Loading...
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