Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_01.11.2024Minutes of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, January 11, 2024 The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 6:00 PM at Council and Court Building, 510 W 9th Street. 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 Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. The following Members were in attendance: Present were: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Stuart Garner Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subiect that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the meeting room. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the Board Liaison prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior to the meeting being called to order may speak. Speakers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. If you wish to speak for six minutes, it is permissible to use another requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six minutes for a speaker may be granted. The requestor granting time to another speaker must also submit a form and be present at the meeting. On a subject not posted on the agenda: A request must be received by the Advisory Board or Commission Liaison prior to the day the agenda for this mee ng is posted. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the Board or Commission members. No action can be taken. Regular Session 1.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the December 14, 2023 regular Historic and Architectural Review Commission meeting -- Erica Metress, Planning Specialist Moved by Lawrence Romero; seconded by Alton Martin to Approve . Motion Approved: 5- 0 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Alton Martin, Stuart Garner Voting Against: None Per the request of Chair Walton, the agenda items were reordered as such: 1.D, 1.B, 1.E, 1.C, and 11. 1.B 2022-23-COA (200 W. 6th Street) Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the following: • New commercial infill building construction . Building height increase from the required 40' maximum building height for the property located at 200 W. 6th Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 2A- 7A, Block 37, City of Georgetown, Amended (2022-23-COA) -- Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report. Scott Stribling, Owner, approached the podium to address the Commission and explained that there is not a lot of change from the December meeting because they are proud of this project. Stribling clarified that the height of the building has always been 48 feet despite the discussion from the previous HARC Meeting. Troy Hellmann, Owner, approached the podium to address the Commission and clarified that the height from the floor to the roof deck is 44 feet and the parapet adds additional height to the building. Hellmann noted that if the project was not in the courthouse corridor view, they would have been able to apply for an administrative exception. Commissioner Burns asked what would allow UDC Section 3.13.030 C: Building Height Modification, Criteria A to be considered in compliance with the Approval Criteria. O'Kelley explained that the applicant is in process of a Courthouse View Waiver which is under the authority of the City Council. O'Kelley established that the viewpoint crosses the property at the corner of South Austin Avenue and West 6th Street and limits the building height to 45 feet. O'Kelley further clarified that if the design complied with the maximum 40 feet height limit, they would not be obstructing the viewpoint. Chair Walton asked for clarification of an administrative exception. O'Kelley explained that the design proposed today would not be able to receive the 10% administrative allowance because of the inclusion of the parapet in the overall calculation which exceeds 44 feet. O'Kelley further clarified that should the design be revised and the total height inclusive of the parapet be reduced to 44 feet or less then the applicant would be able to seek an administrative exception. Commissioner Martin conveyed his confusion regarding why this proposed project contradicts a well-known criteria. Commissioner Hein conveyed his gratitude for the effort invested in the design. Chair Walton opened the public hearing. Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and requested that they deny the proposition based on the height of the building and the mass. Weaver noted that the building A was lower and had a setback in the meeting June 2022. Weaver commented that if the applicant cannot ask for an administrative exception, then the proposition may be about 10 feet higher than what is allowed for the area. Weaver referenced future potential developments and explained that the height approved tonight will be reflected in those developments. Larry Olson, 9th Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and noted that the proposal presented at the meeting in June 2022 included setbacks in the design. Olson commented that this proposed project will be the only building that is 3 stories in height. Olson referenced the future parking garage development and its setbacks and height. Olson noted that pedestrians cannot sense the third floor because of the setback from the street view. Olson recommended that the 3rd floor match the proposed setback on the left side of the building. Chair Walton closed the public hearing. Chair Walton shared his perspective on Design Guideline 1.5.D.1. by noting that portions of the third floor of the proposed project are shown to be setback. Chair Walton clarified his belief that the facade steps back on the third floor, emphasizing the scale of the lower floors, despite staff's analysis. Chair Walton explained that the Commission is not meant to assess each project based on prior projects. Chair Walton further clarified that speculation on future events do not apply to this project. Chair Walton highlighted that there is an update to Downtown masterplan and emphasized the importance of public involvement in the update. Commissioner Romero referenced the meeting in June 2022 and noted that the height was lowered since then. Commissioner Romer shared his belief that this project will enhance Downtown. Moved by Evan Hein; seconded by Lawrence Romero to Approve as presented. Motion Approved: 4- 3 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Stuart Garner Voting Against: Linda C Burns, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell 1.0 2023-21-COA (1011 E. University) Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the total demolition of two Medium Priority Structures located outside of the Historic Overlay Districts at the property located at 1011 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description of 71.648 Acres out of the Addison, WM. Survey (2023-21-COA) -- Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report. Chair Walton inquired about the residents who received the public notices for this project. O'Kelley clarified that property owners within 300 feet from the specific subject property received the notice for this case. Chair Walton recommended a future discussion about notifications for properties outside of the district. Dr. Laura Trombley, President of Southwestern University, approached the podium to address the Commission and noted that the Demolition Sub -Committee was unanimous in their approval. Dr. Trombley explained that they will incorporate some of the building materials in the building that would replace the subject buildings or other buildings on campus. Dr. Trombley continued to explain that in the 1950s the student population was approximately 500, whereas the student population is 1500 today. Dr. Trombley noted that the University's plan is to increase in population over the next five years and highlighted the need for more beds to accommodate those students. Dr. Trombley continued to explain that the buildings that will be built in place of the two subjected buildings will be a welcome center with public amenities, and a center for first -year advisors which will be the first -year student complex. Dr. Trombley noted that moving the two buildings would be a detriment because damage would occur and that HARC noted that there is no architectural significance to the buildings. Dr. Trombley continued to explain that prospective students and their parents are directed to the East side of campus which does not have a welcome center. Dr. Trombley noted that the intention is to build a welcome center to include the financial aid office in place of the two subjected buildings. Rick Martinez, Assistant Vice President for Facilities and Management Services, approached the podium to address the Commission and clarified that the University did not intentionally neglect the buildings. Martinez further clarified that the University prioritized finances to the new chilled water loop. Martinez further emphasized that the relocation of both buildings would be a substantial cost of almost $2 million for the University. Martinez clarified that it would be cheaper to construct the buildings from ground up. Commissioner Hein requested for a reasoning of the location of the proposed welcome center. Dr. Trombley acknowledged that the proposed location is a better point of entry than the current entry due to prospective students and their parents traveling from East to West. Dr. Trombley further explained that the parents of those prospective students want to avoid IH 35 because of the traffic. Dr. Trombley continued to note that the current financial aid office is not distinctive or welcoming. Commissioner Hein questioned Martinez's rough estimate for moving the buildings. Martinez explained that he based the estimate on $300 a foot to relocate and renovate the buildings. Martinez continued to clarify that drywall, veneer and mortar would be removed during the relocation process which would then cause a need for renovating the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing portion of the buildings. Commissioner Alton acknowledged that he noticed uneven floors during the Demolition Sub -Committee meeting. Commissioner Alton believed that the current buildings are insignificant and that the proposed buildings will have a large impact to the Georgetown community. Commissioner Burns shared that she was told that a relocation of the buildings was not possible and questioned if there would be more requests to demolish more historic buildings on the property. Dr. Trombley acknowledged that the University consulted with an architect and construction group regarding Ruter Hall's condition, a men's residence hall on campus. Dr. Trombley further clarified that the cost would be far more to renovate than to build a new building, so the intention would be to replace the residence hall. Commissioner Romero requested to see the prospective building from the East side. Martinez displayed the rendition of the prospective building. Alternate Commissioner Garner asked staff how they made their findings and whether the proposed replacement buildings are independent of the current request. O'Kelley clarified that the criteria are how staff made their findings and that this situation is a unique one in that one point of justification refers to the major improvement project, which is why the Commission was presented with renderings of the prospective building. Alternate Commissioner Garner questioned the finding of noncompliance of the Approval Criteria found in the UDC Section 3.13.030F of unreasonable economic hardship. O'Kelley provided the definition of financial hardship per the Design Guidelines and clarified that staff found that there was no justification that proved all the options had been attempted and exhausted. Commissioner Powell referred to the uneven slab mentioned earlier in the meeting and asked if Martinez can obtain an official document about the slab from a professional. Martinez confirmed that it is possible to retrieve documentation from a professional concerning the condition of the slab. Commissioner Powell questioned if anyone has offered to pay the cost to move the buildings to their property. Martinez acknowledged that the process was done with home in the past and noted that they can follow the same course of action and see if it's viable. Dr. Trombley clarified that the home mentioned was a newer house without sloping floors and limestone but noted that they could investigate that process. Commissioner Burns questioned if the University has sought the advice of a professional experienced in historical work. Martinez acknowledged that they have not sought the advice of a professional experienced in historical work. Commissioner Powell commented that, often, historic buildings are preserved and repurposed in higher education campuses. Commissioner Powell reiterated that an official confirmation of recommendation to demolish this building would be meaningful. Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. Moved by Evan Hein; seconded by Linda C Burns to Continue to obtain a professional estimate on the cost of relocating and rehabilitating the two structures to be brought back at the January 25th HARC Meeting. Motion Approved: 5- 2 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Evan Hein, Jennifer Powell, Stuart Garner Voting Against: Michael J Walton, Alton Martin 1.D 2023-51-COA - 1506 S Elm St Garage/Sail Shade Project Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing fagade, a 25' encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage setback to allow a carport on the side street (west) property line pursuant to Section 4.08 of the Unified Development Code for the property located at 1506 Elm St, bearing the legal description Block D of the Hughes 2nd Addition. (2023-51-COA) -- Olivia Beams, Historic and Downtown Planner Olivia Beams presented the staff report. Chair Walton requested clarification on the reasoning for staff's finding of partial compliance with Approval Criteria number 4 found in the Unified Development Code Section 3.13.030. Beams explained that the sail shade structure complies with its size and scale, but the woven plastic material does not comply with the Old Town Design Guidelines. Beams further elucidated that the proposed garage complies with its size, style, and materials, but the modification and relocation of the existing garage door facing South Myrtle Street is not recommended in the Design Guidelines. Chair Walton questioned if the applicant's plan is to move the door. Beams explained that the current location of the door will not change, but the applicant will replace the garage door with a more modern door. West Short, Owner, approached the podium to address the Commission and provided samples of the material intended for the sail shade. Short explained that the material of the sail shade would match the material of a large pool umbrella in the backyard which would allow sun through. Short further clarified that the posts are galvanized but will be painted black. Short further explained that the garage's interior is about 6 feet, and the door is about 5 feet in height, making it unusable. Commissioner Burns questioned if there are two functioning garages and three driveways. Short confirmed that there are two functioning garages and three driveways, and further clarified that the owner would primarily park under the sail shade. Commissioner Powell inquired about the consideration of alternative materials for the sail shade. Short explained that they could not use an impervious cover due to reaching the limit of impervious cover. Short added that the selected material permits water passage while also shielding the cars from sun damage. Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. Short noted that District 6 allows for sail shades but require them to be removed during the winter. Chair Walton asked for clarification, inquiring whether the applicant has flexibility to take the sail shade down and later reinstall it. Short confirmed that a company removes the sail shade in the winter and reinstalls it in the spring. Moved by Evan Hein; seconded by Alton Martin to Approve as presented. Motion Approved: 7- 0 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Stuart Garner Voting Against: None 1.E 2023-57-COA (109 W. 2nd Street) Public hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new infill construction for the property located at 109 W. 2nd Street, bearing the legal description of River Place Condo, Building 1, Unit 4, 31.75% Common Area Interest (2023-57-COA) -- Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report. Bradley Bertrand, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and explained that this project is in addition to phase 1 of the building that was completed in 2019. Bertrand clarified that the concept of the building is to differentiate itself from historical character of an old warehouse and to incorporate contemporary design into historic setting. Bertrand referenced staff's report that the windows needed divided lights and explained that the applicant wanted to display a contemporary feel in the middle panel section, so they decided not to incorporate divided lights. Bertrand announced that he is open to feedback from the Commission regarding the base, middle, and cap_ Commissioner Burns expressed her concerns regarding the straight wall on building 3 and inquired about what was previously on the property. O'Kelley commented that there were homes that were demolished years ago. Chair Walton asked why building 3 is different. Bertrand explained that building 3 is a small unit and on the corner. Bertrand clarified that building 3 is small studio unit with a bedroom in the back and living room in the front. Bertrand commented that the renderings show landscaping that can be provided to assist with articulation on that wall. Chair Walton opened the public hearing. Larry Olsen, 9th Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and commented that the project will fit nicely in the community. Chair Walton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero asked if the applicant could provide the Commission with what additions can be made to building 3. Bertrand explained that they can add banding at the top corner just as depicted with the main building. Bertrand further noted that they can add a belt course to provide articulation of the vertical seam and a horizontal line that will run the full length of the building. Moved by Lawrence Romero; seconded by Alton Martin to Approve with the condition that building 3 include horizontal banding to delineate the base, middle, and cap. Motion Approved: 7- 0 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Stuart Garner Voting Against: None 1.F Discussion Items Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments -- Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley referred to the email sent to Commissioners on points of clarification on communication and adopted standards in the UDC on alternates that serve a specific meeting. Adjournment , These minutes were approved at the meeting of ` �� Chair Attest �C- al�Ci-