HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_03.13.2025Commission.
Motion Approved: 7- 0
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein,
Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner
Voting Against: None
1. B 1218 S. Myrtle Street (2024-56-cOA)
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing fagade for
the property located at 1218 S Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description of East Part of
Lot 11, Block I of the Cody Addon (2024-56-COA) -- (Olivia Beams, Historic and
Downtown Planner)
Commissioner Hein commented that the request appears to be more balanced With the
2nd story set more so over the main structure. Commissioner Hein expressed no
concern if the homeowner were to add stone to the front of the proposed structure
similar to that of the home.
explained that there weren't design guidelines related to the specific size of living area.
Beams noted that the Unified Development Code regulated floor to area ratio which is
known as improved space compared to the size of the lot and added that the garage did
not count to floor to area ratio.
Chair Walton complimented the improvements and shared that he liked the newly
presented siding versus stone,
Commissioner Powell, Commissioner Lawrence, and Commissioner Bob complimented
and expressed gratitude for the changes presented.
Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth a
asked for a motion from the dais. I
Moved by Evan Hein; seconded by Lawrence Romero to Approve as presented.
Motion Approved* 7- 0
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein,
Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner
Voting Against: None
I.0 411 E. 10th Street (2024-69-COA)
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural feature
for the property located at 411 E. 1 Oth Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 3,
Eastern Part of Lot 4, Block 27, Glasscock Addition (2024-69-COA) -- Olivia Beams,
Olivia Beams presented the staff report.
Spencer McAvey, owner, approached the podium to address the commission and
explained that the front window was shortened because of the change in layout of the
home. McAvey explained that the cabinetry for the kitchen required this change. McAvey
continued to explain that the side window will be reduced due to its location in the primary
bathroom and shared an image of some alternative options for the commission to
consider. McAvey concluded with a comment that the siding will be replaced because the
current siding does not create a uniformed look along the home.
Beams explained that the item presented by staff was the design that has been reviewed
against the design guidelines and that the commission can place a condition if they felt it
appropriate.
Chair Walton explained that he had no concerns with the siding and asked if there was
an option to move the wall behind the window facing Ash Street to leave the current
window as it is. McAvey explained that moving the wall would make the closet small and
that they were attempting to maximize the space.
Commissioner Powell shared no concern with the siding and that the 3rd option provided
to the commission would be preferred due to the square footage limitations.
Commissioner Burns shared no concerns with the siding, Fibrex windows and the front
porch window. Commissioner Burns commented that there could be a way to keep the
symmetry underneath the high roof peak facing Ash Street and shared discontent with
the change that may include modernized, horizontal windows or a window to the side.
Commissioner Burns concluded with a comment that a center window would be an
important architectural feature of the home.
Commissioner Garner asked if fibrex windows were an approved material. Beams
shared that fibrex material is not an approved material and shared that the commission
has approved fibrex windows in the past. Beams noted that fibrex windows would
move further towards compliance against the existing vinyl windows because the
guidelines do call out vinyl as a material not allowed.
Commissioner Garner inquired about the process in turning fibrex into an approved
material.
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, approached the podium to address the commission and
explained that the process would include an update to the design guidelines and an
update to the UDC to allow staff or HARC to review the material in certain circumstances.
Nelson provided hardy board as an example in which staff reviews the request on a low
priority structure whereas HARC reviews the request on a high priority structure.
Commissioner Hein explained that he had no concerns with the original proposal.
�� 1� �, III I I I �� I
THRIN •IT•U♦R311111 i 0
Beams provided clarification on the addonal options that were presented by the owner
and asked the commission to refer to the option reviewed by staff as option 1, the
center image as option 2 and the bottom image as option 3.
Moved by Evan Hein; seconded by Lawrence Romero to Approve as presented by the
applicant.
Moved by Michael i Walton-, seconded by Robert Blomquist to Amend With the
condition that windows on Ash Street would match option 3.
*1n1njss1*n45r Tin clornmen ITT 47ginai re-tIVITY J "I'll, i I
historical homes whereas the third option would be overtly modern.
1111 1110701M
Motion Approved: 4- 3
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Michael i Walton, Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist
Voting Against: Linda C Burns, Evan Hein, Stuart Garner
The commission proceeded to vote on the original motion with the approved
amendment.
Motion Approved with amendment- 7- 0
Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein,
Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner
Voting Against: None
1.D UDC Chapter 3
Presentation and discussion on criteria for demolitions within the Old Town a]
#
Rns W-11110 =-111# MI -A M11011WOUll
'0AY#jEIi)WCR' It- ' I I - . - - 1110RAMM-110
Chapter 4, demolitions and relocation, of the Design Guidelines. Nelson shared that staff
wanted to remove questions 7-10 of section 4.2 of the Design Guidelines and provided
the commission some time for questions or comments.
Commissioner Hein shared that questions 7-10 would still be good questions to ask
regardless of economic hardship and explained that offering the property for sale could
speak to willingness versus economic capability. Chair Walton expressed concern about
new property owners immediately seeking demolition versus a property owner who has
Commissioner Powell suggested in including a sub question under question 7 that
questions whether the applicant is the new property owner as it would give HARC more of
an idea of who the applicant is. Nelson shared caution in the way the question is asked as
to not impact new property owners and offer a suggestion of adding in a question of last
resort as found on page 212 of Chapter 4 of the Design Guidelines. Nelson highlighted
providing a report of other efforts made to salvage the existing structure as noted in this
section.
Discussion on different scenario types which would intentionally or unintentionally lead to
demolition. The commission agrees to consider all criteria when evaluating demolition
requests and to present a comprehensive questionnaire to applicants. Commissioner Hein
shared preference in expanding the list of questions HARC considers in evaluation of
demolition requests rather than retract from it.
Nelson summarized the discussion which included that a clear intent of demolition should
be the last resort explored by a property owner and to remove 4.3.0 which references the
financial hardship. Chair Walton suggested in not removing the choice of reason, but to
allow HARC to consider all reasons when considering the demolition request.
Commissioner Powell inquired about expansion with question 2 of chapter 4.2 of the
Design Guidelines to include geographical impact on the surrounding area. Nelson
expressed the need to process this idea further and consult with the Engineering
Department.
Commissioner Burns emphasized the need for specific questions about the property's
sale history and fair pricing. Chair Walton reflected on the evolution of Georgetown's real
estate market and the changing demographics of buyers. Chair Walton, also, mentioned
the challenges of articulating the commission's goals and the impact of appeals on
decisions. Nelson suggested that demolition should be the last resort and that this should
be explicitly stated in the code. Nelson emphasized the importance of presenting the
commission's experience and concerns to the council. Nelson proposed focusing on the
criteria and closing any holes in the current UDC. Lastly, Nelson mentioned the upcoming
council meeting on March 25th as an important opportunity to discuss these issues.
Chair Walton suggested in defining what truly constitutes demolition to avoid confusion.
Nelson discussed the current UDC and Design Guideline definitions of demolition. The
commission agreed that the entire street -facing fagade should be included in the
definition of demolition. Therefore, removing the phrase "any portion" from the Design
Guideline definition of demolition was the consensus.
Commissioner Garner requested that the more experienced commissioners send
Nelson a list of what to enable and preventions in a demolition code. Alternate
Commissioner Rotheram suggested in gathering historical data on demolition
applications and their outcomes. Additionally, Alternate Commissioner Rotheram
proposed categorizing approved and denied cases to identify trends and loopholes.
Nelson agreed to research and present the data at the next meeting.
1.E Discussion Items
General updates, and Commissioner questions and comments -- Sofia Nelson, Planning
Director
Adjournment
These minutes were approved at the meeting of tALXMk
chair Attest