HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_08.01.2013City b£ Georgetown, Texas
His[oric and Archit¢ctural R¢vi¢w Commission Me¢tiug
Minutes
Thursday, August 1, 2013, at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers and Cossrts Building
1Ol E. 9�^ Street, Geor etown, TX 98626
Members Present Anrta Eby., Chair; Nancy Knight; Rich and M¢¢; Tim Urban and Mary Jo Winder.
Commissioners m Train Martine Rousseau, and Raymond Wakzreubrock
commissioners Absent Jennifer Brown and David Paul
StafF Present Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Jackson Daly,
Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recordiug Secretary.
Chair Eby opened the meeting at 6:09 p.m. and explained the meeting procedures. She explained treat
e tMs w a Special Called maetiug to discuss a item that Fuad been tabled at the last meeting, the
Public Hearing had already been held, but the Commission would Near public speakers again. in
accordance wick+ Courzc0 standards. The order of business would proceed as if this was a regular item.
T/xe Historic and ArcTzi tectural Review Commission, appotnted by the MayoY and the City CouncYt, is resprznsibte
for hearing rsrzd taking final action o apphcatiaus, by i mg Cert �catea of Design Compliance based zsporz the
City Councit adopted Downtown Design Gu.idetirzes and Ilntfi'ed Devetapment Gode_
(Commission »zay, at any time, v s the Regular Session to c n Executive Sessiun at the request a_f the
Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or Zegat counsel for any pw-pose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Governzrzent Code Chapter SSZJ
W Zcome arzd MeeHu>* Proredures:
st Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Pimited to ten (z O) m ute unless seated otherwise by the Commission)
Questzans from commission co se Viand Applicant
comments f. -am citize„a Y
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative process
Cmrzmtssinn Action
v Those zvho speak must [urn i 'speaker form, Located at the back f the r m, to the r oz-dtng secretary b f r.
the item that [hey wish to addr ess Legens. Each speaker wilt be permitted to address the Connraission ane time e
orzly far a maxirnum of three (3) minutes.
Legislativ¢ A�¢nda:
1. Discussion and possible action o a C¢rtiHcate of Design Compliance Request for exterior
alcera tions at City of Georgetown, Block 52, LOT1(N E/PTj, .0341 aeras, located aY124 Easy 8��� Street.
(CDC -2013-030)
Synatsckrk reported that the applicant was asking approval of the paint, the canopy ,the patio to the
est side of the building, and the reinstallation of the ¢est side exterior door. He stated the iu teat
uld be to keep the historic curbing as asked at the previous meeting and he provided pictures of
the historical canopies as requested. He also stated that the comnusszou would not be voting on the
,.a .ar�nue�m�a� ae...e..- eo.,,,,,:�mn rage � or a
��s���� y mots
vel of the tree as that was not in their review parameters, arzd he asked the public to not
discuss the tree.
Cary Rabb, true applicant, explained that he was asking HARC for approval of the concepts of some
of these items sin a he w nable to provide the exact details. But before he spent the money to
design the exact details, he Headed a general approval and elven he will f:trd a tenant and fiarish the
details.
Conunissioners w � mvitad to ask questions. Krvfght began by asking why the applicant was
allowed to submitcan application that did not include the items from the required checklist.
Synatschk explained these trot al] items on the checklist were to be submi tted with every application,
each project is different.
Winder asked why the patio had to be on the Church Street side of the building. Syaatschlc
responded there was not enough room on the 8�^ Street sidewalk for a patio.
Chair Eby opened the Public Hearing.
Larry Olsen, 300 E. 9�^ Street, (3 ext a t utes given by Ed Olsen) Mr. Olsen presented a algid
drawing oP the patio and per hes m a -nts thea s to the patio, due to the fire codec would
decrease the number of people allowed in the restaurant from 49 to 66. Hc- also stated kha door
uld not ba used as egr s to a sidewalk that w s blocked by outdoor funriture. His concErn
was with the proposed, shared sidewalk agreement will. the city.
Diane Guame, 122 E 8•�- StreeF, the building directly next door to the project Ms. Guam w cited
about the w bus s but c entad about the pla nt of the tr sh, stating the cxtensron of the
proposed patio would c ar thea where the exist ng trash c arc placed for her and the other
neighbor. She was also concerned about the application not having a specific design to review.
Arm Seaman, S10 S. Church Street. She stated she wanted to talk about the twee, but that was off the
table. She stated the tree is to the city right-of-way and provides shade for her yard. She stated she
s okay with the patio concept but concerned about the actual design and lack of information in
the application.
Liz Mealy, 120 E. S^� Street IVIS. Mealy w n erred about the locmtion of the trash r cep [acles for
the restaurant and where they would go. �Shcn- was also concerned about the lack of design details
nn the application.
Dwight Richter, 206 S. Main St Came to speak against baking the tree down.
j.C. Ioly�son, 303 E. 9�^ Street Mr. john son expressed c nc about the lack of information on the
application and the guidances of staff to the t L He said there w not enough
m formatiorz on the c- ropy, s e, depth, and widths Theresi.s not mention of there the garbage will
go. He stated the commtsstoners owed it to the citizens to delay action on this applicahon.
T2oss Hunter, 9p8 S. Walnut Street. (3 minutes shared From Dwayne Boydston.) Mr. Hunter
expressed c n that the commissioners and citizens w re being "sidelined" at the last m ute by
not enough information, n caled drawings, and no in eormarion on the patio or the redesigned
handicap rarup. He stated HARC cart demand that staff provide m nFormation and in
timely m He asked for the item to be cabled again w�til moreoinformation was provided by
the applicaatr
Gary Seaman, 810 S. Church. (3 m utes shared From Roy I eek-) Mr. Seaauan lives behind the
subject property. He discussed the historical curbing and said that although he appreciates seaff
-�.mu�.�ai [z�.,.�... co...n.��s.o.. rases i ota
..g..sit r, zor3
entioning it, it is not practical He suggested extending the curb and preserving the rings in the
rete- He s[a ted those w almost the last historical rings left on the square. He applauded the
r Eor restoring the fagade like Mr. Rabb had i[ originally. He was c xnad about the width
of the patio and the possibility that workers from the mstauravri would v.secthe back alley for
smoking and pur trash in his yard.
Rick Williamson, 204 Holly StrecT_ (3 m vtes shared from Marc Tru xillo.) Mr. William � _
ed about the notice of citizens of this application, stating he had only heard about it 92 s
hours before the meeting. He expressed c about the proposal of the patio on pub Sc land- He
aid the construction of that alone needs building plans and that no plans ware provided for the
n to discuss and make decisions on. He asked these the item be delayed unti3 such time as
do umtents and more information mould be produced to answer all the outstanding quesrions.
Renee Hanson, ] 252 Sou H� Austin Ave. (3 m utes shared From I-Ierb E3anson.) Ms. Hanson slated
that nothing with the application had changed s e the last public hearing where the item w s
table until m reformation c uld be gathered. She quoted the Des-igr� Guidely-a ,stating the
applicant had .�ca Followed the step to "prepare and submit a mplete application packet for
formal r She also quoted the section khat states the city is to promote friendly walkable
streets She also quoted items from Chapter H, Site Design and stated that the applica Hon itself does
not comply with the guidelines and should not be approved.
Paulo Pinto, 119 Testate. Mr. Pinto w s there to speak for saving the tree and stated he looked
forward Eo seeing what comes of this application.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:06 p. m.
Cary Rabb, the applicant was asked to respond. He stated that hew not going to spend money
nginecr until her ived approval of the c epts. He also sta tad the tree w ok
prbeected, r rch had shown chat it w nstalled in the SO's with a 30 year life span. Hew s told
the city wants it :removed. The canopy and fa4ade are proposed to go back to the original design.
Chair Eby expressed c n chat the-rc s med to be m e. a[ion about what constitutes a
mplete packet and what HARC should be r mg for rervaewn�Synatschk explained that during
the pre-applicakion c nFerence a applicant is g van all the forms, lists of fees, and a check list of
items to submit Once the app Scant has all trzc items they a e to submit those and pay the fees. If
the application submittal is not complete, the applicant is asked to provide more before the
eeting. Some items a approved administratively and not brought forward. Sla lE has to
determine the balance be ---[ween some applications khat a e brought i_ with enginee=red drawings
and those that a e broughtm ugh "n apk:n" sketch. Synakschk tries io find the common
ground. Eby clarified by stating that :f the patio is approved, the applicant w uld have to still
apply for a building permit, c mplete with building plan to meat codec mpliance, Eire code items
red p ublic safety. HARC design approval does not in abdatc the permitting r if the
ubmitta 1. for permitting is of what is approved in design c cep[ by HARC, the.�it must be
ubmitted to HARC. I -IARC is part of the public rev.ew process, but it is not the beginning and
the end.
IGnight expressed c refusion about the purview of HARC. There w a discussion of public and
private space. The airy typically pays For sidew elks, but in this case the applicant is paying to
expand the sidewalk in this area for the benefit of both the city and the applicaazt.
Commissioners then discussed the items of the application individually. It was agreed that the
front facade paint colors were good. There were many questions still about the exact details of xhe
r ��t���.� ,..a n.�m.��e.,.��� ae..,�... e�mm.ea.�., naxe s or a
A.agvst 1, 2V]3
opy, materials, lighting, etc Urban asked that the east side door be r . wed carefully against
the health and safety codes. There w o details Eor the materials and type of door. Synatschk
explained that tree applicant would be repointing tl.c brick fa4ade ora the east side of the building,
not disturbing ttae old painted wall signage. The front fagade has old pressed meta] panels o
ooden frame that would be removed_ The wooden frames would be reconstructed and the metal
panels replaced.
There was an extensive discussion of what could be approved with the irrformation provided.
Motion by Winder to approve the restructuring of the taSade, including repair of the cladding
nd the paint; to approve the conceptual drawing of the c opy and the conceptual drawing of
the patio but the applicant must return with c mpl¢te design and details for approval to
nstruct; and to approve the c cept of the ¢ask side door but to bring back the details to Z1 e\AC
before installing. Second by Mee_ Approved 4— 1 (Knight opposed.)
2. Questions. and comments from HARC Commissioners in Trair-aaztg. There were none.
3. Updates from staff and remmdcr about [h¢ August 12, 2013 Sign Svbcom.mittee 'and the August 22,
2013 HARC meetings.
There will not be err August 12 meeting. There will be a Downtown Master Plan htrblic Workshop
on Tuesday, August ea^- All Commissioners are invited.
4. Adjournment
��� �p_�.
Approved, Anna Eby, err Attest, Richard
nd Ashi[ecmcal Review Commissioxa K �of9
aagaasa 3, 2013