Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.25.2024Minutes of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Thursday, July 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, Michael J Walton, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Heather Smith, Stuart Garner Public Wishing to Address the Board 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. A request must be received by the Advisory Board or Commission Liaison prior to the dav the agenda for this mee ng is posted- Each speaker will be. given three roinutes 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 July 11, 2024, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission -- Erica Metress, Motion Approved: 7- 0 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Heather Smith Voting Against: None 1. B 2024-16-COA (1903 S. Austin Avenue) Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for • of a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural and the • to a • architectural feature for the property •• at •1 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of Lots 10-11, Block 1 of the Montgomery Addition to Georgetown (2024-16-COA) -- Olivia Beams, Historic and Downtown Planner Rueben Rodriguez, applicant, approached the podium to address the commission and provided a presentation. I]l •rl 1 1111 11i I I on March 18th and March 22nd. OKelley continued to explain that a complete application was submitted on April 9th. Commissioner Powell asked how the lights on the column were treated in the design guidelines. •, shared that • and illumination of lights are included in the design guidelines but there was no applicability in the Unified • Code or UDC. Beams explained that staff was only able to review applicable requirements in the UDC. Commissioner Powell shared her appreciation in the time spent to restore and manage the home. ,ommissioner Mon inquirea aloure7mence OT secin .� or "I Inner • Rodriguez explained that there was marked evidence showing that the columns were nailed to the • • the • before he had it painted. Alternate Commissioner • asked about the quality • the home if the two center as it • prior to the insert • the • I I � III I 01111 11 ffl, ffi IF I � ifflIffiffi•l IN Chair Walton inquired about the space above the porch. Rodriguez explained that there was an attic space above the porch. Commissioner Romero asked if the beams were visible from the attic. Rodriguez explained that the beams were not visible from the attic space. Commissioner Smith asked if the applicant had thought of reinforcing the header that expanded across the porch to m itivate—t�g, gin a -,-Rodriguez shared that he did not think about it because he thought he was doing so by replacing the columns. Moved by Linda C Burns; seconded by Jennifer Powell to Approve the stone to brick request and denial of the addition of the two wood porch columns. Motion Approved* 7- 0 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Heather Smith Voting Against: None 1.0 UDC Rewrite Discussion Presentation and discussion regarding proposed updates to the Unified Development Code (UDC) development standards for properties within the Historic Overlay Districts - - Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley began with an outline of the presentation and encouraged feedback on building height modification criteria, 0*4111IN111I Commissioner Romero also confirmed that there have been circumstances where building height modification request would have been justified in Old Town and qpeccally highlighted the Lofts on Rock project and downtown parking garage BE= Commissioner Martin explained that scope creep and tunnel affect was a concern of his. .Q ' * 1,112II-fin hiahl' ited-t-Iii-21 snecific circumstances should fit the schema of the MHEMMMEM reviewing building height modification requests. Chair Walton mentioned that HARC considers context and recommended a benchmark as it pertains to context. O'Kelley asked if a benchmark to look at buildings on a shared block would be sufficient. Chair Walton agreed to the suggestion of a benchmark with buildings on the block and closest cross streets. Commissioner Martin suggested a benchmark of at least 300 feet excluding buildings on the square. Commissioner Powell commented that 300 feet may be insufficient and provided a possibility of half mile marker. Commissioner Powell shared that maintaining the character requires the preservation of the experience from the pedestrian's perspective and suggested in requiring that the 3rd story of a request is set back by 10 feet. Commissioner Powell highlighted the building placement of the R Bank. Commissioner Martin mentioned that the current guidelines for residential height requirements are adequate and shared his concern with commercial buildings. With no further discussion, O'Kelley continued the presentation and requested feedback to establish guidance for qualification and criteria for a demolition submitted under a compelling public interest. Commissioner Smith mentioned that compelling public interest should include safety concerns of a building. Commissioner Martin agreed with Commissioner Smith in that compelling public interest included the public safety. Commissioner Martin highlighted a previous request from Southwestern University that included the request of a removal of buildings on Maple Street in which they would be replace with a restaurant that would be open to the public. Commissioner Martin recounted another removal request from Southwestern University that would replace the requested buildings with a student center with a venue open to the public. Alternate Commissioner Blomquist shared that "public interest" can include a positive outcome such as a medical facility for the public. Commissioner Powell shared that immediate neighbors of a demolition request often attend the meeting to share their background with the surrounding area and highlighted that she takes what they have to say in consideration. Chair Walton mentioned that hygiene should be considered as public interest in the request for demolition or relocation of a building and provided an example of a building with insect and animal infestation. Commissioner Burns shared that the public interest in a demolition was often about preservation of a building. With no further discussion, O'Kelley continued the presentation and requested feedback to establish criteria for demolition that may occur unplanned because of other work occurring on a historic property. Chair Walton shared that in his experience no unrevealed planned demolition request would be unjustified. Commissioner Romero recalled an instance where the applicant was approved a remodel request, but instead began the demolition process of the house. Commissioner Romero explained that unforeseen possibilities should be brought to HARC with solutions and shared that this may happen with an inspection. Chair Walton agreed and recommended that an analysis of a possibility of certain circumstances is brough to HARC and approved or disapproved before it occurs. With no further discussion from the dais, the meeting temporarily recessed at 8:24 PM and returned at 8:29 PM. O'Kelley continued the presentation and requested feedback on fence standards for lots with more than one frontage. Commissioner Romero expressed concern with approval of fence request and later seeing the request slightly modified to change the transparency. Commissioner Romero shared that there may need to be a follow up to ensure the applicant is in compliance with the approved request. Commissioner Burns shared that the most challenging aspect of fence COA review was that residents aren't aware of it and suggested that the descriptions to be clearer for all to understand. Chair Walton shared that the most challenging aspect of fence COA review was that HARC was not provided an explanation of why the fence is requested. Chair Walton explained that the front height standard on corner and double frontage lots should be clarified and shared that the code should include verbiage regarding the front door signifying the location of the front yard. Chair Walton explained that opacity should be clarified in the code regarding corner and double frontage lots. Chair Walton shared that gates higher than human height needs to be address in the code. Commission Powell suggested in increasing communication and educating residents on fence regulations with a regularly scheduled letter. Commissioner Powell recommended in clarifying the front yard regarding the front door. Commissioner Martin shared that the most challenging aspect of fence COA review was that the UDC requires something that conflicts with the design guidelines or vice versa. Commissioner Martin added that another challenging aspect of fence COA review is when the resident replaces an existing fence that then would be out of compliance with Adjournment T4heseminq s re approved at the meeting of Chair < A t Ate s,