Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_10.26.2017City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. Th Street Georzetownn, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Justin. Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood, Vice -Chair; Karl Meixsell; Catherine Morales (alternate); Scott Revier (alternate) and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Terri Asendorf-Hyde Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mark Moore, Acting Chief Building Official; Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:03 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration of the Minutes from the September 28, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Browner, second by Bohls to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of property located at 1111 E. Th Street, bearing the legal description of 2.629 acres being all that certain tract of land described in deed to Daniel Zavala Sr. out of the William Addison Survey — Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner Waggoner presented the staff report to give more information that was gained since the last meeting. He acknowledged Weston O'Donnell, intern who worked on a very detailed report regarding I -houses. Examples were given of existing, high priority I -houses that are found in Georgetown. Waggoner explained that the Demolition Subcommittee recommendation of approval of the demolition with conditions of salvaging materials and providing an archival history of the property. Materials found to be salvageable are the transom over the front door, the staircase, the limestone pier foundations and the foundation cross beams. Public comments were received and letters received after the posting were placed on the dais. The two written responses asked the commission to deny the demolition. Staff finds that the loss of significance is greater and inconsistent with the applicant's request. The unreasonable economic hardship is found to be consistent. Commissioners asked questions. Who enforces any conditions? The HPO. Has this been done before? fes. Is this outside the historic district? It is outside the Old Town Overlay District. How long can the demolition be delayed? 365 days which includes the time that has already been spent on the review. Browner commends staff for a fantastic job in putting the report and information together. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: October 26, 2017 Commissioners asked options for requiring salvage. Nelson discussed that there is nothing in place to allow citizens to pull salvage materials from a structure that is not safe. Doug Welch spoke about possible salvage items and likes the idea of trying to save some of the hand-hewn limestone and will work with staff to see if they Can salvage items if people will take them. This structure is on one lot and the area is being subdivided and is currently under review. This original parcel will stay part of the overall development. Bain opened the public hearing. Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, reported in 2003 the owner received a letter that stated he should clean up the property or it would be demolished. He showed a picture of the 2014 house and asked that the owner allow him to fix the house and restore it. He asked for the commission to deny the demolition request. He asked to save this house. Amanda Parr, 302 East 1511t St, Preservation Georgetown President, (Susan Firth dedicated her three minutes to Ms. Parr), supports preservation and is an advocate for preserving the history of Georgetown. She also asks the commission to vote no and to be mindful of the historic structures. She feels the demolition does not meet three of the four criteria for demolition as listed in the UDC. She states this is a state of demolition by neglect. She thinks the house is historically significant and asked the commission to deny approval of demolition. She is for development in the old town and downtown but stated the city needs to balance that with preserving the older structures, specifically the high priority structures. If this house is allowed to be demolished then they ask that a historical archive be done for this property. The Public Hearing was closed with no other speakers coming forth. Commissioners asked if they could impose a relocation of the house. Nelson reported she would have to seek advice from the legal staff. Motion. by Meixsell to wait for the city attorney to determine if the house can be located. Second by Hood. Romero is not in favor of delaying this anymore. Bohis does not believe it should be delayed, but also that the house can be rehabilitated based on not meeting the four UDC criteria. Browner is willing to listen to the subcommittee's recommendation. Hood states he regrets the demolition subcommittee's decision and wants to ask for extra time to consider the relocation of the house. Bohls would rather wait than vote for demolition. Romero understands the reason for delay and would change his recommendation to make sure all possibilities are considered. Mark Moore, Building Official, suggests getting information from a professional builder as to whether this building can actually be moved. Nelson says she can ask for the legal opinion but has no budget to seek a professional opinion from a house moving contractor. Mr. Welch says he does not believe this building can be moved feasibly and without liability because of the type of building and the location. Romero states they were told that the building would need to be cut in half to move. Commissioners debated the relocation. Motion approved 4-3 (Opposed Brmvner, Bohls, and Revier) D. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design for the renovation of a residential property located at 904 Ash Street. Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long lunge Planning Manager Waggoner explained that this property is residential, not commercial as posted. This is Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting. October 26, 2017 renovation of the existing structure with the replace of wood windows, dilapidated siding and a new roof. Additions include a new master bedroom and a garage. The applicant, Michael Worden explained that they have moved from Austin and are wanting to be a part of Georgetown and will be working from this home. Gary Wang is the architect and explained the proposed changes. They do not want to tear this structure down even though it is in disrepair. The Commissioners discussed and felt like the garage was set back enough to differentiate the new from the old and that the windows will be a good match. The back windows are still being developed according to Wang, not necessarily as presented since that will not be reviewed by the commission. The roof will be replaced with Galvalume. The siding will be replaced with the same width as the existing, using a newer material. Hood appreciates the new style windows in the kitchen area and over the garage. E. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design for the renovation of a commercial property located at 114 E 71h St, Ste 115. Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner Waggoner introduced the project. The applicant is requesting a preliminary review of this project which includes a front facade renovation, with a flush mounted sign, an awning, replacement of the front fagade windows with iron work and a patio area. Davin Hoyt explained the intent of the project. Nelson reports this is a high priority structure. Hoyt says the building is in disrepair but they want to create a better place. Hoyt explained that this will be a location for pizza pick-up, with a smaller waiting area. This is an extension of the 600 Degrees restaurant on Sch Street. They discussed the proposed awning of four feet beyond the building. The Commissioners asked questions about the iron design. Hood suggested the applicant bring back more information and details on the front fagade iron works. He suggested looking into the code requirements. Nelson responded that this is actually a low priority structure built in 1910 with little remaining historical integrity. Revier suggested that the sign and the iron work compliment each other, possibly similar materials. Hood likes the iron and the cedar that works with the cedar planters. He is concerned about the iron looking like a railing and made suggestions. Commissioners asked for more details for the final application, including a material sample. They liked the project overall concept but reserved judgement based on the changes made from the podium. F. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings. • Next Special Called HARC Meeting, November 9, 7017 • Next regular HARC Meeting, December 14, 2017 Adjournment Motion by Hood, second by Bohls to adjourn at 5:57. p.m. Approved 7 - 0. Approved, Lee Bain Chair Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: October 26, 2017 r-7- '_ Attest, J tin Bohls Page 3 of 3