HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_12.14.2017City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 711, Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood,
Vice -Chair; Karl Meixsell and Lawrence Romero and Scott Revier (alternate)
Absent: Catherine Morales (alternate)
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Glen
Holcomb, Chief Building Official; Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager; and Karen
Brost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:02 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 November 9, 2017 HARC meeting, Karen Trost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Browner, second by Bohls to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0.
Iteni C was moved to the end of the agenda but written in the original order of the agenda.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CdA) of a
four (4) story mixed use building at 204 E. 8th St., hearing the legal description of 0.33 ac.
Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 - 8, - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner
Coinnfissioner Bohls recused himself with a confliet of interest affidavit and Conxmissioner Revier tools his
seat.
Waggoner presented the staff report. This project is in area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District
and Waggoner explained how the project complies with the Guidelines. He gave a recap of the
Commissioners comments from a previous concept review meeting. The applicant made
modifications to address those comments. There are efforts to reduce height and to improve
articulation to address massing concerns. The applicant has reduced the number of units,
modified the number of roof types, and changed the variation of materials including railing types.
They feel that the changes comply with the UDC and the applicant has filed Administrative
Exceptions for the four extra feet of height and for parking requirements. Waggoner generally
finds this development complies with the Guidelines and cited his findings. Staff recommends
approval with the submitted revisions.
Revier asked about ADA parking requirements reducing the rAu—mb, r of park–ing spaces.
Waggoner responded this will be a building code requirement and is not part of the application
but staff feels they will be able to meet the requirements. Revier asked about the number of
access points on the east side. Waggoner says the applicant is working on the design to meet the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: December 14, 2017
building code and fire code criteria and is working on the setback design change and if it changes
the fagade it will be brought back to the commission.
Chair asked about height and transition zones.
Matt Synatchk, Project Manager with Matkin Hoover, explained that applicants took the
comments they were given and brought back the reduction in height to 44 feet height, broke the
project into more modules, reduced the amount of commercial space to create parking, added
more roof type variations, and reduced a material type by taking out one style of brick and made
all trim colors the same. There is a green wall to shield the parking area from the pedestrian
view. He says they pulled materials from adjacent buildings. This is in the transition zone which
calls out multi -family as appropriate and puts the building to the front property line with parking
in the rear.
Revier asked if Guideline 1.3.7 applies which requires the maintenance of the view of courthouse.
It was explained that this property is outside of the Courthouse View Corridor. Nelson explains
that there are not any current view sheds in this location. Maxseill asked which structures in the
downtown area are comparable to this height. Synatschk stated the City Hall is three stories.
Then there is the Courthouse which is more than three stories. Tamiro Plaza is 40 feet tall.
Waggoner said there is discretion by the Commission to allow the difference in height and to
determine where the grade rests to measure the maximum height.
Nelson explains the definition of the height that is given in the UDC. "The vertical distance from
grade to the average height of the highest roof structure." Staff will determine what is grade for
this property.
Hood asks about Guideline 13.4 and is concerned about the fact that this property is surrounded
by one and two story buildings and although the district allows 40 foot buildings, the guidelines
do not support that. He brings up how Synatschk should step the building down to the two story
size buildings. Synatschk presented a new design that shows some other alterations.
Bain explains the downtown master plan states a multi -family structure is appropriate if two to
three stories. Synatschk says that is contextual and that new materials should look new and not
try to recreate history.
Eric Visser spoke and wants to lay the foundation for the discussion. He thanked you to
everyone that serves and cares. He owns several properties and has been active in the
community when it has been tough. This application is driven by needing a better critical core in
Georgetown. There is a lot of misinformation online and he wants to be open to discussion. It is
not an "us versus them" situation and they are not trying to work against the public. He asks for
a definite action tonight. Nelson also asked that the commission take action in some form and if
this action is tabled that it be with specific direction.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing:
John Foliot, 209 Ehn Street, strongly opposed to the application and the mass of this structure in
this area with low buildings. Thinks the current design is ugly and it's too close to the downtown
core and will negatively affect tourism.
Erin Allen, 705 E 3rd Street, wants to speak to Mr. Visser and wants to empathize with trying to
get something through but wants to express that there is an insensitivity to what the people want.
Kistoric and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: December 14, 2017
And this building needs to be stair stepped down and she thinks it is too massive.
Michael McAndrew, 913 S College, looked at many places and chose Georgetown because of its
charm and this project will take away from that. He stated, "Just because you can doesn't mean
you should."
Richard Cutts, 1312 Elm Street, talks about the historic structures and how this project does not
match that scale.
Alex Fuller, 1531 Ash Street, talks about the view of this from the other perspectives, north, south
and west. He thinks there are too many units trying to fit onto this lot. He says this will add too
many cars to the block and the residents will be frustrated by this. He suggests that the
commission does not have to follow staff's recommendation and asks them to turn this down.
Pam Mitchell, 1017 S College, says this is a blend of art and science and the code is the art. She is
concerned about the mass and scale and pedestrian friendliness, but also the heritage tree. Feels
that the 10% reduction in height is too little and disingenuous. Asks the commission to deny the
application. Asks staff to consider the community.
Ann Seaman, 810 5 Church Street, lives next to 600 Degrees and is definitely involved and
affected by this project. She thinks the commission shows cage in all their reviews, but thinks this
is too big and too tall and not in keeping with the character of the downtown. She does not agree
with staff who says this complies. "A Best Western would not be allowed and this shouldn't
either."
Nick Ramos, 407 E 41h Street, appreciates Mr. Visser and believes he has developed beautiful
properties. He has been living here for last 10 years and seen the changes that have occurred, this
will have a large impact on congestion and density. He thinks the scale is not in proportion to the
neighborhood. This building needs to be revised.
Ross Hunter, 908 S. Walnut, states the commission has already noted several guidelines that are
violated by this application and urges the commission to deny this application. This building
does not belong Here and will get in the way of downtown life. It does not fit in the transition
zone, which should be a mix of the two areas. This building should fit in with its surroundings.
Heather Fraser, 282 Logan Ranch Road, feels this building is beautiful butbelongs in the Domain
or someone else. Believes we should bring people to downtown, but people come here for the
Square and she hopes the commission will listen to the people who live here and those who visit
who like the way it is today, without this building, She suggests doing something in keeping
with the neighborhood.
Larry Olsen, 300 E 911' Street, given an extra three minutes to speak by Larry Brundidge. Mr.
Olsen lives near this property and is astonished and amazed that staff says this scale is
appropriate for the neighborhood. The footprint of the tallest building nearby is the courthouse
with 9700 square feet. This project is projected to have a mass of 15,000 square feet, without a
lawn. There is no step-down to the adjacent properties and it defeats the transition zone. He
supports residential on this site but it needs to be scalable and appropriate. He called out the 3rd
and Rock Street project as appropriate. He feels administrative approvals are matter-of-fact and
not really thought 'through. He determined that there would be an additional 3.5 feet on top of
the 44 feet. If you measure it on the east side of the building, from grade it will be 50 feet, He
feels this is not appropriate.
Historic and Architectural review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: December 14, 2017
Susan Firth, 1403 Olive Street, sent a letter and states this project has a place, but not at 204 E 8th.
She feels it does not meet 9 of the 10 guidelines. She asks that the commissioners deny this
application and should not render a decision without further reviewing the options.
Tim Solano, 414 Starview Lane, just moved here and feels this is less about the aesthetic and more
about what it is promising and can't deliver. Young people are moving to Georgetown to get
away from larger developments and his peer group are moving into historic homes or rural areas.
This will miss the mark.
Patrick O'Brien, 207 John Thomas, complained about the height and parking — doesn't
understand why parking can't go underground. Aesthetics — thinks it's ugly, mortar and brick
don't give it character.
Shannon Spears, 901 College Street, agrees that people like her (2{ year old) don t look for this
type of structure. They look for multi -family that has the character of the area.
Chair Bain closed the public hearing with no further speakers coming forth.
Motion by Revier to deny the COA based on the building height has not been addressed or
met, overall schematic design is incomplete -- other codes will have a domino effect and it will
come back, handicap parking and the parking count is not realistic, Chapter 13 with the five
foot setback on the top floor is too shallow for that mass, and the impervious cover is too
much. Second by Romero.
Hood likes what Mr. McAndrews said, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." The
outpouring of the community shows how important this is to the community. He appreciates
how hard it is to do a project like this, but feels this project does not fit on this location.
Motion of denial approved. 7 — 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
the renovation, to include the enclosure of an existing screening porch, to property located at 141.4
S. College, bearing the legal description of 0.514 ac. Hughes Addition, Block 8 (SE/PT). - Nat
Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner
Waggoner presented the staff report. Staff recommends approval as submitted as the proposed
renovations to the rear, being a non -historic addition, maintains the character of the high priority
structure as well as with surrounding properties.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers corning forth closed it.
Motion by Asendorf-Hyde to approve the COA as submitted. Second by Hood. Approved 7 -
0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
the demolition of a garage and renovation of a residence, to include the construction of a new
window opening on the east facade of the home, construction of a new garage, and replacement
of an existing column, for a property located at I402 Hutto Road, bearing the legal description of
0.471 ac. University Park, Block 5, Lot 1-5. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner
Waggoner presented the staff report. The application supports the UDC and the Design
Guidelines and supports the character of the district. The demolition subcommittee met
previously and recommends demolition of the accessory structure garage.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3
Meeting: December 14, 2017
Gary Wang, the architect for the project, further explained the project. He showed a floorplan
that is being proposed to change the back rooms into a master bedroom suite. The new second
bedroom is the reason for the additional window. The courtyard will be maintained. The garage
will be rebuilt to allow driveway access from 141h Street, instead of the long driveway from Hutto
Road. This will be placed to achieve the setbacks and will save a large heritage tree.
Browner asked about salvaging any part of the garage. Wang responded the instructions to the
contractor are to salvage as much as possible, both in the garage and in the home.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed it.
Romero moves to approve the application, with demolition, as proposed for 1402 Hutto Road.
Second by Hood. Approved 7 — 0.
F. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design for the renovation of a residential property
located at 501 S. Elm Street - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Waggoner introduces the proposed changes and the applicant.
J. Bryant Boyd, project architect, spoke and asked for any issues the commission sees in this
project that will change the entire lot. The applicant is proposing moving the house six feet back
to accommodate additions, removing non -historic bay windows, possibly adding French doors,
adding a new master bedroom suite and garage and adding a street facing porch. The garage will
have a second floor. This is a medium priority structure. The intent is to not change the historic
significance of the house but to enhance it. The commissioners were supportive and felt this was
a good project.
G. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings.
■ Next regular HARC Meeting, January 25, 2018
• introduction of Madison Thomas, the new Historic District Planner
Adjournment
Motion by Hood, second by Romero to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Approved 7 — 0.
Approved, Lee Bain Chair
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Meeting: December 14, 2017
f
Attest, Justin Bohls
Page 5 of 3