Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.25.2009Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 June 25, 2009 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members Present: West Short, Chair; Susan Firth; J.C. Johnson; Will Moore; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl; and Dee Rapp Members Absent: none Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Acting Director of Community Development; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Chair Short called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Regular Session: To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Consent Agenda: The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may act on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission's approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted. 1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the May 28, 2009 regular meeting. 2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lots 1 & 4, also known as Dia Thai Cuisine, located at 114 E. 7th Street. (CDC-2009-016) 3. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 50, Lots 5 & 8, also known as J. P. Aubin Real Estate, located at 800 S. Austin Avenue, Suite D. (CDC-2009-019) Firth requested the minutes be pulled from the consent agenda to make minor changes. Those changes were noted and Firth made the motion to approve the minutes with the designated changes. Second by Short. Approved 7 – 0. The other items were not forwarded from the Sign Subcommittee and therefore no action was taken. Regular Agenda: 4. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for facade and site changes at City of Georgetown, Block 28, Lots 1 – 8, also known as the Monument Cafe Site, located at 500 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2009-017) Wyler introduced the application for the Monument Cafe site. The applicant seeks a CDC to make changes to the 2004 and 2007 approved CDCs for four buildings and the site layout for the entire block. The applicant, Rusty Winkstern, was available and presented the proposed changes. He is requesting a change to the site plan by eliminating the Rock Street office building and converting that building site to parking for a larger market building. Additionally, he wants to reduce the size of the three story office/ retail building at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Austin Avenue to two stories. He is changing his focus to the development of a larger grocery/ meat market and reducing the amount of office lease Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 June 25, 2009 space on the property. He is planning on the second story of the office building having a meeting room and access to a “green roof”. He will shift the two entrances of the building and market to fit the new plan. He may ask for a loading dock at a later date. He also stated instead of the original approved exterior, he is proposing an exterior of concrete stucco matching the existing cafe, Tejano brick, limestone accents and the same aluminum windows. He stated the submitted drawings the commission received were not accurate. Commissioners asked clarifying questions and discussed that they would need more specific details to approve this plan. Cook explained that the applicant is concerned about the timing of the approvals. The applicant is asking for HARC’s approval of the revised concept to take to GTEC to revise the existing city agreements in effect that are expiring soon. Winkstern stated he could bring details back to HARC for approval of materials and colors at a later date. Motion by Johnson to approve the concept plan with the number and height of buildings and use of buildings all as proposed and with parking as described by the applicant and ask the applicant to come back with materials and drawings of more details. The motion died for lack of second. Motion by Moore to approve the changes the applicant is requesting with the exception of the materials. Second by Johnson. Commissioners discuss the lack of details and what they would like to see before accepting this motion. Moore withdraws his motion. Motion by Rapp to approve a revised concept of the project to allow the applicant to reduce the height of the larger office/retail building to two stories with a bridge to the market building, increase the size of the market, eliminate the smaller office building and provide more on-site parking, provided the applicant returns to HARC with accurate elevations, engineered site plan and material samples and colors for further discussion and possible approval. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0. 5. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for the demolition of an accessory structure at Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 3 & 4, located at 1006 S. Church Street. (CDC-2009-018) Wyler presented the application. The owner of the property is asking for CDC approval for the demolition of an historic garage. According to the agent, the existing twenty by forty foot garage was built circa 1914 and encroaches approximately 19 feet onto City right-of-way as shown on the provided conceptual site plan. This places the structure around 29 feet beyond current setback requirements. The west side of the garage sits only five feet from the property line. Based on the location, the garage is considered by the City to be an existing non-conforming structure and per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 14.04, is limited on what can be done to it. These limitations include not exceeding expansion of the structure by more than 50% of its original size. Should an expansion exceed more than 50% of the structure’s original size, approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment is required. The applicant proposes demolishing the existing garage to allow for the construction of a new garage and driveway that will meet all current City regulations. Staff recommends denial of the approval of demolition based on Guideline 7.13 that states that a structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience and Wyler feels that the applicant has other options. Ellen Davis, resident of 405 E. 10th Street, provided a letter of support for the applicant to demolish the garage. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 June 25, 2009 Paul Milnes, of the Tennyson Group and agent for the owner, was present for questions. Firth questioned whether other options had been considered for the garage and driveway. Milnes commented that he was not able to build a new garage to the size and location that his client wanted without tearing down the existing one. He also stated that the existing structure could not be brought up to city building codes. Johnson commented that no one was asking him to bring the older structure up to current codes and suggested asking the city to remove the Keep Right sign that was located where the driveway could potentially be. There was discussion of options the applicant has if they keep the structure. Milnes stated there is significant dry rot on the existing structure and the slab for the structure is actually located inside the building. Cook stated if the current structure is taken down to less than 50% of its current size, thereby losing its non-conforming status, then it will have to be brought up to current standards, including losing the footprint of the building located over the setbacks and into easements. The new structure will have to comply with current regulations. Motion by Short to deny the approval of the CDC and the applicant is to consider alternatives to demolition that come back for possible approval by the commission. Second by Pergl. Moore stated he was concerned that with the denial, the applicant only has to wait 175 days and then get the approval for demolition anyway. He also stated he felt that whatever the applicant puts in will enhance the historic value and property values of the neighborhood. He supports the approval. Firth empathizes with Mr. Parks but states her definition of the purpose of the commission is to maintain historic structures not tear them down. Short summarized that the commission does not want demolition to be the first choice of property owners, but modifications should be considered. The motion was restated. The CDC for demolition was denied 5 – 2. (Moore and Mosely opposed.) 6. Discussion and possible action on the replacement of J. C. Johnson on the Sign Subcommittee. Short opened the floor for nominations. Rapp volunteered. Motion by Short to approve the resignation of J.C. Johnson and appointment of Dee Rapp to the HARC Sign Subcommittee. Second by Moore. Approved 7 – 0. 7. Discussion and possible action to establish a time limit on discussions with applicants. Short opens the floor for discussion. He suggests limiting the time applicants are allowed to make a presentation to the commission of non-action items. The example he gave was the last Concept Plan that came before HARC for comments, no action. Cook explained that the UDC, Section 2.03.010, lists this type of pre-meeting/concept discussion meeting as an additional duty of the Commission. The Commission may still limit the presentation time. Mosely proposed 15 minutes for a presentation. Short suggested 10 minutes. Cook suggested adding this as part of the procedures described at the beginning of each agenda. Motion by Johnson to table this item and direct staff to prepare draft language for an agenda and bring back to the Commission for discussion. Second by Moore. Approved 7 – 0. 8. Discussion and update on the revisions to the Design Guidelines. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 June 25, 2009 Cook reported that staff has been working with a consultant, Nore Winter, to amend the Guidelines. The first draft was given to staff last week and staff is reviewing. When those changes have been made by the consultant and the second draft is in, copies will be distributed to the Commission. 9. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on July 23, 2009. 10. Adjournment Chair Short adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. __________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, West Short, Chair Attest, Will Moore, Secretary