Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.22.2006Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting June 22, 2006 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Georgetown Municipal Complex 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Attending Members: Mike Sparks, Chair; John Chapman, Chris Damon, Clare Easley, Beebe Gray, Jim Keys, Linda McCalla, Rick O’Donnell and John Truehardt Alternates present: Nancy Knight and J.C. Johnson Staff Present: Rebecca Rowe, Historic Review Planner and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary The Historic and Architectural Review Commission 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. This is a regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, for consideration and possible action on the following: The Historic and Architectural Review Commission 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. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, for consideration and possible action on the following: 1. Chairman may appoint alternate(s) to serve at this meeting. No alternates served at this meeting. 2. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the May 25, 2006 regular meeting. Motion by Truehardt to approve the minutes. Second by Chapman. Approved 9 – 0. 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. 3. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lots 6 & 7, a 0.1446 acre portion located at 113 West 9th Street. CDC-2006023 4. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for signage at Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 1 & 2 a 0.27 acre portion located at 1104 Church Street. CDC-2006-024 5. Discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for landscaping and impervious coverage exception at Glasscock Addition, Block 4, Lots 1, 2 and 4 located at 900 – 1000 Rock Street. CDC-2006-022 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting June 22, 2006 Item 5 was pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Motion by Chapman to approve items 3 and 4, consistent with staff recommendation. Second by Easley. Approved 9 – 0. Item 5 was opened for discussion. Chair Sparks questioned the possible removal of trees on the lot. Rowe responded that the Mixed Use Downtown use allows 70% impervious cover on a lot, or up to 95% impervious cover with HARC approval. This application is for 75% impervious cover. The trees along 10th Street will stay, two trees in the front of the property will come out, along with a pecan tree in the back. There was discussion of landscaping and curb cut options that might save more trees. Chair Sparks asked that the applicants look at all possible layouts of the lot to save as many trees as possible. Motion by Truehardt to approve item 5 consistent with the staff recommendation. Second by O’Donnell. Approved 9 – 0. Regular Agenda: 6. Public Hearing and discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for new canopy at City of Georgetown, Block 51, Lots 6-8 located at 817 South Austin Avenue. CDC-2006-019 Rowe presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to construct a metal canopy that would run the length of the Austin Avenue facade. Construction of the canopy as proposed would require the removal of a mature Crape Myrtle on Austin Avenue. Removal of this tree would leave only two street trees on this block. Street trees are a requirement under the Unified Development Code and the Design Guidelines and are encouraged by the Downtown Master Plan. The applicant has requested that the tree be removed and the City of Georgetown has declined this request. The City of Georgetown will not be removing the existing Crape Myrtle so the canopy cannot span the entire facade as proposed. Rowe recommends approval of the canopy only making it shorter to accommodate the tree. Motion by McCalla to approve the canopy style and material as proposed, with stipulation that it not extend past the southern edge of the south most window so that the crape myrtle tree is protected. Second by Gray. Approved 9 – 0. 7. Public Hearing and discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for renovation of a non-historic structure at City of Georgetown, Block 49, Lot 1 (W/PT) a 0.55 acre portion located at 308 West 8th Street. CDC-2006-020 Rowe presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing awning and replace it with a fixed metal canopy. They will also be painting the building and adding signage. The current application is Phase 1 of a 2-phase project. The primary facade is 40 linear feet so the proposed sign shall not exceed 40 sq. ft. The applicant, Frank Lanfear was available for questions. Easley asked what phase 2 would be. He responded that phase 2 would be the doors and windows and sign lighting. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting June 22, 2006 This building shares an outdoor patio with the new library that is being built. There was a discussion of canopy materials and what is being proposed. Motion by Truehardt to issue a Certificate of Design Compliance for paint, canopies and signage with the condition that the signage be constructed of wood, MDO or sign grade foam, not to exceed 40 sq. ft., with the condition that the awning brackets be reviewed by a HARC subcommittee. Second by McCalla. Approved 9 – 0. 8. Public Hearing and discussion and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for renovation of a non-historic structure at City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 1, a 0.0882 acre portion located at 700 South Austin Avenue. CDC-2006-021 Rowe presented the staff report. She stated there was not a precedent by which to review this project. The applicant is proposing to add a second floor to the existing structure consistent with the second floor that was a part of the original structure. There would also be a significant renovation of the first floor including new windows on first and second floors of Austin Avenue and 7th Street, new entry and doors on Austin Avenue and 7th Street, awnings and a cornice based on the original structure. The new entries on both Austin Avenue and 7th Street would be recessed. Historic photographs show that there was once a two story wood Victorian structure on the site. The current structure has been said to date from the 1920’s or 1930’s though no specific documentation has been found to confirm a certain date. The structure is listed as Medium Priority on the Historic Resource Survey and as a non-contributing structure in the Williamson County Courthouse National Register District. See “Special Considerations” for more detailed information. Chair Sparks made comment that he wanted to carefully consider the replacement of this building even though it is considered a “non-contributing” building. His stated in his opinion a building that is over 70 years old makes a significant contribution to the square. The matching of the second floor addition and its compatibility to the existing building and surrounding buildings is important. The applicant’s architect, Bryant Boyd, was available for questions. He gave a bit of history of the building and why the building looks the way it does today. There was a fire in the 1930’s that burned the building down and it was rebuilt at that time, hence the architecture of the time. He tried to apply the design elements from that era but did not feel that it fit the area. He is trying to improve the building’s use and compliment the design. He explained that they intend to build a steel infrastructure inside the existing brick frame and to stabilize the foundation by replacing the flooring and footings. This will also stabilize the shared wall with the adjacent building. They are proposing the lower level will remain brick and the upper level will be EFIS finished. Commissioners discussed the possibilities of brick and the upper floor finish. They discussed the pros and cons of EFIS versus stucco and the durability of the materials. Commissioners also discussed the vertical elements of the side of the building and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting June 22, 2006 upstairs windows. Motion by Easley to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for design, materials (including texture) and paint colors with the condition that the first floor facade on Austin Avenue use brick as the primary material and that the second floor windows on the 7th Street side of the building be elongated an extra one and a half feet. Second by Chapman. Easley amended her motion to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, with the exception of the window height that would be brought back to a HARC Subcommittee for review. Second by Chapman. Approved 9 – 0. Original motion approved 9 – 0. 9. Discussion and possible action to direct staff to amend and expand the Design Guidelines for Downtown Georgetown including amending Chapter 9, Signage and adding Chapter 13, Paint. Rowe asked that Commissioners review Chapter 9 and Chapter 13 and possibly make revisions to make the guidelines more specific to the desires of the Commission. She proposed a subcommittee to investigate and draft new guidelines to bring back to the Commission for recommendation to City Council. Easley, O’Donnell, McCalla, and Knight volunteered to serve on the Subcommittee. Gordan Baker of Baker Signs was available to consult with the group on signage. Motion by Easley to appoint a subcommittee to investigate signage and paint and make recommendation to the Commission. Second by Damon. Approved 9 – 0. 10. Comments, questions and general discussion from Commission and/or staff. A. Reminder of the next meeting of the Commission on July 27, 2006. Motion by Truehardt to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. _______________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Chair Mike Sparks Attest, Secretary, John Truehardt