Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.30.2007Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting August 30, 2007 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. Georgetown Municipal Complex 300-1 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Members Present: Rick O’Donnell, Chair Tommy Gonzalez, Vice-chair; John Chapman, Chris Damon, J.C. Johnson, and Nancy Knight and Linda McCalla. Members Absent: none Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Principal Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chair O’Donnell. 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: 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 July 26, 2007 meeting. Motion by Gonzalez to approve the minutes of July 26, 2007 meeting. Second by Chapman. Approved 5 – 0. Regular Agenda: 2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for façade and roof renovations at Cody’s Addition, Block I, Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, ±0.25 acres located at 1201 Church Street. (CDC-2007-018) Cook gave an overview of the application, stating this project had come before the Commission before for comments, and then last month for a CDC and the commission had not approved the CDC and wanted revisions based on the new information that was brought forth that showed this was a possible structure of historical significance. The applicant, Tom Nichols serving as the agent/architect, redesigned the roofline as requested added the terracotta tile roof and made changes as requested by the commission. Mr. Nichols provided pictures of the interior roof structure and tried to show some of the history of the building that was uncovered in the interior remodeling. He stated the owner was trying to be respectful of some of the structure’s history but is also trying to improve the building and scale to match the adjacent neighborhood. The Commissioners and Mr. Nichols debated which remodel era should be used since it has Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting August 30, 2007 been many different “styles” over the centuries. Commissioner Johnson stated he wanted the building restored back to the 1950’s style grocery store because it remained in that style the longest. The Commissioners were concerned about the character of the building being on a major thoroughfare of the city. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance based on compliance with the applicable Design Guidelines as listed in the staff report and presented at this meeting. Second by Commissioner Chapman. Motion approved 3 – 2. (Knight and Johnson opposed.) 3. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for building renovations, including replacing canopies, installing awnings, paint color and architectural changes; site design; and an alternative parking plan at Glasscock Addition, Block 2, Lots 1-2 and 6-8, ±0.782 acres located at 904 South Main Street and 909 South Austin Avenue. (CDC-2007-020) Cook presented an overview of the changes the applicant was proposing. The applicant and architect had been before the Commission at a previous meeting to discuss their concept and to get input from the Commission before bringing in a specific plan. The application was submitted with the suggested changes made. Cook explained the project was reviewed as an infill project and stated the suggested changes met all the guidelines, including planned landscaping and screened dumpsters. The applicant is requesting approval of an alternative parking plan as there are not enough spaces on site to accommodate the requirements. They are asking to use spaces on 9th Street, Main Street and the city parking lot across Main Street. The Commissioners discussed the downtown parking inventory and asked staff to look into the situation to make sure parking spaces weren’t being reallocated that had already been assigned to another business. The Commissioners made overall positive comments. They liked the better use of design, matching the faux façades to the tenant spaces, more simple façades and screening of the HVAC units on the roof. The question was raised about the signage of each of the tenant spaces and how the architectural details on each tenant space would limit the signage allowed. The owner stated he would consider that and try to adjust the design slightly. Cook presented the color swatches that were to be used on each of the façades. The Commission suggested testing all the colors as swatches on the building before painting the entire building these colors. The owner agreed to do that. Motion by Knight to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance based on compliance with the applicable Design Guidelines for site design, an alternative parking plan, building renovations, including demolition of existing and installation of new canopies and awnings, paint color and architectural changes. The following conditions apply; 1. Lighting and landscaping shall meet the Unified Development Code requirements, 2. Approval of the facade design gives the applicant latitude to change the architectural detail of the Austin Avenue elevation with staff approval based on a poll of the HARC membership, and 3. Approval of the paint colors is subject to staff approval after color samples have been applied to the building and staff’s poll of the HARC membership. Second by Gonzalez. Motion approved 5 – 0. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting August 30, 2007 4. Comments, questions and general discussion from Commission and/or staff and reminder of the next meeting of the Commission on September 27, 2007. Cook announced a public meeting will be held on September 13 to present the Draft Updated Historic Resource Survey that has been prepared by Hardy, Heck & Moore. All Commissioners are encouraged to attend. This will be held in the City Council Chambers. Cook also announced a HARC training is being scheduled for the month of September and possible times were discussed. Motion by Knight to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. __________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Chair, Rick O’Donnell Attest, Secretary, Nancy Knight