HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_10.23.2014Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: October 23, 2014
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Workshop
Minutes
Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present:, Nancy Night, Acting Chair; Jennifer Brown,; Richard Mee, and Mary Jo Winder.
Commissioners in Training present: Rodolfo Martinez
Commissioners absent: Anna Eby, Ty Gipson, David Paul, and CIT Barbara Price
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Andreina
Davila, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Call to Order by Knight at 7:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. The meeting was
delayed so quorum could be present.
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the
Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes.
This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meeting Act, Texas Government Code 551.
Legislative Agenda:
B. Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 25, 2014 regular meeting.
Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0.
Items F and G were moved up on the agenda to discuss together and to accommodate the applicant. Please see
the items actions below.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
exterior alterations for the property located at 202 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description
of City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 1‐2, 7‐8 (E/PT).
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant requests approval for exterior paint on the 1930’s
structure. Paint color chips were made available at the meeting. Winder questioned why the 1930’s
structure was designated a low priority structure. Synatschk explained that many changes had been
made that changed the priority level.
Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed it.
Motion by Mee to approve the CDC as submitted with the colors presented. Second by Brown.
Approved 4‐0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
infill construction for the property located at 913 Walnut Street bearing the legal description of
Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres. This item was pulled by staff after Zoning Board of
Adjustment action.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: October 23, 2014
infill construction, exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 202 South College
Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 15‐20, College Place, Cabinet 1, Slide 134.
Synatschk presented the staff report. A materials board was presented at the meeting. The applicant
is requesting to approval for infill construction, exterior alterations and signage. The infill
construction will complete the build out for the College Place Apartments, adding 5 units.
Additionally, the applicant wishes to repaint the existing structures to coordinate all three buildings.
The request also includes one flush mounted sign, mounted on the east wall of the new structure.
The design meets the Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval.
The applicant, Carl Illig used his time to explain the signage on the side of the building. He also
stated that he was upset about the questions that were raised at the previous meeting regarding
handicapped parking, stating they had no bearing on HARC’s review.
Winder asked about the future development on the adjacent property. Illig said he would not
commit to specifics but it was possible that they would build four more units on the property, or
possibly storage units.
Motion by Mee to approve the application as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0.
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 204 East 8th Street bearing the legal
description of Glascock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 – 8, 0.3306 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a CDC for an approximately 1100
square foot outdoor patio with a fence, located within the front and side yards of the historic
structure. The application includes a request for door signage and new sign mounted on the existing
freestanding sign bracket. The proposed fence will be of wrought iron and the patio will be
constructed of masonry materials compatible with the historic context of the property. The signage
will replace the existing freestanding sign in the front “yard” and will be added to the entry doors.
The next item on the agenda also explains the need to an alternative parking plan, which is necessary
due to the additional seating brought on by the outdoor patio. The parking calculations with the
additional seating require an additional two parking spaces. There are two spaces at the front of the
structure, along 8th Street that would be allocated for this restaurant. The parking spaces would be
designated for the restaurant, but cannot be designated for only the restaurant use, anyone will be
allowed to use the spaces as they are in the public right‐of‐way. There were no commissioner
questions.
Knight opened the public hearing.
Larry Olsen, 300 East 9th Street, welcomed the restaurant to the neighborhood and recommended
approval of the applications.
Ann Seamon, 204 East 8th Street, also welcomed the new restaurant and says they have good food.
She is looking forward to eating there often.
Knight questioned the applicant, Pat Mullins, on the type of fencing he chose. He explained that he
did not want a decorative fence with points or anything on top that would possibly hurt someone.
The sole point of the fence he explained was to keep children, and adults, from running around and
into the street.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: October 23, 2014
Motion by Mee to approve the CDC‐2014‐041 as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0.
G. Discussion and possible action to approve an Alternative Parking Plan for the property located at 204
East 8th Street, bearing legal description of Glascock Addition, Block 9, Lots 7‐8, 0.3306 acres.
See discussion above. Staff recommends approval.
Motion by Mee to approve the Alternative Parking Plan as submitted. Second by Winder.
Approved 4 – 0.
H. Discussion of proposed historic district street signs.
Synatschk explained that the city had an approved budget to replace the street signs in the historic
districts and presented options that were being considered. He stated they were checking on possible
designs and shape costs. Mee suggested incorporating the courthouse dome or an element that is
specific to Georgetown. They all agreed the signs need more character.
I. Discussion of proposed Historic and Architectural Review Commission UDC revisions – Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager.
Brewer’s presentation began with a summarized history of why the changes to the UDC are being
proposed. She cited the Zucker Report of the Planning Department, the City Council direction and
the business forum that was held earlier in the summer. Staff is also looking at changing the bylaws
of the commission, has developed operating procedures and is providing several training
opportunities for commissioners and the public. She explained that the Historic Resource Survey
was to be revised every year, last done in 2007 and the results were not quality work. Staff is trying
to get the funding through a CLG grant to redo it this next year, making sure everyone that has
property in the survey is notified, and looking at the historic significance of the structures not just the
age.
She stated there would be other training opportunities coming in the next several months, including
CAMP, which is a National Registry based training with speakers from all over the country. She also
stated the city’s website is being redesigned and hopefully would make it easier for citizens to find
links to historic preservation and downtown codes.
The UDC changes were shown in a spreadsheet and included topics such as clarifying dangerous
structures, recommending more staff review for minor alterations, mechanical screening, common
fences, signage, and demolition of non‐historic structures.
Comments by the commissioners:
Mee questioned the makeup of the demolition subcommittee, which currently consists of three
commissioners. He suggested adding the Building Official, an Engineer, or an Architect to make sure
professional opinions are being given in those circumstances. He also stated the demolition
subcommittee should be able to make recommendations to the entire commission before voting.
Brewer said she thought this was appropriate to give them building safety and integrity of the
building information.
Knight questioned changing the Historic Preservation Officer position from the Planning Director to
the Historic District Planner, citing that the Director would be allowed to designate another person in
case it’s needed, whereas the Planner position would not allow that flexibility. Knight then
suggested that the definition of minor properties be very specifically defined and suggested using a
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: October 23, 2014
percentage of the cost of construction. There was further discussion of the distinction between minor
and major projects.
Brewer concluded the discussion by appreciating the work that Andreina Davila put into the
document so far. She also stated she wants the commissioners to have more of this type training,
including open discussion which provides a better learning environment.
J. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. None.
K. Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. Synatschk reported there would not be a November
Sign Subcommittee meeting and the regular meeting in November would be combined with the
regular December meeting, because both regular dates are holidays, and would be held on Thursday,
December 11th.
L. Adjournment.
Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Mee. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Nancy Knight, Acting Chair Attest, Richard Mee