HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.25.2013City of Georgetown Texas
Historic and Architectural R¢ w Commission M¢¢ting
Minutes
Thursday, 7uly 25, 2013, at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers and Courts Building
10] E. yin Street, Geor etown, TX 75626
Members ['resent: Jennifer Brown; Nancy Knight; Richard Mee; David Paul; Tim Urban and Mary Jo
Winder.
Co _ m Tra ui +�: Martine Rousseau and Raymond wahrenbrorek
Commissions s Absert-. Anna Eby, excused
Staff Rre nb Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; LaurieBrewer, Assistant City Manager; Jackson Daly;
Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Vice -Chair Night opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and explained the meetv-.g procedures.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is
esponsible Eor hearing and taking Final. action o applications, by . mg Ccrtificatas of Dasign
Compliance based .upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified
Dwelopment Code.
(Commission may, at any Hme, r cess the Regular Session to c n an Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetixrgs Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
welcome and Meting Proc¢durea:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (limited to ten (10) m utas unless stated otherwise by theCommisston)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Ciki2en5"
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
" Those who speak must turn in speaker form, located at the back of the r m, to. the recording.
rntary before the item that they wish to address begin Each speaker will be permitted to address
the Commission one time only For a maximum e:Fthme (3) mmutas.
Leeislatfve Aeenda:
1. Review and possible approval of the manutes from tha Juno 27, 2013 Regular HARC meeting
Motion by Mee xb approve the minutes as present¢d_ Second by Urban_ Approved 6 — O.
2. Pieservation Brief —Matt SynaYschk, Historic Planner
Synatsck>_k presented the History of Preservation in C' orgetawn.
3. Public Hearing and possible action o a Certificate of Design Compliance Request For exterior
alterations and signage at City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot Y(NE/PT), .0391 acres, located at 124
East 8��� Street. (CDC -2013-030)
nd AmM[ectu„a1 Reviaw Cpmm�scion Pag¢ t of 5
JuIY 25 �2[51.i
Synatschk preserved the application_ The applicant seeks approval from HARC for exterior
changes to the historic strvety re located. The propose -d changes u�dudc rc-pair o£ the- pressed n etal
fa4ade red a w paint eche .The Appticanx also requ sts the addiHo of a patio n the st side
of the str cru of top patio wit]-. stairs vtod on the st wall, and a w tie rod c� npy to
replace the existing a mg. Staff recommends approval of all items. The applicant, Cary Rabb was
available for gvesHon�t
Knight opened the Public Hearing. There w c rel speakers, each were a]luwed three mmukcs
unlc-ss nuked sax manures with addition of someone else s minutes.
Susan Firth, 1403 Olive Strut, shared c � about Hie look of Che restaurant not being c istent
with the v - of the dow nkown master plan, the r oftop that w. s proposed, the r al of a
protected trcc^and the patio that w uld block the city walkwaysl She cited the Downtown Master
Pla nd the Design Gui delfin s chat supports street trees and walkabiliry. She asked for the item to
be tabled until further information was presented.
Ann Seaman, 8]O S. Church Street, shared c s about then red ovtd our m c that w uld
be allowed, along with the patio blocking the i"d walk that w oalready s all. She brought up the
privacy i aimed asked whc-rc the dumpsker would be storeda She asked that the item bc- tabled
until furtherein formation was gathered.
Gary Seaman, 8]O S. Church Strcct, c r�plaincd about the proposed rooftop patio having a direct
line of site into his r sid ence behind the building. hie expressed c n that the city w ung the
"East 6��� Street nzodd" of Austin to develop Georgetown, and in their front yard. He i ots
opposed to a ial u chart buk asked for c nsidcration of the nearby rc sidencee. I-Ia also
mentioned the Im Toric cv rbing that he asked to be saved.
Liz Mealy, 120 E. S�^ Street, o s the building next door to the applicant and asked for the item to
be cabled until design v s from all sides c uld be c sid Bred. She is delighoed that the business
will ba open again but w rets c nsidera Hon of the lighting and wha[ the patio and strcekscapc will
look like in the winter. She also expressed concern about the handicapped sidewalk and
accessibility of the business.
Ross Hunter, 6 m utas (3 m utas from Linda Johnson), 90A S. Walnut Streep stated Hze application
as deficient and'he asks -d HARC' to gives specific instructions to The applicant about what must be
presented. He said the staff analysis m -sed points because not enough information w s given. He
opposed the taking of a public tree andtreplacing it with umbrellas, privarizing Hze public sidewalk,
and questioned the transition from c al uses To residential uses to that area He asked the
comm�ss�m�ers to be "clever" m their actions
Rcnec H��rn 6 m utcs (3 m utas from Rick Williamson), 1252 S. Auskin Avcn ue, explained that
the Design Guidelines w e based o of opinions, not the c ceps of a few. She read
the Goals of Area ] are pedestrian o � ntedsfra redly walkable streets. "I"I � side -walks m that area
� ntly n and the city should be looking aF widening the sidewalks, not n ng
them. rST.e statedrthe application w mplete and the elemen cs w re not present for the
m nr s to eke a good dcc�simzc She asks -d them to Table Hze application until more
m Formation could be presented.
With no further speakers, Knight closed the Public Hearing and asked the app Keane of hew uld
like to respond. Cary Rabb sia ted hew willing to take the- r oftop pakio off the application but
uld like to keep the sidewalk cafe* and work with the city to design the sidewalk He explained
[hat the tree is an Arizona Ash and that is nok protccied by the city ordinance so will choose to
- .cbioec[v.al Rev+aw c.-r.�....�zs...n rage z of s
Jutr za �za is
e the tree whose roots are damaging the side -walk. I -Ie would like ko keep the facade as
desagned.
Tbc c - ens vited to ask questions. Knight asks -d if a tenant had be -c -n s cu cd for the
buil dingR Rabb responded not at that time, bui they were hoping to find a to -Want that would be a
restaurant, retail or ice cream shop.
Urban asked if there w Bally apublic/ private parmcrship as described to develop the sidewalk
cafes a Synatschk skated the Street Department Superintendent, Mark Miller, has discussed the
propo al and approved tree c ceps in the city right -o( -way. He cited the ex mples of Austin
Avenue and 7"' Streeq Main and 9"'� Street as comparable public outdoor areas with scaring in the
r;ghr-nf-way.
Mcc- asked why if there w of a tenanq the applicant was proposing a ov tdoor patio. Rabb
explain E -d that he [houghtat would make the property more marketableR
Winder asked about the posting requirements for notice of this application. Synarschk explained
[hat all HAKC applica Huns w e posted a- sign on the property fora um of 15 days prior Fo
the meeting with the public Fearing, per stake statute. There a regula ti ns regarding mailing
of notice to adjacent property ow Winder also asked about what the commission w=-
. upposed for stating there w of a ugh details xo offer a approval on all the. items
presonted. Synattschk explained that they w e to r my those,ilems that w e lists -d in tree
Design Guidelin nd presen fed. Sidewalkefu miry e, and sidewalks w not on the application.
If items c listodin the lJesiga Guidclin s but referred to the Master Plan, and those items met
the crixeria rthere would not be any HARCEreview.
Knight asked the c - s to discuss Che applica hon isms indtvidv ally. They w uld not be
dis : - mg signage- ntiha oYl c applicatio s pr ntd. They -w also told that the br ek
Easing Church Street w uld not be repainted;; c.nly repoimcd a any for repairs. Winder
asked Cor the photos o! the historical canopy that Synatschk had stated exist d.
Motion by Winder to tabic the application until pictssres and adequate information were
provided. Second by maul. Approved 4 — 2. (Mee and Urban opposed.)
4. Public Hearing and possible action o a Ccrtifica tc of Design Compliance Request for exterior
alts rations at City of Georgeko wn, Block 28, Lot t-8, 1.32 acres, located at 500 5. Austin Avenue.
(CDC -2013-025)
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicanr seeks approval from F-fARC for infill
nstruction o fisting sit. The infill project is located nn Hies uHsast corner of rhe property
nd includes a bandstand facing northwesx xowards the restaurant with an Automatic Teller
Machine (ATM) m nted in the r r facing s utheast towards Austin Avenue. "I"be A'fM c opy
portion of the structure will ex tnd slightly o r the sidewalk and landscaping wal be placed
around the suru ctu re m obscure the site of rhe A'FM. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Rusty Winkstem, n e and applicant w=- ailablc For questions. I -Ie explained tF+at hew need to
nlarge. the outdoor v of the Monument I2esraurant and Biergarten and thought That by doing
this he uld bring pedesrnans From tl�c dowa�town area, further off the Square, extending the
sgnare to the north.
Knight opened the Public Hearing, there was one citizen speaker
Susan Firth, 1403 Olive Street, stn [ed [her the Monument has brought so much business and
- ��nuc�cm.e�a.-..�e... eumm�ss�u.. F, ..es
fwy a�zu �a
otoriety to Georgetown, but questioned the installation of an ATM at 9�at corner. Shs felt it w uld
be rc-dundareq acro s the street from an existing ATM, and inappropriate For fhat corner. She noted
it lacked signage and light"ng-
Knight closed the Public Hearing.
W v-tkstem explained that hew rated to put in a bandstand on that � of his tot cued the Extraco
ATM w uld help him pay for thee. He realizes that the Bank of America ATM is popular. but states
it is dangerous for that portion of 6"° Street.
Paul questioned the location of the bandstand, stating the- only thiazg in front of it would be a grassy
- Wirekstem expla fined that his intention w s to open up the biergarten fencing and have some
of the seaffi�g cxtsnded onto the gr _ sy area wl en the band was playing.
Urban questioned the different architectural style of the Monum¢re t, then w bandstand has a
pitched r of, while the Monumcni has a Flat r of. W inkstem c-xplaincd that hc- w - ng toward
w look with the expansion of the site. Urban expressed concern about the design being geared
� ward fu to r¢ buildings that M1ave not been plarereed-
Motion by Mee [o approve the applica[ion For [h¢ CSC a ubmiit¢d- Second by Winder.
Motion a nded by Urban to have the applicant explore the flat r of architectural style and
allow it to b¢ approved by staff iF chosen. Second by Winder. Vote on thea rednz¢nt failed, 2
— 4 (opposed Knigh Y, Brow -n, Mee and Paul-) Original motion passed, 4 — 2 (Knight and Brown
opposed-)
S. Update and discussion o a Certificate of Design Compliance request For exterior alt¢ra tions at
Glasscock Addition, Block 26, Lot 2 (S/PT), -1928 acres, located at 1006 Ash St (CDC' -2013-01 l)
SynatschK reported that the applicant has a retractor and will be rc submitting a na.w
application for hsr remodel by August 1 to be pla ed on the August 22 agenda.
6. Questions and comments from HARC Commissioners in Training
There w o questions bet Wahren Brock stated he had a friend that ha d asked for assistance- with
a property and Sy-r.atschk was very helpful and Wahrenbroch was appreciative.
7. Updates from staff and rem order aboux the August 12, 2013 Sign Subcommittee and the August 22,
2013 HARC meetings.
Syreatschk stated there would not be a Sign Subcommittee on August 12�^, no applications.
"the is a Do Mown Master Pla update m eting c nd w rkshop on August 6^- at the Library. "Phis
w illrbe a posted public meeting if HARC m _tubers would like to aricn d. The Downeown Masker
Plan update process has a wsbsi to with a ser ey: ww w.dkmasF 1
Urban expressed c - _ about the applications that have been c ng before the c sse n.
Ha feels that the Tei s I-listo al Co s- n (THC) a chitectural r nd¢ regs that have bccno
submitted a a apprcop oats and m epr oi�t the applicatio Yle stafes3they a of en
arcl-.itectu rel r nderings and do no4 inclu de`e ugh detail to mak¢ a reformed dcc sion,�but the
applicants thing they have approved drawings. Synatschk explained that the r nderings a nt
to be c ceptval, not actual and that there should be a letter that a mpanics the drawings theta
gives the disclaimer that they a of m nt for structural or design review. Urban feels the THC
gives the applicant false hope when the drawings are tssued-
Other commissioners complained about the lack of infox-matiore rhaz is coming through in the
„a n.a,u��..,��ai a���e.,. e�,,,.,,�s.���� e..K� cars
lwy z�, zots
applications, c34ing. they cannot approve a cept, but they a e being asked to approve an
application that ism affect a c rcpt of what the applicant ina nds to do. There is a
mplaint of the presentations Hwa[ a e given, stating not enough information is presented 3n the
packets to s}.ow what is actually being proposed. The commissioners felt like they a e being
"blindsided" by the staff when the information is presented at the meeting. Mee gave the example
of the c. ropy in the meeting_ ]'here w o details of the s of the canopy, the lighting, o
whether there w vld bo lighting and the materials proposed3G They were asked to approve a
ca opy with no details. They all expressed conren�s.
Krtight asked Synatschk for the next prescrvahon Brief to cover the review of site plans by HARC
8. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Approved, N y Krrig}it, Vice- hair Attest, Richard e
mhltecmcal Rw�ew Ca�mmuson Page 5 aF5
I��y zs. zots