HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_02.22.2018City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7h Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood,
Vice -Chair; Karl Meixsell, Lawrence Romero and Catherine Morales (alternate)
Absent:
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Andreina Davila, Current Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner;
and Karen Frost, 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 January 25, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Hood, second by Romero to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
setback modifications to an accessory structure located at 1212 Vine St., bearing the legal
description of 0.15 ac., Block 11(PT) out of the Snyder's Addition.
Waggoner presented the staff report. The applicant has requested approval for two setback
modifications; an approximate 3 -foot setback modification from the 6 -foot minimum side setback
requirement and an approximate 7 -foot setback modification from the 10 -foot minimum rear
setback requirement of Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.02.050. The applicant is also
seeking approval for the addition of a front facing fagade, created with the placement of the
accessory structure whose south elevation is parallel to the property line along 13th Street. Staff
recommends approval of the application based on the findings given.
Zach Sienke1� owner and applicant spoke nnrll exp lame the need fnr the cefbarlc mnrjifir_ations.
Browner asked about the future use needing an engineered foundation. Sienkel stated his intent
was to only use this as a garage and if the use changed, he would have to change the foundation.
He also replied that he would erect a bollard to protect the gas meter that is near the driveway.
Chair Bain opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the hearing.
Motion by Romero to approve the application of COA as submitted. Second by Bohls.
Approved 7 — 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a COA for the modification of a street -facing fagade and a
request for an exception to allow an encroachment of 3 -foot 7 -inches into the side setback, of a
property located at 1812 Eubank St., bearing the legal description of 0.24 acres, lot 6, block 4 of
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
the Eubank Addition — Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to expand their existing historic
home as well as add accessory structures in the rear of the property to allow for more usable
square footage. The applicant proposes to add a front porch to the home's fagade facing Eubank
Street. Additionally, the northeast corner of the home is currently in the side setback, and the
addition of the proposed porch will further encroach into the setback by 3 feet 7 inches. An
exception granted by HARC is needed to allow the proposed porch to encroach into the side
setback.
The addition to the existing structure will be towards the rear of the property. All accessory
structures including the workshop, the pool house and the garage will be located at the rear of the
property and are subject to staff review.
The applicant is also proposing changes to the exterior of the home including the replacement of
exterior (non -historic) siding and the enlargement of the northern most existing window on the
front facade. The exterior of the home is covered with vinyl siding, but the applicant recently
discovered a wood, shiplap like siding that exists underneath the vinyl. The applicant is seeking
to remove all existing siding, including the wooden siding and replace with hardi-siding.
HARC's review is required for the proposed porch addition, the exception to allow the porch to
encroach into the side setback, removal of the historic wood siding and the alterations to
windows on the street facing fagade (from the rear addition and the window enlargement).
Ronald Zarriello, the applicant spoke and explained that they love Georgetown and want
to move here. They want to increase the size of the bungalow and replace the exterior
siding, which was previously replaced by particle board, with hardi-siding. He also
wants to add a front porch to add to the charm of the home. Hood asked him to consider
not extending the porch to obstruct the window, to the right of the front door, and is
concerned about the encroachment being needed. Mr. Zarriello stated he would be happy to
work with staff to rectify this.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
Elaine Zevold, next door neighbor, explained the entire street has these same house location
issues on their lots and they are excited to have the new neighbors. She also has a front porch and
says they appreciate being able to use it.
With no more speakers coming forth, Chair Bain closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Hood to approve this application with the exception of the variance of the
setback modifications for the front porch, which should be redesigned to not fit into
the setbacks. Second by Browner. Approved 7 -0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CCA) for the
replacement of the roof and the addition of new roofing materials for an existing portico located
at 1236 S. Main St., bearing the legal description of 0.16 ac. Morrow Addition, Block B (NE/PT). —
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing portico roof
due to water damage and replace it with a larger, pitched hip roof.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
The current portico was constructed in approximately 1945, shortly after the construction of the
main house. The applicant has provided a written statement documenting their research on the
property to determine the historic significance of the portico. From what was provided, they
believe that the portico was not original to the home, but added at a later date. They provided
blueprints that show existing footers of a large porch that was previously removed before the
portico was constructed.
The design of the flat roofline has resulted in water damage, requiring numerous repairs since
construction. The applicant is seeking to remove the flat roof of the existing portico, and replace it
with a pitched hip roof to eliminate water pooling and intrusion which has caused rot and
damage. The footprint of the proposed roof will also be slightly larger than the existing one, to
provide additional aide with water runoff and protection of the portico structure. The proposed
roof will be plated with copper.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines refer to porches as the prime feature of the
front fagade that boast character -defining features and possess historical importance that should
be preserved. The architectural styles of porches differ in scale, materials, height, etc. that
typically correspond with the architectural style of the house. The Downtown Design Guidelines
reinforce the concept of historical significance and integrity with the Basic Preservation Principles
for Georgetown fvcusung On. Mespectilg thehlstorlc \.har alter of ui2 bl.ilidilg, preserving key
character -defining features of the property and repairing deteriorated historic features, and
replacing only those elements that cannot be repaired. The sequence of preservation actions
should be to replace those features beyond repair while designing any new feature to be
compatible.
Because the applicant is requesting to replace the roof, instead of maintaining and repairing the
damaged portions, the proposed portico varies in style and size and therefore does not comply
with the Design Guidelines' direction to maintain the existing location, shape, details and
columns of the porch. However, it is typical of Colonial Revival homes to have porticos with both
styles of rooflines, flat and pitched. Both styles can be found among historic homes within
Georgetown.
Using materials to match those that have been used historically is the best approach. If a
substitute material is considered, it should be similar in color, design, composition and texture to
the original. Changing to a copper roofing material neither meets the intention of the guidelines
for identifying a substitute material, nor is compatible with the main structure's roofing material
or with the materials used in the surrounding neighborhood.
The contractor with TA Todd, speaking for the applicant, agrees the copper is not consistent with
the neighborhood and states the applicant is agreeing to go with a standing seam metal material
for the roof. Terri Burke, owner, agreed and is happy to bring a color, gray, from the exiting roof
to the portico. Hood expressed agreement with the metal.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
Liz Weaver, 1221 S. Main Street, spoke and approves of the changes to bring this house and
portico back to its original style.
Motion by Meixsell to approve the application with the standing seam metal roof as discussed.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
Second by Assendorf-Hyde. Approved 7 - 0.
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
reconstruction, alterations and changes to the existing building, and new signage that is
inconsistent with applicable guidelines for the property located at 1102 S. Austin Ave. - Nat
Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report. He explains that legal staff has given direction that was
not part of the original report. Since the publication of the staff report, legal staff has determined
the window covering on the north and south windows should not count against the 50% signage
calculations. The applicant will not use the historic photos of Georgetown as part of the
storefront as originally suggested. They are asking for a review and recommendation of the wall
sign on the south elevation. There is also a revision from the staff report for the location of the
monument sign on the south side of the building.
The applicant is requesting approvals for: the addition of two (2) signs (primary, window) along
University Avenue; the addition of three (3) signs ((primary, 2 x window) along Austin Avenue
(This approval requires an exception to the regulations pertaining to signage within the
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.); the addition of two (2) signs (window), closure of
(1) one (existing) window and addition of a door along 11th Street; the addition of an internally
illuminated monument sign at the driveway along University (This approval requires an
exception -t-+he regulations pertaining to sibiiagc within the Do-,v.—,town. town. and Old T0VYIL Design
Guidelines.); the modification of the primary entry point along the south elevation; and the
addition of down lighting (gooseneck) along east and south elevations.
This project is more compliant with pedestrian scale than with historic character. Significantly
increasing or decreasing the area of glass. The pedestrian feel is to be enhanced and a blank wall
is to be avoided. The applicant is working with staff on the south facing wall to install a mural to
break up the blank wall.
Staff recommends approval of material selections as presented. Consider placing monument sign
at intersection of Austin Ave/University at the SE corner of the property.
Guideline 9.21 is not currently achieved, applicant is seeking additional information on how to
achieve 9.21. Staff recommends applicant use down lighting (gooseneck) and discourages use of
internal illumination even if applicant can meet Guideline 9.21. Applicant is seeking internal
illumination.
Staff does not support signage along the horizontal face of the drive thru cantilevered canopy on
the west elevation. Staff recommends consideration of hanging signs below the awning for
additional signage opportunities. Examples exist within the district and include Wildfire on
Austin Ave, and State Farm on 8th Street.
The applicant does not consider the "red wall" color to be signage and will be asking HARC to
consider approval. Staff is asking for consideration to revise the corporate color (red walls of
window 1 and window 2) be reduced to meet the 50% requirement. Staff also asks for consideration
of using a white wall color with the red heart banded by white outline. Staff requests the
applicant remove the awning on the southwest corner (west elevation) and add down lighting for
future mural illumination. Staff requests removing the brick inset along the south elevation at the
SW corner to allow a flush surface for the mural.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
Don Pfizer, the applicant, spoke about the building elevations. They did add the change on the
entrance as had been requested by the commission, the awning stayed the same. The mural
agreement is being drafted. He is asking that the building permit be allowed to be released,
instead of waiting for the final agreement of the mural. The window signs have not changed
from the original concept. They are still gray scale with red letters on the north elevation. There
has been an addition of signage on the south and east elevations. He reports that currently there
is 244 square feet of existing signage and they are asking for only 150 square feet.
He is asking for the monument sign at the driveway to be either backlit or to have up lighting.
Staff is recommending only one primary sign on the north fagade,llth Street,
The monument sign is proposed at the driveway, staff wants it on the corner. The material
selection for the entry point on the south elevation, tower element, is agreed upon.
Commissioners asked questions.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing.
William Harris, 560 E 19th Street, stated Chapter 6 emphasizes the importance of this intersection.
He is concerned about the amount of signs being requested and the loss of the Georgetown
graphics that were being used.
Larry Olsen, 300 E 91h Street, described the history of this building. The church was demolished
and this current building was built as brand new. He thinks the current signage is visual
pollution and supports two primary signs which he thinks is reasonable and an improvement.
He supports backlit signs.
Erin Allen, 705 E. 3rd Street, does not feel this use is a good thing for Georgetown's image and
does not want a CVS in downtown. Agrees that if it is going to happen, it should have two
primary signs.
With no other speakers coming forth, Chair Bain closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioners offered comments.
Mr. Pfiozer responded to the comments. There was a discussion of the window interior design
and an example of what could be installed was shown. He said the historical photos for the
windows were pulled by CVS but he could take it back to them if the commission requested.
Browner comments he appreciates the applicant adding the 11th Street entrance and is keeping the
same materials on the exterior of the building. He appreciates the applicant working with staff to
stay within the Design Guidelines. Bohls asked if the applicant wants to change their signage
after a year, will they be required to come back to the commission? Waggoner explained that if
the signage is outside the standards of the Design Guidelines, then yes, otherwise it would be
reviewed by staff.
Commissioners discussed possible proposals and approvals. There was concern about the mural
being done outside of the process
Motion by Hood to approve COA-2018-002 as submitted so applicant can move to the
permitting phase, with two primary signs, with modification to the tower and north elevation
to be white with red heart to make a more subtle solution, and use of the secondary sign for
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 3
Meeting: February22, 2018
the southwest entrance as the applicant has shown in their application, using the gooseneck
down lighting. Second by Bohls.
Discussion by the commission. Meixsell was concerned about the two primary signs and thinks
there is too much signage. Hood looks at this application at cleaning up some of the existing
signage. Romero agrees with Hood in regards to reducing the number of signage, but feels that
the window signage will be too much and would like to see the historic photos used again.
Hood amended his motion to include the addition of historic photos on the east (2 windows on
the northeast elevation facing Austin Avenue) and north (2 windows) windows and 111h Street,
not the ones with hearts, if possible. Second by Bohls. 7 — 0.
Vote on original motion, 7 — 0.
G. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design of a mixed use property located at 204 E. 8th St.
Ave - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Bohls recused himself. Morales took his seat. Nelson thanked Commissioner Bohls for his service
to the board.
Nelson opened the case. A copy of the applicable guidelines was given to the commission to help
summarize comments. Waggoner reported that this application has been submitted but staff has
not reviewed it. Waggoner reviewed the previous action taken by HARC for this case and
explained that the applicant is submitting a new design and wants to discuss how it responds
substantially to this denial.
John Readyhough spoke for the new application. He said they stepped it down and set it back off
the front lot line, making a courtyard in the front.
Commissioners offered comments. Questions about the back side. Height at the highest point is
41 feet 6 inches. On Church Street the highest elevation is 37 feet. They are proposing to put the
parking underneath the building, subterranean. They said the brick is really the same color as the
600 Degrees building, but the renderings are distorting the colors.
The bottom floor will probably be restaurants and the two top floors will be office space. There
was a discussion about changing some of the stone on the bottom floors to be brick, but it "felt
like" too much brick. The inside corner piece is just an architectural focal point for the entrance.
They will use, dark bronze windows on the second and third floor as a contrast to the first floor
and restaurants. The courtyard concept is appreciated. Concern about back side of the building
being still too large.
They were questioned about meeting with the neighbors and they said it was liked by all that met
with them. Browner thinks this is getting closer to being meaningful, inviting and organic. This
is much better. Commissioners questioned why they were reviewing this concept if it has already
been submitted. Synatschk said they can amend their application if needed. Parking for this
building is different from the previous submission by having one way in and one way out. They
are also now taking advantage of the underground parking to gain more parking, increase the
green space with the courtyard and reduce the mass.
Hood thinks they meet Guideline 13.1. Assendorf-Hyde is concerned about the busyness of the
stone type. The developer suggested looking at the building on Rock Street west facing wall to
get the feel of the rock and brick being used. Hood would like to see a variation from the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018
sandstone which he feels can be overpowering. He asks them to consider a stronger contrast.
Nelson asked the commissioners to use the distributed checklist for comparing projects to the
guidelines.
H. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings.
0 Next regular HARC Meeting, March 22, 2018
Adjournment
Motion by Romero, second by Maxsiel to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. Approved 7 — 0.
Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 3
Meeting: February 22, 2018