HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_01.25.2024Minutes of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, January 25, 2024
The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Thursday, January 25, 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, Alton Martin, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject 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.
1. Regular Session
1.A Meeting Minutes
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 11, 2023
regular Historic and Architectural Review Commission meeting -- Erica Metress,
Planning Specialist
Moved by Alton Martin; seconded by Lawrence Romero to Approve .
Motion Approved: 5- 0
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Alton Martin, Robert Blomquist, Stuart
Garner
Voting Against: None
1.B 2023-21-COA (1011 E. University) Public Hearing and 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 This item has been postponed to the February 8, 2024 Regular HARC meeting at
the request of the applicant.
Maddison O’Kelley approached the podium to provide context for the postponement.
O'Kelley stated that this item was postponed at the request of the applicant to aid in their
ability to properly address the items the Commission requested of them from the last
meeting. O'Kelley proceeded to explain that given this postponement, the Commission
will be required to make a motion on this postponement to a date certain.
Moved by Lawrence Romero; seconded by Robert Blomquist to Continue the item to
the February 8, 2024 Historic and Architectural Review Commission meeting.
Motion Approved: 5- 0
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Alton Martin, Robert Blomquist, Stuart
Garner
Voting Against: None
1.C 2023-53-COA (1702 S. Main Street)
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps, a 4’ encroachment into
the required 10’ rear setback to allow for the replacement of existing stairs pursuant to
Section 4.08, and for the construction a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with
the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines of the Unified Development
Code for the property located at 1702 S Main St, bearing the legal description of Lot 2
(Pt), Block 1, Montgomery Addition to Georgetown (2023-53-COA) -- Olivia Beams,
Historic and Downtown Planner
Olivia Beams presented the staff report.
Tony Perez, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and
provided a visual image of the proposed composite material for the staircase. Perez
highlighted that the homeowner’s goal is to prevent deterioration of the wood, especially
with the heat that would crack woods such as cedar and treated pine. Perez added that
the homeowner’s are trying to prolong the life of the new stairs. Perez clarified that the
requested composite material is mostly wood fiber on inside, but a resin type material
with a wood grain aesthetic that covers the exterior.
Commissioner Burns questioned if the same footprint of the stairs would be over the
setback. Beams confirmed that the stairs would be over the setback and clarified that
the property is legally non-conforming.
Burns asked if that would apply to the fence with it being non-transparent and in the
same location. Beams explained that the code allows for 30% of a fence to be replaced
without a building permit or presenting to HARC, so the applicant was just over the
threshold of 30%.
Commissioner Burns opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lawrence questioned the lifespan of the proposed composite material.
Perez noted that the board will not deteriorate for 25 to 40 years and explained that
wood that is unprotected begin deterioration within a year and half.
Alternate Commissioner Blomquist asked if the railing for the stairs would be metal.
Perez confirmed that the material proposed for the stair railing is metal and clarified
that the owner’s overall goal is to eliminate maintenance and have a strong structure.
Commissioner Lawrence asked if the material was the reason for noncompliance
regarding the repair and replacement of the stairs. Beams confirmed that staff found the
repair and replacement of the exterior stairs as noncompliant due to proposed materials
to be used and further clarified that the applicability table found in section 3.13 of the
UDC, provides guidance on modifying exterior steps. Beams further noted that because
of the proposed composite wood material and its noncompliance HARC review is
required.
Commissioner Romero requested that staff explore the possibility of adding the
proposed composite into the Unified Development Code as an approved material.
Moved by Alton Martin; seconded by Lawrence Romero to Approve as presented.
Motion Approved: 5- 0
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Alton Martin, Robert Blomquist, Stuart
Garner
Voting Against: None
1.D 2023-52-COA (906 S. Elm Street)
Conceptual Review for a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition that creates a new or adds to a street-facing façade 906 S Elm St., bearing the
legal description of Lot 2, Block 19, Glasscock Addition (2023-52-COA) -- Olivia Beams,
Historic and Downtown Planner
Olivia Beams presented the staff report.
Matt Rafter, Owner, approached the podium to address the Commission and voiced
that he is seeking feedback from the Commission.
Commissioner Romero asked if the proposition includes a pier and beam foundation
with brick around the skirting. Rafter clarified that the proposition is to place a full
foundation to avoid rot. Rafter added that antique brick will be the façade around the
foundation which is a stark difference with the current foundation of lattice and
fiberboard.
Commissioner Romero questioned the reasoning in opposition of wood clad windows.
Rafter explained that the overall concern was availability and cost. Rafter clarified that the
proposed fiber X windows will last longer and is partially wood with 40% wood fiber. Rafter
noted that the windows have been replaced at least once with a mix of aluminum and fiber
glass.
Commissioner Romero asked the applicant to provide consistency with the Design
Guidelines regarding the proposed windows. Commissioner Romero referred to the
number of compliant Design Guidelines and asked how the applicant can increase it.
Beams highlighted that the primary concern is the mass and scale of the addition and
noted that if the concern cannot be addressed, then setting back the addition from the
existing façade so that there is a delineation between historic features may increase the
number of compliant Design Guidelines criteria.
Commissioner Romero questioned the historic characteristics that would be preserved.
Rafter explained that there are no significant historical features per the 1986 survey.
Rafter continued to explain that he and his wife chose to keep the characteristics of the
porch and gabled roof. Rafter believed that the mass and scale of the house is misleading
because most of the extra space would be built into the attic which is why the dormers
were considered instead of a true second story addition. Rafter highlighted that the
number of 2 story homes are not uncommon on Elm Street.
Alternate Commissioner Blomquist commented that the request does not align with the
characteristics of the neighborhood and questioned if other designs were considered.
Rafter clarified that they have considered designs without the dormers with a solid roofline
and noted that the only modifications without going over the allotted impervious coverage
would be modifications to the attic.
Commissioner Burns noted that the foundation in the renderings look leveled to the
ground and questioned if the foundation would be leveled to the ground.
Chance Leigh, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and
explained that the proposed foundation would be at the same elevation as the current
foundation.
Commissioner Burns expressed appreciation for preserving the gable but noted that the
asymmetry is not ideal. Additionally, Commissioner Burns questioned the reason for the
angled garage. Leigh explained that they angled the garage to reduce its visibility from the
street and because the structure encroaches on the neighboring property.
Commissioner Burns concurred with Commissioner Romero regarding the windows,
considering it a criterion that could be accommodated. Commissioner Burns expressed
dissatisfaction with the asymmetry of the front windows and disapproval of the porch
extension.
Commission Martin expressed his approval of the project, noting that the porch size is
proportional to the home’s dimensions. Commissioner Martin believed the proposed
changes would enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Martin appreciated that the
garage is set back, reducing encroachment. Commissioner Martin acknowledged the
existing gable as a defining feature of the house. Commissioner Martin mentioned that
the proposed window material, while not visible from the street, would be acceptable to
him personally, making an exception.
Discussion between Commissioner Romero and Leigh about the windows. Commissioner
Romero inquired about looming due to the second story window on the left side of the
house. Leigh acknowledged the window and highlighted that there is a driveway that
delineates the two properties.
Commissioner Romero asked for the measurement of the space between the house
and the left neighbor. Leigh estimated the distance between the house and the left
neighboring property to be 26 feet.
Commissioner Romero expressed admiration for the gable and ability to sit on the
front porch. Commissioner Romero shared his concern for the looming.
Beams highlighted the Design Guideline that states that windows cannot investigate the
neighbor’s yard and emphasized that staff found the left side to be compliant with the
criteria.
Leigh thanked the Commission for their suggestions and noted that they will work on wood
clad windows, front door’s transparency, the placement of the front door, and the porch.
Due to the item being a Conceptual Review, no action was taken by the Commission.
1.E Discussion Items
Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments -- Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation
and Redevelopment Manager
Maddison O’Kelley did not have updates for the Commission.
Adjournment
These minutes were approved at the meeting of ________________________
________________________ ________________________
Chair Attest