HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_09.22.2011Historical and Architectural Commission 1
Minutes
September 22, 2011
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, September 22, 2011, at 6:00 p.m.
City Council and Municipal Court Building, Georgetown, TX 78627
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Dee Rapp, Chair; Sarah Blankenship, Susan Firth, Gregg Herriott, David
Paul, Nelia Ibsen Schrum, and Raymond Wahrenbrock.
Commissioners in Training present:
Members absent: Andy Welch, Commissioner in Training
Staff present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and HARC liaison; Elizabeth Cook,
Community Development Director; Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Chair Rapp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Consent Agenda:
1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the August 25, 2011 Regular HARC
meeting and the September 1, 2011 Special HARC meeting.
Blankenship asked that her statement on the Aug. 25 minutes, page 5, second paragraph,
first sentence include “per Guideline 9.17”. And page 7, motion should have passed 4 – 1,
with Blankenship opposed.
Paul pointed out that some of the votes of Aug 25 minutes were incorrectly stated as Paul
and Herriott were absent and not voting.
Rapp pointed out three corrections in the Aug 25 minutes; Item 2, page 2 please add
“Horick agreed to replace all paneling panels.” Page 5, ”Canyon did not think it would be
an issue.” Adding “not”. Page 8, number 7, the letter of support should be drafted in the
near future, not “before 2014”.
Blankenship noted that in the Sept 1 minutes, on page 1, item 1, 4th paragraph the last
segment of the sentence should be deleted: “Blankenship agreed and appreciates the
applicant trying to work with Design Guidelines and to keep the building colors more
simplified.”
Wahrenbrock recommended changing the word “canopy” to “parapet” in the paragraph
following the one above.
Motion by Paul to approve the minutes from the August 25, 2011 and September 1, 2011
meetings as amended. Second by Blankenship. Approved 7– 0. (So noted, and minutes
changed by recording secretary.)
Historical and Architectural Commission 2
Minutes
September 22, 2011
Regular Agenda:
2. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes to a non-historic residence in Old Town in Eubank Addition, Block 4, Lot 15,
located at 1801 S. Main Street. (CDC-2011-030)
Wyler presented the staff report. Applicant was not present.
Rapp opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward.
Commissioners asked questions.
Wahrenbrock questions the use of a metal awning instead of shingles. Wyler stated it was
the owner’s preference.
Firth stated that according to the Guidelines 6.25 and 7.8, the steps should maintain the
character of the property and fit the scale, she doesn’t feel the narrow steps maintain the
overall design of the house, they are too small. She was also concerned about the code
requirements for the widths of the steps. Wyler reports the steps appear to be about four
feet wide. Paul agrees that a wider top step would appear better. Wahrenbrock
recommends the steps be 6 feet wide. Others agree.
Comments on limestone underpinning: Blankenship stated she felt wood or brick, or even
stucco was more appropriate. Question regarding what type of limestone, Wyler states it
will be real limestone used.
Motion by Blankenship to approve the CDC for 1801 S. Main Street with
recommendation that the width of the steps be widened. Second Greg. (7-0)
3. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior
changes, including an addition, to an historic residence in Old Town in Eubank Addition,
Block 1, Lot 1 (n/pt), located at 1700 S. Church Street. (CDC-2011-031)
Wyler presented the staff report. Richard Elsasser, the architect and representing the
applicants, was present for commissioner questions. He stated the owners do not live in
Georgetown at this time. This will be a summer home, but the homeowners plan to retire in
this home and are trying to make it conform to the UDC. Staff is concerned that there is an
architectural feature being added to the house and that they are proposing encroachment
into the setbacks.
Elsasser stated the main reason for the porch was to add access to the secondary entrance. e
to a foyer/kitchen area and the covering of that porch. The house was built in 1941,
designed as a colonial revival which was popular at that time. There was a porch on the
home originally located where the master bedroom is now. He also stated that there are
problems with the flashing of the existing shingle roof. He stated it is more of an addition to
the original design than a change.
Rapp stated she was concerned about the rooflines, gables and pitches. Elsasser states that
the only change to the roof will be the addition of the porch which will be a hip return,
formation roof. The existing situation is staying but adding a bit more pitch to the existing
Historical and Architectural Commission 3
Minutes
September 22, 2011
gables. He will go to a 2”/12” formation from a ½”/12”. The material will be changing and
some of the rotted wood replaced.
Rapp questioned the connection from the garage to the porch. Elsasser stated it will be a
covered breezeway. She then questioned the location of the fence. Elsasser stated it will be
correct on the site plan, not necessarily as shown on the 3D drawing. Rapp questioned the
setback situation. The fence will go on the property line, 18 feet from the street.
Rapp questioned leaving the limestone. Elsasser says he believes the owners want to keep
the limestone even though it was discovered that it was not original to the house. That is
why they are attempting to keep the limestone and wood mix.
Paul asked about the limestone to be used and whether it will match the existing. Elsasser
says they will try to match the original face, not the 70’s addition.
Firth asked if the owners had considered other options to requesting a variance. Elsasser
stated that the problem is where the porch extends into the setback by about three feet and
to keep the early revival style they need to keep the symmetry, not cut off the angle.
Wahrenbrock is concerned about the front elevation on Church Street being different on the
side street, so you lose the asymmetrical roof line. He points out that Guideline 7.3 states
the “… shall not obscure the architectural features.” Blankenship agrees that the porch
wraps around the front and obscures the original structure and appearance of the house.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing, no public comments, and the Public Hearing was closed.
Elsasser stated he wants to have the least amount of alteration on the front of the house, but
still comply with the applicant’s request. He can try to make the front of the house more
asymmetrical to work within the Guidelines and with the owner.
Rapp explains that the commission is considering the 184 square foot addition at the back of
the house, the 8 foot wrap-around porch on three sides of the house and the addition of the
columns to the existing porch that will tie it into the wrap-around porch.
Motion by Firth to approve the 184 square foot addition at the rear of the residence.
Second by Schrum. Approved unanimously, 7 – 0.
Wahrenbrock states that the 8 foot porch is only on Cyprus and 17th Streets and 5 foot on
Church Street. Firth states concern that the modification alters the priority level and historic
integrity of the house. Wyler and Cook explain that the structure is currently a medium
level priority structure now because of the modifications that were previously made, and
that changes today could affect the priority level of the house, but that HARC does not have
the authority to change the priority level, only approve or deny those items that may
eventually affect the level. Cook explained that the Guidelines criteria today do not limit
the acceptance of a CDC by HARC based on the future priority level.
Blankenship explained that THC standards would not allow the front of the structure to be
changed in this manner, but that is not what the Georgetown Guidelines state. Rapp
Historical and Architectural Commission 4
Minutes
September 22, 2011
considered the fact that this structure is bordered by three streets which makes this a special
situation. She questioned the proposed columns and the use of the limestone materials
considering the materials are not original to the house but still historically significant.
Blankenship states that the columns should not be visible to the front of the house.
The commissioners were still concerned about the proposed roof of the covered porch that
covers the front facing of the house and changes the character of the house and considered
keeping the porch on only two sides of the house.
Motion by Herriott to approve the CDC for the exterior changes for the addition of the
porch with the addition of the two 8-foot sides with the Knight and 17th Street sides and
eliminating it (the porch) on the Church Street side and approve the materials and
columns as proposed. Second by Paul. Approved unanimously, 7 – 0.
Rapp then opens the discussion on the proposed columns. She suggests that the front porch
columns tie into the wrap-around porch. The columns should be consistent with the other
columns and to consider widening the front steps.
Motion by Firth to approve the portion of the CDC to the existing front porch columns to
match the side columns and to widen the front concrete porch steps, working with staff
on the exact width. Second by Wahrenbrock. Approved unanimously, 7 – 0.
4. Public hearing and possible action on an amendment to a Certificate of Design Compliance
(CDC-2011-015) for a change in the approved roofline to a residence in Old Town in
Glasscock Addition, Block 14, Lots 5 & 6, located at 407 S. Myrtle Street. (CDC-2011-032)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks to amend a Certificate of Design
Compliance (CDC) approval from HARC to change the approved roof design of an addition
to the house. At the July 28, 2011 HARC meeting, the applicant proposed and was
approved for a roof design that incorporated a gabled pitch facing Myrtle Street. As a
condition of the approval, the applicant was required to center the window under the gable.
Due to the location and layout of the kitchen, the window cannot be centered so the
applicant is requesting to extend the existing roofline north, over the approved addition
rather than adding a gabled pitch. The only item being reviewed by HARC within this
application is the design of the roofline.
The applicant was present but did not come forward.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing. There were not speakers and the Public Hearing was
closed.
Motion by Firth to approve the revised roof design as proposed for 407 S. Myrtle Street.
Second by Schrum. Approved unanimously, 7 – 0.
5. Public hearing and possible action on a Certificate of Design Compliance for the addition of
a freestanding canopy over an existing playground in Glasscock Addition, Block 21, Lots 7
(n/pt) & 8, also known as Main Street Baptist Church, located at 1001 S. Main Street.
(CDC-2011-034)
Wyler presented the staff report. Due to the deaths of several shade trees in the playground
area, the church is requesting approval of a canopy to shade the playground.
Historical and Architectural Commission 5
Minutes
September 22, 2011
The applicant. Greg Christianson representing Main Street Baptist Church Building and
Grounds Committee, brought in fabric samples for review and a brochure showing the
structure and form types. They are requesting the tan or black color for the frame.
There was discussion of the structure. Firth questioned whether it was permanent or
removable. Mr. Christian said they are going with the anchored but possible removal type
of frame. It is sturdily held in place by anchored bolts.
Rapp opened the Public Hearing. There were no speakers and the Public Hearing was
closed.
Motion by Herriott to approve the CDC for the canopy structure as proposed with the
Arizona color as brought forward at this meeting and the tan or black posts. Second by
Blankenship. Approved unanimously, 7-0.
6. Discussion and reminder that there will be no Sign Subcommittee meeting taking place on
October 12, 2011 and that the next regular HARC meeting and possible Sign Subcommittee
meeting will take place on October 27, 2011.
7. Review and Discussion with possible direction to staff on the proposed amendments of the
2001 Downtown Design Guidelines.
Motion by Firth to table this item to a special session scheduled by staff. Second by Paul.
Approved 7 - 0.
8. Adjournment. Rapp adjourned the meeting at 7:31p.m.
_______________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Dee Rapp, Chair Attest, Greg Herriott, Secretary