HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.11.2013 SpecialCity of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minute-s
'I"hursday, August 1., 2013, at 6:00 p,m.
Council Chamber-, and Courts Building
g_ _ _Ilresegnt: Anna Eby, Chair; Nancy Knight; Richard Mee; Tim Urban and Mary Jo Winder,
ffli_r Liss jo_ Li tr5, ,. j 11 Martine Rousseau, and Raymond Wahrenbrock
_QqLpjyLi,k-�sjie -s�bs �n- Jennifer Brown and David Paul
Staff Present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Jackson Daly,
Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary,
Chair Eby opened the meeting at 6:07 p.m. and explained the meeting procedures. She explained that
since this was a Special Called meeting to discuss an item that had been tabled at the last meeting, the
public Hearing had already been held, but the Commission would hear public speakers again in
accordance with Council standards,"I'he order of business would proceed as if this was a regular item,
Vie Historic rind Architectural Reviezu Corninission, appointed Irtf the Mayor and, the City Councill, is responsible
or' hearing and taking,final action on applications; by issuil-kg Cert�ficates of Dcsign Compliance based upon the
City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
(Coin rnission mail, tit, any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session (it the request o the
Chair, as Counnissioner, the Director or legal cotiilsel.for any purpose anthorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Governatent, Code Chapter 551)
imelcolne and
Sta 11 Presenlation
Applicant Presentation Ohnited to ten (10) minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission)
Questions fivin Continission to Stqff and Applicant
Conirnentsfirom Citizens
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
'rIzose who speak nrust turn in as speaker.forev located (it the back-, qf the roots, to the recordingsecrelary befibre
the item that they wo a wish tea begins, Each speaker Troll be permitted to address the Corr mission one tittle
earth y,font maxinnon qf three (3) ininutes,
;tam fin-fterr did -
I Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance Request for exterior
alterations at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot I (NE/1"'I"), 0391 acres, located at'124 East 811, Street.
(CDC-2013-030)
Synatschk reported that the applicant was asking approval of the paint, the canopy , the patio to the
east side of the building, and the reinstallation of the east side exterior door, He stated ffic intent
would be to keep the historic curbing as asked at the previous mectingand he provided pictures of
the historical canopies as requested, Ile also stated that the commission would not be voting on, the
Historic mid Arc hitoctural Review Conimissioti Vag I of 4
Aupst t, 2013
removal of the tree as that was not in their review parameters, and he asked the public to riot
discuss,the tree,
Cary Rabb, the applicant, explained that he was asking HARC for approval of the concepts of some
of these items since be was unable to provide the exact details, But before he spent the frioney to
design the exact details, he needed a general approval and then he will find a tenant and finish the
details,
Conri-russioners were invited to ask questions. Knight began by asking why the applicant was
allowed to submit an application that did not include the items from the required checklist.
Synatschk explained that not all items on the checklist were to be submitted with every application,
each project is different.
Winder asked why the patio had to be on the Church Street side of the building. Synatschk
responded there was not enough roorn on the 81h Street sidewalk for a patio.
Chair Eby opened the PublicHearing,
Larry Olsen, 300 E� 911, Street, (3 extra minutes given by, Ed Olsen) Mr. Olsen presented is scaled
drawing of the patio and per his measurements the access to the patio, due to tile (ire code, would
decrease the number of people allowed in 11-te restaurant frorn 49 to 66, fie also stated the door
could not be used as an egress to a sidewalk that was blocked by outdoor furniture. His concern
was with the proposed, shared sidewalk agreement with the city.
Diane Guarne, 122 E 811, Street, the building directly next door to the project, Ms, Guarn was excited
about the new business but concerned about the placernent of the trash, stating the extension of the
proposed patio would cover the area where the existing trash cans are placed for tier and the other
neighbor, She was also concerned about the application not having a specific design to review.
Ann Seaman, 810 S. Church Street. She stated she wantedto talk about the tree, but that was off the
table. She stated the tree is in the city right-of-way and provides shade for her yard. She stated she
was okay with the patio concept but concerned about the actual design and lack of information in
the application,
Liz Mealy, 120 E, 811, StreeL Ms, Mealy was concerned about the location of the trash receptacles for
the restaurant and where they would go, She was also concerned about the lack of design details
on the application,
Dwight Richter, 206 S, Main St. Came to speak against taking the tree down.
J-C, Johnson, 303 E. 911, Street, Mr, Johnson expressed concern about the fack of information on the
application and the guidance of staff to the cornmissioners. He said there was not enough
information on the canopy, size, depth, and width. There is not mention of there the garbage will
gci. He stated the commissioners owed it to the citizens to delay action on this application,
Ross I-lutiter, 908 S, Walnut Street, (3 minutes shared from Dwayne Boydston.) Mr. Hunter
expressed concern that the commissioners and citizens were being "sidelined" at the last minute by
not enough information, no scaled drawings, and no information on the patio or the redesigned
handicap ramp, He stated HARC can demand that staff provide more information and ii-i a more
timely inanner. Heasked for the item to be tabled again until more information was provided by
the applicant,
Cary Seaman, 810 S, Church, (3 minutes shared from Roy fleck.) Mr, Seaman lives behind the
subject property. He discussed the historical curbing and said that although he appreciates staff
Histuricand Architectural Review Commission Page, 2 of 4
August 1, 20L3
mentioning it, it is not practical, He suggested extending the curb Barad preserving the rings in the
concrete. He stated those were almost the last historical rings left on the square. He applauded the
owner for restoring the faade like Mr. Rabb had it originally, lie was concerned about the width
of the patio and the possibility that workers from the restaurant would use file back alley for
smoking and put trash in his yard,
Rick Williamson, 204 Holly Street, (3 minutes shared from Marc Truxillo) Mr, Williamson was
concerned about the notice of citizens of this application, stating he had only heard about it 72
hours before the meeting, He expressed concern about the proposal of the patio on public land. He
said the construction of that alone needs building plans and that no plans were provided for the
commission to discuss and make decisions on. He asked that the item be delayed until such time as
documents and more information could be produced to answer all the, outstanding questions.
Rence Hanson, 1252 South Austin Ave, (3 minutes shared from Herb Hanson.) Ms. Hanson stated
that nothing with the application had changed since the last public hearing where the it(-,-,m was
table until more information could be gathered. She quoted the Design Guidelines, stating the
applicant had not followed the step to "prepare and submit a complete application packet for
formal review," She also quoted tyre section that states the city is to promote friendly walkable
streets. She also quoted items- from Chapter 8, Site Design and stated that the application itself dkvs
not comply with the guidelines and should not be approved.
Paulo Pinto, 117 Tescatie. Mr. Pinto was then- to speak for saving the tree and stated he looked
forward to seeing what comes of this application.
'T'he Public Hearing was closed at 7:06 p,m.
Cary Rabb, the applicant was asked to respond. Fle stated that he was not going to spend money
on an engineer until he received approval of the concepts. He also stated the tree was not
protected, research had shown that it was installed in the 80's with a 30 year life span. He was told
the city wants it removed. The canopy and facade are proposedto go back to the original design,
Chair Eby expressed concern that there seemed to be miscommunication about what constitutes a
complete packet and what HARC should be receiving for review. Synatschk explained that during
the pre -application conference an applicant is given all the forms, lists of fees, and a check list of
items to submit. Once the applicant has all the items they are to submit those and pay the fees, If
the application submittal is not complete, the applicant is asked to provide more before the
meeting. Some items are approved administratively and not brought forward. Staff has to
cletermirte the balance between some applications that are brought in with engineered drawings
and those that are brought in as a rough "napkin" sketch, Synatschk tries to find the common
ground. Eby, clarifiedby stating that if the patio is approved, the applicant would have to still
apply for a building permit, complete with building plan to meet code compliance, fire code items
and public safety. HARC design approval does not invalidate the permitting review. If the
.submittal for permitting is not what is approved in design concept by HARC, then it most be
resubmitted to HARC. HARC is part of the Public review process, but it is not the begironing and
the end.
Knight expressed confusion about the purview of HARC. There was a discussion of public and
private space, The city typically pays for sidewalks, but in this case the applicant is paying to
expand the sidewalk in this area for the benefit of both the city and the applicant.
Commissioners then discussed the item s of the application individually. It was agreed that the
front faqade paint colors were good. There were many questions still about the exact details of the
Historic and Archiluctural Review Commission Page 3 (if 4
August 1, 2013
canopy, materials, fighting, etc, Urban asked that the cast side door be reviewed carefully against
the health and safety codes. Tbere were no details for the materials and type of door. Synatschk
explained that the applicant would be repointing the brick faadc on the cast side of the building,
not disturbing the old painted wall signage, Ibe front laqade has old pressed trietal panels of a
wooden frame that would be removed. The wooden frames we be reconstructed and the metal
panels replaced,
There was an extensive discussion of what could be approved with the information provided,
Motion by Winder to approve the rest ructuring of the faude, including repair of the cladding
and the paint; to approve the conceptual drawing of the canopy and the conceptual drawing of
the patio but the applicant must return with complete design and details for approval to
construct, and to approve the concept of the east side door but to bring back the details to HARC
before installing. Second by Mee. Approved 4 - I (Knight opposed.)
I Questions and comments from HA RC Commissioners in "framing. 'There were none.
3, Updates from staff and reminder about the August 12, 2013 Sign Subcommittee and the August 22,
2013 HARCineetings.
`11-iere will not be an August 12meeting. "lliere will be a Downtown Master Plan Public Workshop
on Tuesdiny, August 611, All Commissioners are invited.
4. Adjournment
Approved, Anna Eby, cKlir
flis*>fic irid Architectural Ruview Cominission Page 4 rf f "I
August 1, 2013