Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.22.2019Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: August 22, 2019 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes August 22, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Karalei Nunn; Catherine Morales; Josh Schroeder Absent: Terri Asendorf-Hyde Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Call to order by the Chair at 6:10 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 8, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and re-approval of the minutes from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting due to a modification. Alternate member Pam Mitchell was in attendance for the July 25 meeting. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve Item A by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Approved (7-0). B. CONTINUTED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2019 HARC MEETING Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a street facing façade at the property located at 503 E 14th Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT) (2019-42-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is creating an addition for a master bathroom, which affects the south façade (street-facing). The applicant is also creating a covered porch on the rear of the structure which affects the west façade (street-facing). Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing façade. The existing structure is Minimal Traditional style with a cross-hipped roof, constructed mainly of brick. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure has some alternations, but is still significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal Traditional structures are known for their low or intermediate pitched roofs (generally gabled), double-hung windows, and minimal added architectural features. South façade: Overall, the proposed addition to the south façade is appropriate because it is located in the rear of the structure, maintains the existing building materials, and has a slight jog in the foundation which helps to create a differentiation. This addition would be adding onto a previous expansion of the original structure. The proposed addition is also compatible in scale. The existing structure is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. The proposed addition will remove a window from existing east façade; however, the window will be re-installed. West façade: The addition of the covered Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: August 22, 2019 porch to the rear of the existing structure respects the original structure in size and scale. To maintain the scale, the roofline is extended – however, this extension does not create differentiation. The Design Guidelines do recommend subtle differentiation, in this instance, the applicant proposes shingle plank siding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the covered patio. While these provide the differentiation encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the style is not consistent with Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials. Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Parr had a question regarding the material used for the underside of the roof. The applicant explained that pine will be used. Motion to approve Item B (2019-42-COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0). C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for Replacing a Historic Architectural Feature with a Non-Historic Architectural Feature (Siding) at the property located at 1008 S Main Street, bearing the legal description of Lot Addition (2019-49-COA). – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report was presented by Irby. The applicant is proposing to replace wood siding with Hardieplank siding on a medium priority structure, located at 1008 S Main Street. The applicant is proposing the change in materials due to deteriorating siding and maintenance concerns. The medium property structure located at 1008 S Main Street does not have an identified style on the historic resource survey. The structure is a bungalow plan and the 2016 survey noted that the structure retains a relatively high degree of integrity. The 2007 survey noted that windows are in poor condition. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation and maintenance of the existing historic materials. “The best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-planned maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of paint. In some cases, historic building materials may be deteriorated. When deterioration occurs, repairing the material rather than replacing it is preferred.” Frequently, damaged materials can be patched or consolidated using special bonding agents. Preservation Principal #5 calls to: Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. Maintain the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing configuration. For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be replaced. The guidelines call for the replacement material to match the original in appearance. The April 2019 revisions to the Unified Development Code now allows for low and medium priority structures to use in-kind materials. Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority resources. The proposed replacement siding is Hardieplank v-groove lock joint siding of the same width as the original wood. The v-groove lock joint matches the profile of the original wood and would be an appropriate in-kind replacement. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: August 22, 2019 Commissioner Nunn asked if the applicant is replacing all the siding and Irby responded that they are. Commissioner Parr had a comment regarding a recent amendment to the UDC and the staff’s presentation. Commissioner Parr would like the UDC to match with the design guidelines presented better. Commissioner Romero asked if there will be a lot of seams in the in-kind material. Irby said that will not be seen with this type of siding. Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak and Chair Schroeder closed the Public Hearing. Motion to approve Item C (2019-49COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0). D. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Waggoner shared information from the Commissioner training in Seguin. The Texas Historical Commission held the training and reviewed public outreach, how the Commission can share the successes to the public. The training also covered rules and ruling processes and spoke about a preservation plan. Although the City of Georgetown has design guidelines, and the master plan, we don’t have a preservation plan. The training discussed the value of a preservation plan. Commissioner Parr commented on the importance of adopting a preservation plan along with the comprehensive plan. She also commented that there was a preservation attorney that helped describe rules. She commented that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to describe to the Commission why they should be able to do what they are requesting with their property. Commissioner Mitchell had a question about variances approved in the past and if precedence was discussed. Irby indicated that precedence was not discussed, it was more about the importance of defining areas. Commissioner Parr also commented on an opportunity to host a training in Georgetown. Waggoner commented that once the historic planner position has been filled, the Department will be able to hold more trainings. Commissioner Romero also commented that it would be useful to provide the materials from the training for new HARC Commissioners. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Parr. Meeting adjourned at 6:32pm. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary