Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_11.09.2017'�er"s '/ City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 1.01 E. 711, Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood, Vice -Chair; Catherine Morales (alternate); and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Karl Meixsell and Scott Revier (alternate) 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 6.00 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 October 26, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Romero, second by Bohls to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0. C. Discussion and action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CDA) for the demolition of property located at 7.171 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 2.629 ac. being all that certain tract of land described in deed to Daniel Zavala Sr. out of the William Addison Survey. - Nal Waggoner, A1CP, Long Range Planner This item was continued from the last meeting. Waggoner presented the staff report to give more information that was gained since the last meeting. He explained that the applicants have agreed to the conditions of trying to salvage some of the materials and have provided a written archive of the history of the structure. The city attorney stated the commission cannot force the applicant to relocate the building. The applicant offered to answer any questions from the commission. Doug Welch, applicant, 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 these items if people will flake them. This structure is on one lot and the area is being subdivided and is currently under review. This original parcel will remain a part of the overall development. Bain allowed speakers to come forth. The original Public Hearing was held at the previous meeting. Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, reported that 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 hien to fix the house and restore it. He asked for the commission to deny the demolition request and asked to save this house. John Lawton, contractor, says he has restored many homes in old town and does not believe this Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page T of 3 Meeting; November 9, 2017 one can be salvaged. Amanda Parr, 302 East 1511, St, Preservation Georgetown (PG) President, (Susan Firth dedicated her three minutes to Ms. Parr), supports preservation and is an advocate for preserving the history of Georgetown. She also asked the commission to vote no and to be mindful of the historic structures in town. She expressed the demolition does not meet three of the four criteria for demolition as listed in the UDC and this is a case of demolition by neglect. She thinks the house is historically significant and asked the commission to deny approval of demolition. She stated PG 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. Motion by Hood to approve the demolition COA with the conditions that the materials, the hand hewn limestone substructure pier bases and the longleaf pine flooring or beams and staircase, be preserved and sold or re -used if possible, and an archive be prepared by the owner and given to the city for historic documentation of the building. Second by Romero. Approved 6 —1 (Bohls opposed.) D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for renovations of a commercial property located at 134 E. 7th Street, Suite 115. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner Waggoner presented the case. This was presented as a concept plan at the previous meeting. The applicant has requested approval for the renovation of multiple exterior elements of the commercial property including the removal of storefront windows and entry doors, the addition of an enclosed and covered patio and the installation of a shallow awning. According to the 1984, 2007 and 2016 Historic Resources Survey, this property's significance lies in its year of construction. All three surveys note that the property lacks stylistic influences and an identifiable plan. The primary historical resources available to staff are primarily the Historic Resources Survey and in particular the 1984 survey. Photos included in the 1984 indicate that the current storefront configuration existed in 1984; three (3) entry doors each flanked by a set of storefront windows on both sides. Staff did not discover any older evidence of the storefront configuration. Staff does not believe the current windows are historic however the entryway doors and hardware appear to be of significant age and are a good representation of craftsmanship. Double wooden door entries are common on 7th Street and around the square. Retaining these doors, albeit recessed, preserves historic building material and also supports the character of surrounding properties including those within the same lot. Alterations to the €a�ade of this low priority structure, as proposed will alter the storefront configuration that existed in 1984. Staff recommends that if the storefront is removed, the applicant can retain the character of the 1984 storefront by preserving the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in the building wall with the proposed material cha-nqe (iron works?. Staff recommends the window openings replaced with iron works carry the lateral lines created by the storefront windows to the east and west of the property. Preserving the lateral lines of the storefront will also support the characteristic of the surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the request for renovation with the recommendation that the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: November R, 2017 current entry door be incorporated into the recessed courtyard leading into the new storefront and that the modified storefront retain the size, shape, position and number of the 1984 storefront. Staff finds the sign design and paint selections in conformance of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The commission discussed the proposed front versus the existing and staff's recommendation. The applicant requested the bottom of the window opening be higher than what is currently existing to accommodate a bench on the other side of the wall. Hood suggested a floating bench and then the opening can remain the same configuration as currently there. Chair Bain opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the hearing. Motion by Hood to approve the COA with the window opening height to remain the same as it currently exists and matching the other window configurations along the adjacent store fronts, and to approve the ironwork as submitted with it not to exceed 42 inches in height. Second by Browner. Approved 7 — 0. E. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for the renovation and expansion of a residential property located at 904 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of 0.248 acres, lot 2,3 (N/PT) block 27 of the Addison Survey — Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager Waggoner presented the case. The applicant is proposing renovation of the existing structure including replacement of wooden windows, dilapidated siding and roof. The applicant is also proposing additions to the street facing facade including a new master bedroom suite and a garage. All alterations and improvements were described within the attached construction drawings, and are designed to meet the Design Guidelines of the Georgetown UDC including the fence addition, paint selection and in kind materials for windows and doors. Staff recommended approval of the COA. No public came forth for comments, Motion by Bohls, second by Hood to approve the COA as presented on the application. Approved 7 — 0. F. Presentation and discussion of a conceptual design of a mixed use development at 204 E 8th Street bearing the legal description of .3306 acres, Lot 7-8, Block 9 of the Glasscock Addition— Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP , Long Range Planning Manager Specifically, the applicant is seeking feedback from HARC regarding the Chapters 8 and 13 of the Design Guidelines. Waggoner reviewed those elements, Matt Synatschk, of Matkin-Hoover the applicant, reviewed the proposal. The building is proposed to be 56.5 feet tall with 3300 square feet of commercial space and three floors of residential. He stated it would be lower in height than the courthouse and the materials shown were stone and stucco. He stated they were asking for a variance for the height of the building. And that they would be trying to save the heritage tree on site. C onri-rissioners offered feedback. They questioned the amount of parkirig needed for that size of building and expressed concern. They expressed concerns about the building being out of character of the neighborhood and out of scale. They cited Chapter 13, "The overall mass of a new building should convey a sense of human scale." They did not feel this building responded Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: Noveznber 9, 2017 to that guideline. Or to policy 13.4 "Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. They did not feel this building should have a 44 foot front on Church and 811, Streets, not providing a human or pedestrian scale. They noted 13.6 was not addressed and that although some articulation was provided, the building was not divided into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings in that area. It was suggested that they step back the different areas of the building to provide a better sense of scale from the street. Synatschk thanked the commission for their comments and stated he would review the building for possible changes. G. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings. • Next HARC Demolition Subcommittee Meeting, November 15, 2417 • Next regular HARC Meeting, December 14, 2017 Adjournment Motion by Hood, second by Bohls to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Approved 7 — 0. Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Justin Bohls Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3 Meeting: November 9, 2017