HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_04.24.2008Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
Meeting April 24, 2008
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers, located at 101 E. 7th St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Rick O’Donnell, Chair; Tommy Gonzalez, Vice-chair; J.C. Johnson, Nancy
Knight, and Will Moore.
Members Absent: Linda McCalla and West Short
Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Planning Director; and
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 6:01 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 March 27, 2008 regular meeting.
Motion by Gonzalez to approve the minutes. Second by Knight. Approved 4 – 0.
Regular Agenda:
2. Consideration and possible action on a request for Certificates of Design Compliance for
removing a house and facade changes at Glasscock Addition, Block 21, Lots 5-6, 7 (s/pt) and
Block 23, Lots 1-8, located at 1009 and 1105 South Church Street. (CDC-2008-010 and CDC-
2008-009)
Wyler reported that this item was pulled from the agenda by the applicant.
3. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
facade and site changes and an alternative parking plan at Lost Addition, Block 13, 0.165
acres, located at 1008 South Main Street. (CDC-2008-014)
Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking CDC approval to renovate the
exterior of the building which includes adding a second story to the rear of the building,
removing existing materials and exposing original siding while also landscaping the
property to provide a courtyard on the side of the property. This structure was built in 1925
and is classified as a medium priority historic structure according to the 1984 Georgetown
Historic Survey. The survey noted the primary significance as the building’s architecture, a
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
Meeting April 24, 2008
rare example of the bungalow style used as a commercial building. Prior to the Survey, the
building was given a faux brick facade to cover the original aging wood siding to the
building. No record of the building’s original color has been found. The applicant proposes
to restore the building to its original character and update the interior to today’s modern
professional office standards. Wyler listed the guidelines that apply to this application.
Bryant Boyd, architect for the project, was available for questions. Knight says she
appreciates the building renovation efforts but has trouble with the parking areas. Wyler
explained that the requirement, per the Unified Development Code is one parking space per
500 square feet of floor area. In this area, an alternative parking plan can be proposed and
has been. Commissioners voiced concerns about the extensive use of alternative parking
plans in this area and the lack of parking spaces that can be used due to already being
allocated. Wyler agreed to bring in a map of parking spaces in the downtown area that have
already been allocated to existing businesses.
Chair O’Donnell opened the floor for comments.
Sharon McCarty McKinnon, owner of the business located at 1003 S. Austin Ave, spoke in
regards to the parking issue. She owns the parking lot that is adjacent to the applicant’s
property. She says the lot is not always full, but that it is a private parking lot and she needs
to keep those spaces available for her employees and customers. She was also concerned
about parking of construction vehicles during the renovation of this building. She would
like her parking lot access closed off on the Main Street side of the lot if possible. She was
directed to speak to city staff for follow-up and direction.
Commissioner Johnson questioned the removal of the cast iron staircase. Mr. Boyd stated the
stairs were added in the 1960’s and are not up to present code so need to be removed.
Johnson wanted Mr. Boyd to keep the exterior side doors and the staircase. Johnson also
questioned the addition of a skylight to a historic building. Boyd said it was to improve the
natural lighting in the stairwell. Discussion was held back and forth regarding the exterior
doors. Mr. Boyd agreed to come back to the Commission once the building tenant was
secured and a decision was reached about the interior configuration.
Motion by Johnson to approve the Certificate of Design Compliance for this project as
outlined in the staff report, with the exception of the skylight addition and removal of the
exterior stairway on the north side of the building and doors which we disapprove. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Motion by Gonzalez for approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for facade and site
changes and an alternative parking plan at Lost Addition, Block 13, located at 1008 S. Main
Street as presented. Second by Knight. Approved 4 – 1. (Johnson opposed, O’Donnell for.)
Motion by Knight that the applicant must bring the landscaping and final layout (site plan)
back to the commission for approval. Second by Tommy. Approved 4 – 0.
4. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance for
signage and site changes at Montgomery Addition, Block 1, Lots 10 and 11, located at 1903
South Austin Avenue. (CDC-2008-015)
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
Meeting April 24, 2008
Wyler presented the property summary and background. He stated the applicant is seeking
CDC approval to allow for office use of a Residential Single-Family (RS) zoned property. He
explained that City Council recently passed an ordinance that allowed a change in use of a
Single-Family Residential zoned property to be used for an office, subject to standards in the
UDC Section 5.02.125, with a Special Use Permit. The change in use will include the addition
of parking (including the demolition of an existing garage), the construction of a handicap
ramp and the addition of a business sign to the building.
Wyler further explained that the applicant is currently awaiting Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council decision on a Special Use Permit (SUP) application to allow
the proposed office use of the house. He said the application is scheduled for Planning and
Zoning Commission public hearing on May 6, 2008 with first reading at City Council on May
27, 2008. If HARC wishes to approve this application it should be conditioned on the
approval of the SUP by City Council. If the SUP is not approved, the applicant cannot
proceed with the office development of this house and property.
Wyler gave the history of the house. This is the Halley House, built in 1916, and is classified
as a Medium Priority Structure in the 1984 Georgetown Historic Survey. A double garage is
mentioned as an “Outbuilding” to the primary structure, although no historic significance is
provided. Wyler suggested the applicant might have more information on the garage that he
was unable to locate.
The applicant proposes changing the use from residential to office as allowed with the
recently adopted UDC amendment and with proper approvals. Due to the current location
along South Austin Avenue and adjacent to a commercially zoned property, the applicant
has stated that a small business would suit the property best.
Wyler went on to report that a major part of the project is the addition of six parking spaces.
In the commission packets, the parking layout, currently under review by staff as the Site
Plan, is required for the Special Use Permit. Wyler said that he expects the site plan review to
be finalized before the May 6 meeting. He said staff worked with the applicant to design the
parking spaces and the use of Eco-crete, which allows drainage through the parking spaces,
to protect the large 20-inch pecan tree and other large trees on the property. He stated the
applicant is proposing to remove the existing driveway to protect more of the trees and allow
for the six parking spaces.
Demolition of the garage, which is shown to be sinking about 18 inches, will allow room for
two more parking spaces. The parking will be screened by landscaping per the site plan that
is under review by staff.
In addition, a sign proposal is being put forth for a free standing sign and a hanging sign.
The ordinance only allows hanging signs. Wyler stated HARC has the ability to approve or
allow a wall sign instead of free standing or hanging sign, if they so choose. The CDC
application includes the approval of a sign.
Jim Coulter, engineer for the project was available for questions. Chair O’Donnell asked
about the application of the Eco-crete. The engineer produced a sample and Wyler said it
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
Meeting April 24, 2008
was acceptable to the Permitting and Inspections Department, and up to code standards.
Knight said she was opposed and disappointed in this project and felt the city was
piecemealing the Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance to fit the project. She said this
property is the perfect transition from commercial into that residential neighborhood. Knight
said it is the quintessential bungalow that people expect to see on our main arteries coming
into the historic community and she was not in favor of granting a special use permit or any
of the things proposed to make this anything other than residential.
O”Donnell asked for confirmation that the Special Use Permit is to be considered by the City
Council and that the Commission was not acting on that. Wyler confirmed. Moore asked for
confirmation that the Special Use Permit is contingent upon receiving a CDC from HARC,
and that if HARC denies the CDC then the Special Use Permit cannot be issued. Wyler
confirmed.
Moore gave background on this item from the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission
meeting. He said the applicant originally requested a rezoning to commercial (C-1) zoning
through the P&Z Commission. The request was denied. After that a City Councilman
proposed the ordinance allowing this to happen and the applicant withdrew the original
application to rezone it to commercial use and applied under this ordinance to allow office
use. Moore said that there was quite a bit of opposition to the ordinance and he opposed it
and shared the views of the other commissioners. He reported the ordinance passed the
council and is in effect. He stated unless the commission can find something wrong with the
proposal, there is not much to be done. He emphasized that because of the opposition to this
from many people in Georgetown that felt any non-residential use should not be allowed
into Old Town, which is exactly what this does, the City Council discussed that there should
be a compromise. The compromise proposed would allow office use but it would maintain
as much as possible the appearance of a residential flavor of the structure. The ordinance
references the “maintaining the residential property appearance” and he said that was very
important in the debates. He suggested the Commission not use the same design criteria for
office use in the downtown zone because the yard signs and parking are not consistent with
a residential appearance. He reported that also, the people that live next to this are in a
residential used structure and he stated the Council didn’t feel the residents should have to
see a yard sign in the adjacent property because they cannot convert to office use also.
Moore thinks the sign should be attached to the building to remain unobtrusive. He also
thinks the lights on the outside of the building are not in compliance with the Design
Guidelines. The proposed lights are too bright and obtrusive. He also discussed the fact that
the proposed curb cut is half the size of the front property line and that much curb cut and
concrete is not of a residential character. He said the engineer said it is required by the city.
Wyler confirmed that the city engineer and fire department have approved the necessary
curb cut. Cook said the City may be able to look at another solution for the curb cut size.
O’Donnell asked about regulations that were used to identify the requirements for this
project and the use that would be allowed. Wyler stated the general criteria were reviewed
against the Unified Development Code for the use and the Design Guidelines. Cook shows
in the UDC that there are standard criteria that the HARC is supposed to use in reviewing
CDC applications. One is that the integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
Meeting April 24, 2008
She went on to read from UDC Section 3.13.030, “The overall character of the Historic or
applicable Overlay District is protected. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted
design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or
applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. The following may also be
considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a certificate of design
compliance: The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural and
architectural nature of the site, landmark or District, The appropriateness of exterior
architectural features, including parking and etc.” She stated those are the generic
guidelines from the UDC that can be used when something in Old Town is changing from
residential, commercial or vacant properties to commercial use. There are items that may not
have specific Guideline numbers but the Commission may apply the generic criteria from
the UDC.
O’Donnell said he doesn’t recall the HARC changing the use of a property before applying
the Guidelines before. Knight didn’t want to apply specific guidelines to a property that had
not already been approved for a certain use. She stated the city issued an ordinance that
allows this property to be rezoned to a special use, but that property has not been issued a
Special Use Permit at this time. She thinks this an inappropriate use of this home.
Motion by Knight to deny the Certificate of Design Compliance for change in use from
residential to office, site design, signage and demolition of a garage at Montgomery
Addition, Block 1, Lots 10 and 11, located at 1903 South Austin Avenue. Second by Moore.
Motion is carried, CDC is denied, 4 – 0.
O’Donnell says he thinks this puts the Commission in an odd position. Gonzalez says the
ordinance passed that made this possible to be considered, and then City Council asks the
Commission to ignore everything they are here to do. Knight says she agrees. If they
already had a Special Use Permit and this it (CDC application) was in front of the
commission, then they would have to consider the Guidelines.
5. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance to
remove a structure at City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lots 5-6, and 7-8 (W/PTS), located at 215
West 3rd. (CDC-2008-016)
Wyler read the caption, presented the staff report and listed the guidelines that apply to this
application. The structure is classified as a Medium Priority Structure according to the 1984
Georgetown Historic Survey. Recently, the property owner gave the applicant permission to
move the structure from the property so that it could be relocated to Liberty Hill for
renovation purposes. He reported the applicant said she was unaware that HARC approval
was required and began the preparations for the relocation. Subsequently, the applicant was
advised of the City’s process for building relocations in the Downtown Overlay District.
The house currently sits on lifters in preparation for moving. All further preparations for
removal have been stopped until HARC approval is given. The windows are boarded up
and a portion of the structure was removed to allow for safe transport. Before the moving
preparations took place, the structure was falling apart and in dire need of renovation.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
Meeting April 24, 2008
The applicant proposes moving the structure to Liberty Hill, Texas so that it can be
renovated on her property and given another chance at becoming a livable structure. She
stated to staff that the owner has no intentions of renovating the structure and she wanted to
move the house before it was considered a “Dangerous Building”. If it is deemed
“Dangerous” the City of Georgetown Inspection Services will require its removal.
Wyler went on to report a moving route has been approved by the Georgetown Police
Department. The Code Enforcement Department stated they had no jurisdiction on the
maintenance of historic structures. Wyler also noted the Section in the UDC that states the
Historic District Planner and the Building Official have guidelines to use to address the issue
of neglect of historic structures. This gives Code Enforcement the authority to enforce the
guidelines. However, since this building has been neglected to date and in an effort to save
the structure, staff recommends approval of the CDC to allow the structure to be removed
from the property.
Motion by Johnson recommending approval of the CDC for removal as recommended by
staff. Second by Moore.
The Commission discussed the application of the section of the UDC that can be applied to
structures in the Downtown Overlay Districts to address neglect of historic structures.
Knight requested a letter be sent to property owners informing them of the ordinance and
the new enforcement and the need for them to maintain their property.
Question called. Motion approved 4 – 0.
6. Comments, questions and general discussion from Commission and/or staff and reminder of
the next meeting of the Commission on May 22, 2008
Knight requested discussion of the property maintenance item be added to the next agenda.
Cook reported that the Design Guideline update workshops were being planned and
budgeted by staff and those dates would be discussed at the next meeting.
Cook also discussed future training sessions for new members, possibly including existing
members. She said she would try to schedule that in the near future.
Meeting adjourned by Chair at 7:24 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Chair, Rick O’Donnell Attest, Secretary, Nancy Knight