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is  preserved.  The proposed project will result in the loss  of the historic structure.   E. New buildings or additions are designed to be  compatible with surrounding historic properties.  No new buildings or additions are proposed  with this project.  F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The removal of the historic property impacts  the historic district, but the impact is  reduced due to the condition of the existing  structure.   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 signs are 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 removal of the historic  structure has an impact on the Old Town  Overlay District due to the loss of a historic  resource. However, the condition of the  historic resource, including the addition, has  dramatically reduced the historic  significance of the structure. While the  historic use of the site as a hospital is  significant, the structure itself does not hold  and architectural significance.     In addition to the approval criteria listed above, the HARC must also consider the following criteria for  a request for CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Historic Structure:    SECTION 3.13.040 CRITERIA FINDINGS  A. The uniqueness of the structure as a  representative type of style of architecture,  The structure does not represent a unique  style of architecture for the district, due to  the loss of approximately 33% of the original  Page 36 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐019 605 East University Avenue Page 4 of 5  SECTION 3.13.040 CRITERIA FINDINGS  historic association, or other element of the  original designation criteria applicable to such  structure or tract;  structure during the construction of the  1960s addition.     B. The condition of the structure from the standpoint  of structure integrity and the extent of work  necessary to stabilize the structure; and  The structure requires substantial  rehabilitation prior to a residential or  commercial use. Portions of the structure are  below grade, creating foundation and  moisture problems, and many of the interior  components are not compliant with current  building codes.   C. The status of the structure under Chapter 15 of the  Georgetown City Code containing Building Safety  Standards and rules governing Dangerous  Buildings.  There are no open Code Enforcement  complaints and the property has not been  reviewed by the Building Standards  Commission.   D. And make the following findings:  The structure is noncontributing to the historic  overlay district  The condition of the original structure and  the 1960s addition result in the loss of  historic significance for the structure.  Additionally, the structure was primarily  significant for its historic use, not for the  physical characteristics of the design.   The structure is newer than the period of significance  for the historic overlay district and is not  historically significant  The 1960s addition renders the structure not  historically significant.   Demolition of the structure will not adversely affect  the historic character of the property or the  integrity of the historic overlay district  The demolition of the structure has limited  impact on the integrity of the district due to  the loss of historic significance for the  structure.      STAFF RECOMMENDATION  Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance  for demolition with the following condition:    1. All salvageable materials must be removed for use in future projects. The exterior brick must be  saved and used as accent in the new project. Other salvageable materials may be donated or  offered for sale for use in other restoration projects. Staff will conduct a final inspection of the  property to identify the materials for salvage.     Suggested motion for approval:    Page 37 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐019 605 East University Avenue Page 5 of 5  “I move approval of CDC‐2015‐019 for demolition of the structure based upon the findings that the  structure is no longer considered to be historically significant due to the condition of the structure and  significant alterations. All salvageable materials must be saved for use in the future project and other  projects.”    Suggested motion for denial:    “I move to deny CDC‐2015‐019 to demolish the structure based upon the findings that the structure is  historically significant within the context of the district and can be rehabilitated for a use consistent  with the district.”    As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request.     ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent  Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications     SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 38 of 89 Page 39 of 89 Page 40 of 89 Page 41 of 89 Page 42 of 89 Page 43 of 89 Page 44 of 89 Page 45 of 89 Page 46 of 89 Page 47 of 89 Page 48 of 89 Page 49 of 89 Page 50 of 89 Page 51 of 89 Page 52 of 89 Page 53 of 89 Page 54 of 89 Page 55 of 89 Page 56 of 89 Page 57 of 89 Page 58 of 89 Page 59 of 89 1 Matt Synatschk From:Laurie Locke <laurienowjung@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 25, 2015 3:52 PM To:Matt Synatschk; Karen Frost Subject:Old Hospital project/Lee McIntosh Dear Karen and Matt, I am writing as a lifelong resident of Georgetown to express my deep concerns about Lee McIntosh's project that will come before HARC this evening in its early stages. His plan to demolish the old, historic Martin Hospital, and replace it with apartment buildings that do not appear to blend in with, much less enhance, the surrounding historic neighborhood, is troubling. The old hospital, where I and thousands of others were born, holds invaluable history for our city. The first integrated school for practical nurses was established at that hospital, and it was the private hospital that was the direct "ancestor" of our current hospital system. In its original form, it was a beautiful, stately building that could be restored and made into a lovely boutique hotel/restaurant or other use that would be consistent with its history. From Austin Avenue to Southwestern University, University Avenue is now a beautiful gateway to the University, lined with historic homes and schools. Allowing a project that would not only forever destroy an integral and important part of our history, but also create an imposing structure that would not in any way enhance the area, seems to me to be a serious mistake. We all mourn the loss of the Annie Purl School, the First National Bank, and other historic structures that were demolished and that could have been restored to glorious use. Instead, we have a modern bank building that is inconsistent with downtown, an Oil Exchange, old Dairy Queen, and bank…none of which add anything of positive esthetic value to Georgetown. I hope you will give serious thought to denying Mr. McIntosh the ability to move forward with this project, and look for more beautiful and appropriate ways to restore the old hospital. Thank you for listening, Laurie Benold Locke Click here to report this email as spam. Page 60 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations for the property located at 1610 East 15th Street bearing the legal description of University Park, Block 6, Lot 1-5. ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for the removal of an existing addition and construction of a new addition for a historic structure located in the Old Town Overlay District. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to remove a non- historic addition, construct a new addition, and construct a new porch along the primary façade. Staff recommends denial of the request based on the findings that the request does not meet the approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2015-023 Staff Report Exhibit CDC-2015-023 Exhibit 1 - Plans and Specifications Exhibit Page 61 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐023 1610 East 15th Street Page 1 of 5  Meeting Date: July 23, 2015   File Number:  CDC‐2015‐023    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior  alterations for the property located at 1610 East 15th Street bearing the legal description of University  Park, Block 6, Lot 1‐5.    AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  Bustos Residential Addition and remodel  Applicant:  Charley Munro  Property Owner: Elizabeth and Frank Bustos  Property Address:  1610 East 15th Street  Legal Description:  University Park, Block 6, Lot 1‐5  Historic Overlay:  Old Town Overlay District  Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case    HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  ca. 1960  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded   2007 – Medium Priority  National Register Designation: Eligible for listing as a contributing structure  Texas Historical Commission Designation: None    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is requesting partial demolition of an existing addition and the construction of a new  addition to the street facing façade and front porch.    APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES  The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted  Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:    STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FINDINGS  4.08.050 B Each building or structure shall be recognized as a physical record of  its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical  development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from  other structures shall not be undertaken  Does not comply  4.08.050 H New additions and adjacent or related new construction should 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  Does not comply  Page 62 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐023 1610 East 15th Street Page 2 of 5  STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FINDINGS  7.2   Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic  Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.  Does not comply  7.3   An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the  main building.  Does not comply  7.6   Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Does not comply  7.7   Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to  minimize the visual impacts  Does not comply  7.8   Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details  and materials of the primary structure.  Does not comply  7.9   An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the  main building.  Does not comply  7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the  primary building.  Does not comply  14.17 An addition shall be setback from any primary, character defining façade Does not comply  14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when  additions are proposed  Does not comply  14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be preserved,  protected and replicated where appropriate when additions are proposed   Does not comply    STAFF ANALYSIS  The proposed project is for the medium priority historic structure located at 1610 East 15th Street. The  property was built circa 1960, reflecting architectural elements of the ranch style house, a prevalent  design for the period. The project includes the removal of an existing addition, with a new addition  built in its place. The applicant also proposes the construction of a new porch tying the original  structure and new addition in to one cohesive structure.     The removal of the existing non‐historic addition is justified by the current condition of the structure,  as documented in the applicant’s request. The Letter of Intent states that the foundation is deteriorating  and causing structural damage to the original structure.     The design of the new addition and porch is out of compliance with the Unified Development Code  and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Section 4.08.050 B of the Unified Development  Code states that “each building or structure shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place  and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural  features or architectural elements from other structures shall not be undertaken.” The new addition  creates a street facing façade incorporating architectural elements from other styles of architecture,  reflective of the French colonial style. These alterations create a false sense of historic significance for  the structure by utilizing elements from an earlier style. Additionally, Guideline 7.2 states “properties  designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their  historic character retained.” The proposed addition alters the historic character of the house, resulting  Page 63 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐023 1610 East 15th Street Page 3 of 5  in the loss of historic significance. Additionally, Guidelines 7.6, 7.8 and 14.19 all speak to protecting the  original character of the structure and not adversely impacting the original architectural details of the  structure. The proposed project significantly obscures the architectural features and fails to differentiate  between the existing structure and the new addition.     Guideline 7.7 and Guideline 14.17 state that additions should be placed at the rear of the structure or  setback from the primary façade. As shown in the attached floor plan, the proposed addition is set  further forward than the existing building wall, drawing the focus away from the original structure.  Additionally, the front porch spanning the length of the façade diminishes the value of the existing  structure.     Guideline 7.9 states that an addition shall be compatible with the character of the original structure.  The proposed addition utilizes architectural elements that negatively impact the character of the  existing structure.     Guideline 7.10 address the roofline of the addition as it relates to the original structure. The proposed  roof for the porch conflicts with the roof form of the existing structure and introduces new materials to  the project.     The Design Guidelines make the following statement regarding ownership of a historic property:     Ownership of an historic property carries both the aforementioned benefits and a responsibility   to respect the historic character of the resource and its setting. While this responsibility does   exist, it does not automatically translate into higher construction or maintenance costs.   Ultimately, residents and property owners should recognize that historic preservation is a long‐  range community policy that promotes economic well‐being and overall viability of the city at   large. In addition, they play a vital role in helping to implement such a policy through careful   stewardship of the area’s historic resources.    Overall, the proposed project fails to comply with the Unified Development Code and the Downtown  and Old Town Design Guidelines due to the significant alterations of the historic form of the structure  and the placement of the addition.      CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL  In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the  following criteria:    SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  A. The application is complete and the information  contained within the application is correct and  sufficient enough to allow adequate review and  final action;  The application was submitted on June 26,  2015 and determined to be complete.   Page 64 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐023 1610 East 15th Street Page 4 of 5  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  B. Compliance with any design standards of the  Unified Development Code;  The proposed project complies with the  design standards for the underlying zoning  district as outlined in the UDC.   C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design  Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,  specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay  District;  The proposed project does not comply with  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 significantly alters the  structure, diminishing the integrity of the  historic structure and impacting the historic  significance of the property.   E. New buildings or additions are designed to be  compatible with surrounding historic properties.  The proposed addition is compatible with  the surrounding historic properties in  massing and scale. The architectural style is  not compatible with the surrounding  structures.   F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The proposed project compromises the  integrity of the Old Town Overlay District  by introducing an architectural style not  compatible with the development dates of  the district.   G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted  design standards, and are not in character with  the site or landmarks within the Historic or  applicable Overlay District in question will not be  permitted.  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  The proposed project has an adverse effect  on the structure and the overall historic  district by creating a false sense of history  for the structure. The ca 1960 structure is  historic in its own right and any alterations  should reflect the historic character of the  structure. Additionally, the proposed design  reflects architectural features common to the  French colonial style, which predates the  development of the residential properties in  the district. This false sense of history  diminishes the quality of the structure and  the overall district.   Page 65 of 89 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    CDC‐2015‐023 1610 East 15th Street Page 5 of 5  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  factors to other landmarks built at or during  the same period, as well as the uniqueness of  such features, considering the remaining  examples of architectural, historical, and  cultural values.    STAFF RECOMMENDATION  Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends denial of CDC‐2015‐023.    As of the date of this report, staff has received written comments regarding the proposed project.      ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Plans and Specifications    SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 66 of 89 1 City of Georgetown Planning and Development Services / HARC Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC Submission for CDC The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street Georgetown, TX. 78626 The Project Scope Summary: This application for CDC is for the partial remodeling and addition to an existing home at 1610 East 15th Street. The extreme eastern addition of the house has a foundation that is sinking dramatically and is causing structural damage to the frame of the house. This area was formerly a garage which has been remodeled and added to several times over the years. The Eastern part of the house (comprising approx. 898 sf) will be completely razed a nd a new addition will be added in its place. The addition consists of a Bedroom, Utility Room, Bath and Den. The addition, which will be added to the North and East sides of the house, will add approximately 1069 sf of Living area to the existing 3063 sf . ranch style home. There will also be a porch added to the North side of the house which will add approximately 405 sf of covered area to the house. The siding of the new addition will be horizontal lap Hardi-Siding (see attached renderings). The windows in the addition will be composite fiberglass from Andersen (100 Series), however, the original placement, light patterns, massing, and configuration will remain similar to the existing windows. The proposed changes to the structure on the street side of the house will be the addition of a new gable (at the eastern end of the house) and a porch with a hip roof. The roof style for the new addition will closely match the existing roof and will be in keeping with the architectural style of the existing house. T he main roof will be architectural composite shingles in Georgetown Gray or Weathered wood and the roof at the porch will be standing seam painted metal (copper color). The paint color for the body, trim, fascia and new columns of the house will be Shoji W hite 7042. The Trim and the shutters will be Tricorn Black 6258. The new floor material at the porches and front steps will be a traditional split brick in antique red. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC. Sincerely, J. Bryant Boyd, AIA Page 67 of 89 1 City of Georgetown Planning and Development Services/HARC Georgetown, TX 78626 The Project Scope Summary: This application for CDC is for the partial remodeling and addition to an existing home at 1610 East 15th Street. The extreme eastern addition of the house has a foundation that is sinking dramatically and is causing structural damage to the frame of the house. This area was formerly a garage which has been remodeled and added to several times over the years. The Eastern part of the house (comprising approx. 898 sf) will be completely razed and a new addition will be added in it’s place. The addition consists of a Bedroom, Utility Room, Bath and Den. The addition, which will be added to the North and East sides of the house, will add approximately 1069 sf of Living area to the existing 3063 sf. ranch style home. There will also be a porch added to the North side of the house which will add approximately 405 sf of covered area to the house. The siding of the new addition will be horizontal lap Hardi-Siding (see attached renderings). The windows in the addition will be composite fiber- glass from Andersen (100 Series), however, the original placement, light patterns, massing, and configuration will remain similar to the existing windows. The proposed changes to the structure on the street side of the house will be the addition of a new gable (at the eastern end of the house) and a porch with a hip roof. The roof style for the new addition will closely match the existing roof and will be in keeping with the architectural style of the existing house. The main roof will be architectural composite shingles in Georgetown Gray or Weatheredwood and the roof a t the porch will be standing seam painted metal (copper color). The paint color for the body, trim, fascia and new columns of the house will be Shoji White 7042. The Trim and the shutters w ill be Tricorn Black 6258. The new floor material at the porches and front steps will be a traditional split brick in antique red. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC. Sincerely, HARC Submission for CDC The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street Page 68 of 89 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY SURVEY SHOWING CURRENT CONDITIONS AERIAL VIEW Page 69 of 89 3 HARC submittal for CDC June 24, 2015 Subject Property: The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street DETACHED GARAGE SEEN FROM HUTTO RD. DETACHED GARAGE AND LATER ADDITION TO ORIG. HOUSE SEEN FROM HUTTO RD. EAST FACING, LATER ADDITION TO ORIG. HOUSE ORIGINAL PORTION OF FRONT SEEN FROM 15TH DETAIL OF BAY WINDOWS & ENTRY PORCH SHOW- ING TURNED WOOD COLUMNS PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION (LATER ADDITION SEEN FAR LEFT) VIEW OF ENTIRE FRONT (NORTH FACING) ELEVATION PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION (SHOWS BRICK TO SIDING TRANSITION) REAR ELEVATION (SOUTH FACING) (LATER ADDITION SEEN AT RIGHT) Page 70 of 89 4 Subject Property: The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street Georgetown, TX. 78626 Page 71 of 89 5 Subject Property: The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street Georgetown, TX. 78626 Page 72 of 89 6 HARC submittal for CDC June 24, 2015 Subject Property: The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street Georgetown, TX. 78626 North (15th Street) Elevation New Metal Roofing New Horiz. lap Siding New Architectual Comp. Shingles (Georgetown Gray or Weathered wood) New Wood Shutters Exterior Paint & Finish Selections All Exterior Field, Trim, and Columns Wood Shutters Painted Finish on New Standing Seam Metal Roof “Weathered Copper” Page 73 of 89 7 Subject Property: The Bustos Residence Addition and Remodel 1610 East 15th Street Georgetown, TX. 78626 East Side Elevation (looking southwest from corner of 15th Street & Hutto Road) Exterior Paint & Finish Selections All Exterior Field, Trim, and Columns Wood Shutters Painted Finish on New Standing Seam Metal Roof “Weathered Copper” New Metal Roofing New Horiz. Lap Siding New Architectual Comp. Shingles (Georgetown Gray or Weathered wood) New Wood Shutters HARC submittal for CDC June 24, 2015 Page 74 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction on proposed infill construction project at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner at 501 South Austin Avenue is requesting conceptual review from the HARC regarding a proposed infill construction project. The HARC may provide guidance in methods to comply with the Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, but no formal action will be taken on the project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Tamiro Phase 2 Letter of Intent Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - SW Corner Aerial Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - SW Corner Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - SW Corner Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - NW Corner Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - NW Corner Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - SE Corner Exhibit Tamiro Phase 2 Rendering - SE Corner Exhibit Page 75 of 89 Francisco Tae Choi, AIA, NCARB FTC Architects, PC 501 S Austin Ave, - Georgetown, TX 78626 Tel: 512.819.9900 Cell:512.297.7263 www.FTCarchitects.com francisco@tamiro.com RE: Tamiro Plaza Phase2 - Brownstones HARC Narratives 15July2015 – Concept Review TO: Mr. Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City Of Georgetown, Texas Matt, Mr. Synatschk, Here is a simple narrative and supporting excerpts and descriptions of foregoing HARC’s concept review in the upcoming HARC’s session. I have emailed you several computer renderings of the concepts. More clarification drawings will be emailed to you as they become available. Since official name has not been given to the project as such, we shall call it at this time as, Tamiro Plaza Phase Two - Brownstone Development. “Live Work and Play” is the heart and living soul of the theme of this brownstone development proposal in the heart of historic Overlay in Historic Downtown Georgetown – ….touching the 9 block Historic Square. The architecture is a uniquely blend of traditional shapes and forms that adheres with the scale of historic downtown. Each unit is a simple form that creates wonderful and very large outdoor terrace on each and every floor at second, third and fourth, comprising not just a small balconies, but rather a roomful size terraces where outdoor living activities will be greatly enjoyed to its fullest. The entire ground floor is designed to receive all kinds of retail shops and amenities. Thus, these “upscale brownstones” owners or inhabitants will have amenities like no other as they will not only live a stone throwaway from the Square, but enjoy dozens if not hundreds of shops within walking distance of merely two to three city blocks from it’s Tamiro Plaza. Lastly, such high end residential/retail proposed here will be new way of conceiving downtown living, and is as closest as any development has ever come to historic downtowns, and hopefully such dream will become a reality soon. Sincerely, Francisco Page 76 of 89 Background – Expectations of the City of Georgetown Excerpts from the Downtown Master Plan: From the Framework Strategy: This renaissance must concentrate on enhancing the core with a mix of uses, including higher density residential, commercial and cultural attractions. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II addresses the mix of higher density residential and commercial. The design provides up to 36,402 square feet of residential, and up to 22,386 square feet of retail. Map 6 of the Strategy designates the intersection of Austin Avenue and E. 5th Street as a Development Anchor. 'The Monument Cafe and Tamiro Plaza at 5th and Austin offer a mix of uses that currently draw pedestrians from the square. More development should follow in this direction.' (Tamiro Plaza Phase II satisfies the intent of this designation.) Generally, everything within a block and a half of the historic courthouse is termed the 'Downtown Core.' Specialty retail, dining and entertainment venues should be present to position the downtown core as an exciting place distinct from regional suburban shopping centers. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II contributes to the desired distinction of the downtown core.) This area should strengthen as the specialty shopping and dining destination for the county. Office space and apartments on upper floors should be promoted. Surface parking should be kept to a minimum. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II addresses the desire for specialty shopping, dining destination, office space, and apartments on upper floors while minimizing surface parking.) Promote development of downtown living and professional offices on upper floors. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II supports downtown living and professional offices, including support for entrepreneurs who wish to 'live above the store.') A vertical mixed use block is usually more intensive than a horizontal mixed use block, often requiring underground or above-grade parking to accommodate the on-site needs. Vertical mixed use blocks tend to be larger in mass and scale. Stepping back upper floors is one way to reduce the scale of the building from the street level. Parking is generally located underground or in a structure. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II provides mixed-use, and stepped-back upper floors.) Page 77 of 89 Page 78 of 89 Page 79 of 89 Page 80 of 89 Page 81 of 89 Page 82 of 89 Page 83 of 89 Page 84 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. ITEM SUMMARY: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Page 85 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC. ITEM SUMMARY: 1. UDC Amendments 2. National Register Project 3. Downtown Projects 4. Historic Resource Survey Upcoming HARC Meetings 1. National Register Public Workshop - TBD 2. June 25th Sign Subcommittee and HARC Meetings FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Meetings Schedule 2015 - 2016 Backup Material UDC Amendments Next Steps Exhibit Page 86 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission (4th Thursday) Applications may be submitted at any time. The Agenda Deadline is not a submittal deadline; it is the last day an item may be added to a meeting agenda to meet notification requirements. Additional time is needed for processing and review of applications; therefore you are encouraged to submit your application as early as possible in advance of this date to avoid delays. Please refer to the Application Review Timelines chart in this Development Manual to estimate overall processing time. All issues must be resolved before an item can be added to an agenda. Staff will determine when your application is ready for the public meeting and notify you accordingly. Historic & Architectural Review Commission Agenda Deadline HARC Meeting December 26, 2014 January 22, 2015 January 27, 2015 February 26 February 27 March 26 March 27 April 23 May 1 May 28 May 29 June 25 June 26 July 23 July 31 August 27 August 28 September 24 September 25 October 22 * November 13 * December 10 December 31 January 28, 2016 January 29, 2016 February 25 February 26 March 24 April 1 April 28 April 29 May 26 May 27 June 23 July 1 July 28 July 29 August 25 August 26 September 22 September 30 October 27 ** November 11 * December 8 * November and December regular meetings are combined due to the Holidays. The combined meeting is held on the second Thursday of December. Page 87 of 89 Historic UDC Amendments Next Steps Project Tasks Draft TBC By  Date Sun Posting  Deadline Posting  Deadline HARC Meeting  Date CC Meeting  Date 1st Reading CC Meeting  Date 2nd Reading Date  Completed Staff Lead Revise City Code Ch. 2.50 Add reference to Demolition Subcommittee 29‐May‐15 27‐May‐15 3‐Jun‐15 N/A 9‐Jun‐15 23‐Jun‐15 ADQ Revise Fee Schedule Revise terminology in break‐down of fees to be  consistent with approved amendments 29‐May‐15 27‐May‐15 3‐Jun‐15 N/A 9‐Jun‐15 23‐Jun‐15 VK Revise Application Checklist(s)29‐May‐15 N/A 1‐Jun‐15 N/A N/A ADQ 19‐Jun‐15 25‐Jun‐15 Revise Bylaws Add reference to Demolition Subcommittee 12‐Jun‐15 N/A 17‐Jun‐15 23‐Jun‐15 N/A KF Add allowance of outside HARC members to serve as  a Subcommittee member 19‐Jun‐15 25‐Jun‐15 Revise Customer Bulletins Define new processes based on proposed  amendments (regular and demolition processes) 12‐Jun‐15 19‐Jun‐15 25‐Jun‐15 ADQ Revise SOP Define staff roles and review processes based on  proposed amendments 12‐Jun‐15 N/A 19‐Jun‐15 25‐Jun‐15 N/A N/A MCS Train staff on new changes Planning and Permit Technicians, Building Plan  Examiners, Code Enforcement, Main Street 19‐Jun‐15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MCS Training for HARC 19‐Jun‐15 19‐Jun‐15 25‐Jun‐15 N/A N/A KF Presentation Update ‐ Main Street  Advisory Board 19‐Jun‐15 N/A 19‐Jun‐15 26‐Jun‐15 (MSAB mtg) N/A N/A MCS Publications (UDC/Municode,  Brochure, website, development  guide) Create/update published UDC, handouts and online  information on new amendments 26‐Jun‐15 N/A 30‐Jun‐15 N/A N/A N/A KF Update MPN Revise break‐down of fees 30‐Jun‐15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A VK Revise requirements Training for stakeholders Conduct a "lunch & learn" or open meeting with  former applicants to go over changes in the submittal  and review processes 8‐Jul‐15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MCS Page 88 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review July 23, 2015 SUBJECT: ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Page 89 of 89