Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_12.11.2014City of George town, Texas I listoric and Architectural Review Commission Workshop mi'llutes Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 6:00 prn, Council and Courts Builditig 101 E, 711, Street, Georestow n, TX 78626 Members present: Nancy Knight, Acting Chair; Jennifer Brown;Ty Gipson; David Paul and Mary Jo Winder, C(I'mituissioners in'Training present: Rodoffo Martinez, Barbara Price Commissioners absent: Anna Eby and Richard Mee Staff present/ Matt Synatsclik, Historic planner, Andrerna Davila, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Call to Order by Knight at 60 p,rn, with the reading of the meet4i.g procedures, The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (FIARC), appoioted by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing ") and taking final action on Certificates of Design Compliance applications based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and 01dTown Design Guidelines and Unified T)evelopiiient Code.The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular SSession to convene Ceti Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Comrtrissioner, the Director or legal counscl for arry purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Awmmdme—s, Staff Presentation Applicant Press ntation (Limited to to minutes unless stated otherwise by the (-'orninission) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments froni Citizens* Applicant Response Conirnission Deliberative Process Commission Action Legislative Regular Agenda B, Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes frorn the October 23, 2014 rt!gular meeling, Motion by Paul, second by Winder to approve thennnutes as presented. Approved 5 — 0. The Reins below are listed in agenda onler, but the c'eises rind fictioris Torre taken in this order: D., G, C, H and 1, C, Public 1-tearing and possible action on as reqrtest for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for infill coristrixtion for the property located at 913 Walnut Street hearing the legal description of Din-inlit Addition, Block 90 (1-7), 0.1652 acres. Synatschk presented the staff report, The applicant proposes to construct a 677 square foot accessory structure, replacinga previous structure, The proposed two story accessory structure includes a 432 square foot garaf,,c on the first floor, with as 245 square foot play room on the second floor, The Historic and AichOtxtural Pa'I of 6 moedngDe'cembc'Cl 6, 2014 property is used as as residence and currently, includes only the main dwelline F`er UDC Section 4,09.020 J31, a Certificate of Design Compliance is required for "Construction of Single-family or'Two-fanrily Residential structure or addition that exceeds the limitations of Section 4M9MO.13. The applicant wishes to construct the structure within the setback, requiring a CDC to exceed Section 4,09,030.13,2: "Upper stories of single-family and two-family structures within the Old 'town Overlay District are subject to as 10 foot side setback and a 15 foot rear setback, However, HARC rnay approve as CDC, in accordance with theadopted Design GUidefines, to allow the utilization of the setback requireinents for the underlying zon[i ig district," HARC' may allow the reduction in the overlay district setback requirements based upon the criteria established in the M"IT'he proposed strUcture replaces a previous structure demolislied within fl-te last year. Allowing the property owner to build to the required setbacks for the underlying RS coning district will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties and allows the applicant to utilize their property, The proposed project reClUires approval by thel listoric andArchitecturat Review Corntnission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment prior to initiating construction. Case # SE-2014-004 was presented to the ZBA on October 21, 2014 and failed to receive the required 75',/,,) rntforj ty for approv a I The applicant hie; requested the ZBA reconsider the case based t.ipon nc,,w information. `rhe applicant requires HARC approval for the he use of the underlying 16 zoning district setbacks and will return to ZBA cane Dec ernber 16, 2014 to review the underlying setbacks, Bassed on the fiticlings of fact, and that the design of the new structUre Meetthe Design GUidelines, staff recornmends approval. Knight questioned the process of HARC making as rLding prior to Z13A giving any approvals on the setbacks. Synatschk explained that HARC was n-verely reviewing the second floor setback requirement, not the entire structure. The decision for the second floor setback was to be made regardless of the location of the first floor setback. Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no one comin fort1l, closed it, There was discussion array onp , the Commissioners about the height of the structure and the compatibility of other buildings like this in the neighborhood, 'nrere was further discussion (.,)f [lie content and focus of the action to be taken, Motion by Brown to approve the CDC-2014-039 as presented, Second by Gipson. Approved 4 — 1 (Knight opposed) 1), Public Hearingand possible action on a request fora Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) forrt residential addition and infill Construction for the property located at 211 West 11th Street bearing the legal descriptiom of Lost Addition, Block 64 (11r), 0.12acres. Knight recused herself for this itern, statinga cunflict of interest, Gipson stepped in as temporary Chair. Synatschk presented the staff report, The applicant proposes multiple changes to the Low Priority struct-ure located at 211 West 11 th S3treet.The structure's previous owner received a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior alterations in 2006, wtuchincluded the addition of a Ffistc)Ocand Architecjurat Revivw Commission Page 2 of 6 WotirtgDet:,,embor fl, 2014 second floor and an addition to the rear of the struCtUre. The. approved or was partially completed, and the structure has remained in a paTtial state of construction since that fire e.The current owner seeks a CDC to complete the construction, replace the addition to the northeast corner of the structure, and construct as new accessory building. "I"he subject property currently lacks a driveway and approved parking area. The project requires the installation of as driveway to comply with current development codes, The applicant vvas available for questions, Winder asked if the applicant knew what was origimal to the house. The applicant stated it was hard to say since the house had remained incomplete for So many years. He felt like the sunbursts on the dormers were part of the addition done at a later time, It was also discussed that the storie fireplace did not seern to b -0, original, Gipson operied the Public Hearing and with nospeakers corning forth closed the Public 1-1caring. Winder was concerned about what was original versus what was added later but reasoned that the proposed addition is cornpatible to the house and the neighborhood, Motion by Winder to approve CDC- 2014-043 as proposed with condition that the accessory structure is approved contingent on the Zoning Board of Adjustments ruling of approval. Second by Paul, Approved, 4 — 0. Knif,,ht came back to the dais. E. Public f-learing and possible action on a request for as Certificate of Design Conipliarwe (CDC) ,(or exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, Bloc k'15 (NE/1"I'), 0,33 acres. Synatschk presented the staffreport, The applicant requests, as Certificate of Design Compliance for substantial alterations to the unlisted historic structures located at 1804 South Ash Street. Although not listed on the historic resource survey, the Williarnson County Appraisal District sets the effective date for construction at 1958. The alterations include removal of the existing porchand installation of a new porch, now paint and exterior finishes for the structures, " Me proposed porch does not reflect the design of the structure and creates a sense of false history for the property. In addition, they two structures that comprise the property were built as individual structures and later connected with a carport. Maintaining the individual character of the two structures is important to preserve flic historic integrity of the site, The cast concrete construction of the sn-taller structure is unique to Georgetown, representing a construction tvpe not duplicated aniong the other historic resources of the community. Loss of the, construction type would rregativety inipact the it'idividual property and the historic district overall. I IARC provided direction to the applicant dUtingy as conceptual review at the September 25, 2014 meeting ,,, The Corninissioners requested a ort',ve simplified design for the porch and additional erriphasis placed upon the one story structure, duce to its unique design characteristic,$. Painting masonry structures is only appropriate if ffrt,� masonry was previously painted.The two structures are Currently in their historic state, and should re rnain unpainted, Mortar arid masonry materialsare susceptible to fUtLll'(,r moisture darnage and deterioration if painted, and should be left in their original condition, The applicant did riot provide any it regarding a structural need for paintitig the Structures, fijslwicjnd Architecfiwal Roviow GIMMPI140�1 Page 3 of 6 Mc,etbif,Occrember 11, 2014 The proposed changes conflict with the design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation by adding conjectural features and significantly altering the historic appearance of the propertyStaff recotrimends denial of the proposed project and reqUt-=SIS 01M the applicant be directed to discuss the project further with staff. The applicant, Cathy Miller, explained the application in her words, Commissioners asked questions regarding the application. They agreed that tire property could be made to look much better, but did not want the applicant to change the historic structure, There was as debate over the appropriateness of painting of the concret(,'� structure, Matt explained that the concrete structure is not listed on the survey, although the house was listed a built in 1958. 'I'liere have been no permits for the concrete structure. Knight felt like the structures could only be improved, iha( tt"tere was not a reason to try to protect any historical aspects that have al'ea d.y been destroyed, Winder stated she has no issue with the rnoclifications aod paint for the house, but the concrete structure is extraordinary and she felt like it should be studied more and not painted. She suggested painfing only the trues of the carport and concrete structure to make them more compatible, instead of painting them all one color, Knight operved the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed it, Motion by Paul to return the CDC-20141-0ca staff for clarification and discussion, No seeond, this motion died, Andreina Davila explained that FIARCcan only approve the application, deny the application, or approve the application with conditions. Motion by Paul to deny the application and bring it back to HARC with as better plan, No second, this tnotion died, Motion by Gipson to approve CDC-2014-045 as submitted with the condition that the concrete structure not be painted. Second by Paul. Approved 4 — 1. (opposed by Knight) F, Public Hearing and possible action on as request for a Certificate of Design Cornpliance (CDC) for relocation of the structure located at 214 West 3rd Street bearing the legal description of City of Georf;etown, Block 14, Lot 7 (N/PT), 8 (w/p,r), Synatschk presented the staff report, The property owner wishes to relocate the Medium priority structure located at 214 West ward Street outside of the city limits of the Cipof Georgetown. The Gone.* r intends to construct as building more compatible with the district in the future. 'rhe applicant proposes relocation of the structure to as company in Liberty I lilt, with the final location unknown at this time. Although the structure will be saved, the approval results in the loss of as historic resource for Georgetown,The applicant met with staff on October 29, 2014, prior to submitting the final applicalion. Staff discussed the possibility of requiring notice posted in the local paper and other methods fora mininium period of 60 days to allow time for an interested buyer to relocate the property within the city limits. The ad was posted on Craig's List on October 30 and will satisfy the proposed 60 day notice requirement on December 31, 2014 Much of the context of the northwest corner of the Downtown Overlay District has been c.(,unpromised by new develop-n-tent, including the Williamson Cotinty Justice Center and detention I fistoric and Architectural Review Commi,,Motl Page 4 of 6 Nlv,�tmg: Neember 11, 014 fa,wijities. 'rhe resulting loss of residential context supports the request to relocate the residential structure f(.)r fLItUrL' COMTTICrcial development. Any future developnient of the subject site will require review by city staff and the I listoric and Architechiral Review Commission for compliance with the Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old'Fown Design Guidelines. After asking for questions froin the Commissioners, Knight opened the Public Hearing , and wifli no speakers coming forth, closed it, I(rught also suggested that the El"I be added to file UDC as a possible relocation site so that historic structures might stay closer, Motion by Knight to approve CDC-2014-046 based upon the findings that the structureis no longer compatible with the context of the historic district and the future development will be more compatible with the historic overlay district. The applicant is required to post the structure� for sale until December 31, 2014 to encourage relocation within the City of Georgetown. Second by Paul. Approved 5 - 0. G. PUblic Hearing and possible action on as request for as Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and signage for the praperty located at 212 West 7th Street, hearing the le gal dcscription of City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 2-3 (PTS), 0.17 acres. Cipson recused himself frorn the clais, stating a conflict of interest, Synatschk presented the staff report, The applicant is proposing one exterior change to the Low priority structure anti new Fusin esssignage, The exterior afteration, installation of a new is is required to provide secondary egress in case of an emergency.This alteration is necessary to protect the occupants, The door is proposed for installation in the west wall of the structure, which is a secondary faqa(le, Staff reqUeStS that the HARC require the exterior of the door be painted to match the building, limiting the visual hTipact upon the structure.The applicant will also construct a raolp to address AD A accessibility due to the exterior grade change. The proposed sig-nage is appropriate for the structure, including, size, materials and placement within the delineated sign fries ze,'I'he interior changesnand placement of the new I'IVAC will be reviewed by staff for compliance with the UDC and all applicable building codes. 'I'lie applicant was available for questions. Knight openect the Public I learing and with no one coming forth, closed the I fearing, Knight started the connnents and stated she did not like the door stylc and plan ernent, David Andrews, representing, Chris and Becca Graves, explained that the door was placed in that location because there were exterior panels on the outside of the bUilding and the interior of the building was laid out so that the only way ofegress was through the hall that was located there. There seemed to be no other solution for placement and the fire code reqUireS an egress for that side of the buildm& Knight stated she did net think the signage, plastic with beat kht l,,ED fighting, met the Design Guidelines, sections 97 and 9.2, Synatschk explained the plastic sign could be considered as an exception. Winder stated she felt the door and the signage nret the Guidelines, Motion by Winder to approve CDC -27014-047 as submitted. Second by Brown. Amended by Paul to include that the exterior door should be painted to match the exterior structure as recommended by staff. Second by Knight. Amendment approved 4 - 0. Motion approved 4 - 0. Gipson carnet back to the dais: tfiswic anti Architertmal Revs Commission Pagv 5 of 6 kleefii)& Dvcemborll,2014 I-L t cr I.,fiO r ,),o( cornments frorn Commissioners inTraining, There were no comments, Staff up atefarad reminder of future meetings. The next a aetrot will be possibly Sign Subcommittee meeting on January 1311, and a regular HARC meeting on January 22,,d at 6:00 p.m. Motion by Knight to adjourn, warn by Mee, The Approved, Nara" Knight, Acting hair I h-siuric and Architectural Review Coaa misiio r,. Attest, [a`nni ?r Chi" Nyn Page 6gat6