Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_03.24.2025Minutes of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown, Texas Monday., March 24, 2025 The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Monday, March 24, 2025 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Community Room, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street. = is committea to corripillance Tim Tne Americans T Tf 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, Evan Hein, Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner, Heather Smith Public Wishing to Address the Board On a elia. Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the -j�i �bect t�hat is �osted �onthis� 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. On_A not o�sted on �the a �enda� A request must be received by the Advisory Board or Commission Liaison prior to the day the agenda for this mee ng is posted. Each speaker will be given three minutes 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 March 13, 2025, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission -- Erica Metress, WMEM00= Motion Approved: 7- 0 Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Evan Hein, Jennifer Powell, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner, Heather Smith Voting Against: None 1.B 817 S. Austin Avenue (2024-76-COA) Public Hearing and action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an alteration of street -facing fagade (elevation facing S. Austin Avenue) on a Low Priority Structure located at the property addressed at 817 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of Lots 6-8 (PTS), Block 51, City of Georgetown (2024-76-COA) -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Adam Starr, applicant, approached the speaking area and provided a presentation. Starr shared that he grew up in Georgetown and shared thanks to city staff, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, and supporters of the community. Starr explained that he had replaced 1,500 loose or broken bricks that had been exposed by the elements from the south wall of the structure. Starr continued to explain the replacement of the tin roof with insulation and a rubber membrane and discussed replacement of the rooftop skylights. Starr explained that the request was to create a draw for people to allow for more foot traffic on the side of Austin Avenue in which the building sits. Starr describes the request as a way to highlight historical pieces. Commissioner Hein inquired about a summary of the feedback provided since th4 request was presented to the commission, Kimberly Spencer, Assistant Planning Director, explained that staff included the collective comments received from the public within staff' s presentation of the agenda packet. Commissioner Hein highlighted that changes made in the request were minimal and noted that staff's recommendation changed substantially. Commissioner Hein asked staff to summarize how staff s recommendation could differ from one review to the next. Nelson explained that staff's recommendation of approval was consistent from the beginning of this request. Nelson highlighted that the reports dated August 16, 2024, and March 21, 2025, had recommendations of approval. Nelson highlighted that the design guidelines and number of compliances are the key. Nelson explained that the building was a 1 story structure so references to 2 story windows were not applicable to the specific application. Nelson further explained that the review references voids and solids because of the portion above and below the awning that contributed to the first floor glazing and solid-to-vold surface area. Commissioner Hein referred to Approval Criteria number 6 found in section 3.13.030 of the UDC and asked staff to explain the determination of non -applicability. Nelson agreed with Commissioner Hein in that the front facade is the most defining character of a structure and explained that staff analyzed the way the approval criteria was worded. Staff analyzed whether the request was a new building, a new addition, or was adding on to an existing building, and found that the criteria was not applicable. Commissioner Hein referred to 1.5.1-1- Storefronts of the design guidelines and shared that his understanding was that if the original storefront was unknown, then the recommendation was to model after the architecture or styles that were seen in the surrounding structures. Nelson explained that staff analyzed the critical elements of the design guidelines and reviewed the awning, window, and storefront windows. Commissioner Hein acknowledged that the request was unusual in that the structure appears as a second story structure when it is a 1 story structure and acknowledged that the request was specific to the storefront. Commissioner Hein noted that the architectural elements of the request were not modeled after storefronts in the area and that the request did not comply with the ratio of solid to void surface. Commissioner Hein referred to Design Guidelines 1.5.B.2: Form and highlighted that the structure in question had two gabled roofs that were originally covered by a rectangular front facade. Commissioner Hein shared that, based on the information provided, the trusses have always been obscured and that they were not meant to be a traditional architectural element, but instead, a support structure with a rectangular facade. Commissioner Hein concluded that he would interpret the guidelines that the preference would be to maintain the rectangular form. With no further discussion or questions from the dais, Vice Chair Burns opened the public hearing. Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, approached the speaking area and shared her concern of approval criteria 6 in the approval summary. Weaver questioned how the request was not considered an addition after the approval of the demolition of the front facade. Weaver explained that the staff report included that there was no evidence of the original character of the storefront of the building. Weaver explained that the building was built around 1924, and that Lindell Peterson Hardware Store was the first occupant. Weaver provided images of the structure from 1929 and shared that the year was confirmed due to movie posters that appear to the left and the date of known truck shows. Weaver spoke of the character of the building with regard to the window pattern and roll up door. Weaver highlighted that over time there were different iterations of the awnings but explained that the building essentially remained the same. Weaver shared that the staff noted within the report that the Secretary of Interior standards were reviewed primarily against the demolition of the fapade. Weaver highlighted that the Secretary of Interior standards does not recommend removing or substantially changing storefronts and their features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Weaver also highlighted that the Secretary of Interior standards does not recommend removing a storefront that is unrepairable and not replacing it with a new storefront that does not match. Weaver shared concerns regarding the amount of time and opportunity to review the structure with an upper story versus a structure as 1 story. Weaver referred to a case that HARC reviewed in the past and questioned the determination by HARC. Weaver concluded with a request that the commission deny the request in question. Dani Babik, 1008 East University Avenue, approached the speaking area and commended the owner for the desire and courage to purchase a historic building. Babik expressed that owning a structure that is an essential part of Georgetown was a responsibility, commitment and honor to maintain the historic appeal of the square. Babik believed that the request does not look historic and highlighted that HARC provided helpful feedback, but instead of providing a new design, the owner submitted the same design with minor changes. Babik believed that the mirror glaze would be hazardous due to the structure facing west. Babik highlighted that each time the design was submitted, the number of citizen comments against the request increased. Babik shared that the design would not be out of place for a place trying to create a new town square and shared that it was inappropriate for Georgetown's square. Babik concluded with thanks to the owner for the courage to restore a historic structure, and thanks to HARC for voting against the proposal and continuing to preserve the historic town square. Jenelle Looney, 300 San Gabriel Village Boulevard, approached the speaking area and spoke in favor of the fagade. Looney explained that Starr, the owner, grew up in Georgetown and was not an outside developer trying to change the square. Looney believed that the structure did not have an interesting character. Looney shared that the design included the most interesting architectural element, the peaks of the roof, and shared that highlighting that would make an impact. Looney concluded with hope that HARC would vote in favor of the proposal. Debra Hobbs, 817 South Austin Avenue, approached the speaking area and shared that she is the owner of All Things New and shared a direct relationship with residents who frequent the square. Hobbs stated that the history was what made Georgetown so unique. Hobbs shared that she was a store owner on the square for over 20 years and had never heard anyone say they visit the square to see all the new structures. Hobbs explained that disapproval could make a difference. Hobbs believed that developers and building owners will make the square modern. Hobbs encouraged city staff to listen to those who frequent the square. Cordy Trevino, 817 South Austin Avenue, approached the speaking area and explained that she owns a boutique business inside of All Things New. Trevino explained that she opened her business on the square because she loved to go to the square to shop. Trevino expressed that renovations should be in keeping of the tradition of Georgetown square. Trevino shared that she has a business in Round Rock as well, but did not want Georgetown's square to be like downtown Round Rock or South Congress in Austin. Trevino highlighted that small businesses are being displaced but shared that she hears customers and tourist comment that Georgetown has a beautiful square. Trevino explained that the square needs a lot of shopping sources to be available. Cherie Akiva, 104 Rosespring, approached the speaking area and explained that she is a land developer. Akiva shared that she enjoyed the way the architect brought out and taken use of the trusses of the structure. Akiva believed that the commission should approve the proposal. Akiva shared that she does not visit buildings on the square that look like it could fall. Akiva concluded that she enjoys that historic elements are trying to be preserved. Chris Marble, 150 Turtle Creek, approached the speaking area and shared that he is the architect assigned to the request. Marble explained that there is generational handoff for people who are trying to grow in the community. Marble explained that they are utilizing traditional materials and keeping the 3-window rhythm. Marble highlighted that transoms are not defined well in the guidelines and highlighted that the design guidelines mention the generic character of overall downtown. Marble concluded that they are trying not to bring in anything new and trying to utilize pieces from the historical area. Joe Savage, 4011 Malaga Drive, approached the speaking area and shared that he is present to advocate for the future of downtown Georgetown. Savage requested that HARC assist with advocating for the preservation of historic architecture. Savage spoke of the finances the owner has put forth in the structure, including $950K beyond the original purchase. Savage explained that Starr's passion was to showcase the historic and architectural significance of the structure. Savaged posed a question of whether the current structure or the structure with a renovated fagade would be beneficial to the downtown area. Savage requested that HARC make a positive force of historic and architectural preservation in passing the project. Vice Chair Burns closed the public hearing. Question on postponement as an option. It was deemed that postponement to a date certain with specific reasons was an option. Commissioner Hein thanked the owner for diligence that went into the design and explained that his role was to ensure the preservation of historic Georgetown. Commissioner Hein shared concerns with the large window that displays the trusses and the design guidelines around scale, the use of rectangular shapes, storefront preservation of the original fag'ade or using retaining elements from surrounding structures. Commissioner Hein asked Starr if he was willing to make modifications to the large window space. Starr explained that he has made modifications per HARC directions from the past and explained that he preferred the proposed design. Commissioner Romero shared that he enjoyed the design but was not in favor as it was proposed. Commissioner Romero did not recommend postponement because the owner did not want to make changes to the design. With no further discussion, Vice Chair Burns asked for a motion from the dais. Moved by Evan Hein; seconded by Robert Blomquist to Deny as presented due to non- compliance with Design Guideline (1.5.H), as it relates to preserving original storefronts and Design Guideline (1.5.13), as it relates to mass, scale, and use of rectangles. I M MA. - IMMIS MIT FI- M-- IL#twt6to , III # - , 12=1100111ilMN 1`00TIlines MIT nave not cnall since Men. Aild ate M1111117717ner a change in the roof would gain approval. Motion Approved- 5- 2 g,,El �anrHie'nJ nnJirJowell. Robert Blomauist. Stuart Garner LC Demolition Criteria and Definitions Presentation and discussion on criteria for demolitions Within the Old Town and 2E# # Vice Chair Burns announced that staff requested that item I.0 be discussed at a later date. Adjournment These minutes were approve t the meeting of Attest