Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.08.2024Minutes of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Thursday, August 8, 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, Evan Hein, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, 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 and be present at the meeting. On a sub'ect not nosted on tfig� a enda.: A reouest must be received bthe Advisor Board or commission Liaison Irior to the claj�j th azenda for this mee Board or Commission members. No action can be taken. 1. Regular Session 1.A Meeting Minutes Consideration and action to approve the minutes from the July 25, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission is postponed to the August 22, 2024 regular meeting -- Erica Metress, Planning Specialist I as TaKen TOr me postponement Or me Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes. L. Z 2024-49-COA (1608 S. Church Street) Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for the removal and replacement of historic architectural features on a Contributing Historic Structure (High Priority) at the property located at 1608 S. Church Street bearing the legal description of 0.239 acres out of Block 4, Lot 3 & 4 (N /T), Logan Addition. (2024-49-COA) -- Maddison OKelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager E�N Commissioner Hein inquired about the extent of the replacement to the front facade of the house. Laura Cook, applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and explained that balloon construction was involved which did not include conventional framing. Cook explained that the shiplap was attached directly to the siding and noted that both weo&nLa" shiplap. Commissioner Hein inquired about the front facade framing. Cook explained that the whole house would need to be framed. Discussion on the removal of the front fagade between Commissioner Burns and Steve Mayer, applicant, Discussion between Laura Cook, Steve Mayer, and Chair Walton about the assessment of the front porch and front door. Commissioner Powell mentioned that it may be helpful to bring in a contractor to assess the state of work. I DUE Moved by Jennifer Powell; seconded by Alton Martin to Approve as presented, Motion Approved: 6- 1 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Alton Martin, Jennifer Powell, Stuart Garner Voting Against: Linda C Burns 1>C 2024-18-COA (205 E. 9th Street) Conceptual Review for new commercial infill construction for the property located at 205 E. 9th Street, bearing the legal description of .05 Acres, Block 9 Lots 5 & 6 AMD, Glasscock Addition. (2024-18-COA) -- ad icon O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report. Ryan Cooper, owner, approached the podium to address the Commission and introduced himself as well as an explanation of the request. Gary Wang, applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and provided a presentation. Commissioner Hein highlighted the single story historic residential home adjacent to the property and similar historic residential homes across the lot. Commissioner Hein explained that the design guideline is to keep in character of the surrounding area and shared that the material of this proposal does not appear to be in keeping of the area. Wang shared that the property was outlined as the downtown core and highlighted that this proposal is for a commercial use. Commissioner Hein referred to the design guidelines that stated that the structure relates to the historic houses in the area and the request appears to be unfit for the area. Commissioner Hein shared interest in the alternative two-story design. Commissioner Hein asked if there were two entrances on the first floor of the structure. Wang confirmed that there are two entrances and explained that the middle entrance is to the second floor and the entrance to the right is for the ground floor. Wang shared the alternative approaches that he and his team considered when designing the structure. Commissioner Romero highlighted the lack of architectural detail other than the iron and railings and asked for an explanation. Wang shared that the intent was to have a clean fagade with the limestone, brick windows and a canopy. Commissioner Burns shared her concerns about the height with relation to the historic single -floor home. Commissioner Burns highlighted the lack of character in design and shared that it felt stark to her. Commissioner Burns questioned if there was room for landscaping on either side of the structure. Wang explained that it is intended to have landscape on the right side of the structure. Chair Walton inquired about the requirements for the Mixed -Use Downtown zoning district. O'Kelly shared that the MUDT zoning district allows for a mix of uses with ground floor retail, restaurants, and so forth. O'Kelley added that the MUDT zoning district is limited to the zero -foot setback and 40-foot building height maximum. Chair Walton referred to design guideline 2.4.A found in the staff report and asked what the applicant could do to make it comply. O'Kelley shared that this guideline speaks to what Wang shared about how this is a difficult site. O'Kelley explained that staff does not have the ability to design for a building that can comply with both the UDC and design guidelines for this site. Chair Walton asked what variances would be voted on in this request. O'Kelley explained that there would not be a variance to the UDC, but there would be variances for the design guidelines as building height and its relation to existing buildings on the block. O'Kelley added that a variance would not be necessary, per se, but it would be approval of a COA that does not meet allO of the applicable design guidelines. Chair Walton called for a temporary recess at 7:35 PM. The meeting resumed at 7:45 PM. To receive clarification, Chair Walton referred to design guideline 2.4.A found in the staff report and asked what the applicant could do to make it comply. O'Kelley explained that the building would need to be set back about 20 feet into the property, a step down towards the residential properties would be required on the third floor to the second floor, changes to a more residential form of the structure call for a pitched roof, windows would need to be twice as tall as they are wide, and the structure would need recessed entries. Chair Walton inquired about the depth of the lot. O'Kelley shared that the lot is a little over 59 feet deep. Wang shared with the commission that the building would be 1,000 square feet if it were set back to be in compliance. Chair Walton recommended that Wang review the front entrances and windows and suggested that he revise the plan so that the listed features may comply with the compatible criteria. Chair Walton asked staff how the lot was subdivided into the current state. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, approached the podium to address the Commission and shared the development process to include zoning, subdivision, and site plan. Nelson highlighted that this project was a great example as to why HARC reviews certain requests. Nelson mentioned that not all design guidelines would be compatible with the properties which is why certain projects are presented before the commission. Chair Walton added that it would be beneficial to lower the overall height of the building due to the Downtown Masterplan. Commissioner Powell asked if there is a different way to review the looming concerns when it is a commercial development next to a residential lot. O'Kelley shared that the UDC has provisions for ensuring compatibility between different uses, such as buffering. O'Kelley added that the looming standards adopted in the old town design guidelines are not adopted in chapter two guidelines which regulates all development within area two. O'Kelley concluded with a note that looming is not an applicable guideline within area two, but it can be shared as a point of feedback for the applicant. Commissioner Powell shared her concern with the building height and the open deck on the third floor of the structure. Commissioner Powell voiced that she was concerned with the impact that would make on the surrounding residents. Wang asked if there would be a difference with an enclosed versus open terrace. Powell commented that it would help. Commissioner Martin mentioned how the commission keep the Downtown Masterplan's height restriction of 35 feet in mind and highlighted that the private 1111 MEET III KIM! MITI entrances. Commissioner Martin shared his concern in that the proposed structure is out of phase with surrounding buildings and added that the emergency exterior stairs should face a street rather than a residential property, Wang asked if the option of stairs that egress and activated b11LsteW,—,ina down on the stair would bA- &,.r"- Iiiii;.Wl Martin commented that if it is permitted in a buffer zone, then it would be preferrable. Alternate Commissioner Garner referred to staffs analysis in that the proposed building does not relate to the single-stor TIONQW146B., to that finding. OKelley shared that there is not an adopted definition in staff's analysis, but shared that staff reviews the design holistically. OKelley added that staff reviewed the building's overall height, scale, and simple, commercial form and took all of that into consideration. Emm�� Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and shared her concern for the mass, design conflict with the neighborhood, public utility easement, parking, side awning, and height. Weaver questioned whether the current UDC requirements apply or the Downtown Masterplan height requirements. Weaver shared that the commission has subjectivity in height. Weaver continued to explain that the buffer yard is required to be 10 feet wide with various landscaping requirements. Weaver mentioned that the city has the right to change the size of any facilities installed in the easement area, to relocate any faces in the easement, and the right to remove from the easement areas all trees and parts or other obstructions which endanger or may interfere with the efficiency and maintenance of any facilities. Weaver shared that the property was meant to have 6 residences with a driveway. Mmmm= LD Discussion Items Updates on Upcoming Training for HARC Commissioners, Downtown Master Plan, UDC Rewrite, and Commissioner questions and comments -- Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley shared that there weren't discussion items, Adjournment These minutesAere approved at the meeting of Chair Atte