Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_04.26.2018City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. Th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Terri Assendorf-Hyde; Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice - Chair; Amanda Parr (alternate); Kevin Roberts (Alternate) and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Karl Meixsell; and Catherine Morales; Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Call to Order by Chair Browner at 5:30 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Present at this time were Browner, Romero, Hood and Bain. Policy Development/Review Workshop B. Presentation and discussion of the role and value of the Texas Historic Commission Certified Local Government Program - Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner Madison introduced Madeline Clites, Texas Historical Commission CLG Program Administrator. The program offers technical assistance, and she gave examples of what that means. Networking and Training are big elements of their program. Hood asked for possible assistance with demolition requests and how to handle that. He also asked about the promotion of the historic resources survey. Clites reported that their office offers more in-depth training and can provide specific trainings or workshops as requested. The presentation was posted with the agenda. Parr, Morales and Assendorf-Hyde were added to the attendance during the presentation. Georgetown has more than three times the number of historic protected properties than cities of similar size. She also said it would be wise to look into the Historic Landmark status for certain properties. See education and training opportunities in presentation. Legislative Regular Agenda C. Consideration of the Minutes from the April 12, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Romero, second by Bain to approve the minutes. Approved 7 — 0. D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a single story residence located at 705 W. 10th, bearing the legal description of 0.2896 ac. Lot 7, Block H South San Gabriel Urban Renewal (unrecorded). — Madison Thomas, AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner Presentation by Thomas of the case. The demolition subcommittee recommends approval of the demolition request. Staff also recommends approval of the demolition based on the findings . This low priority structure does not conform to the current building code and structural deficiencies render the repositioning of the home infeasible. The HARC Demolition Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 Subcommittee including the HPO and Chief Building Official conferred on 2/28/2017 and reaffirmed the applicant's summary of structural issues. If HARC approves the demolition, staff recommends that HARC consider requiring the creation of a historical archive including archival -quality photo -documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer as described in the Unified Development Code, 3.13.030. E.3 (b). The applicant, Michelle Baran, spoke for the owner and reiterated the items that have led to the request for the demolition. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Bain, second by Romero to approve the COA-2018-005 for demolition with no conditions. Hood explained that the structure is beyond repair, but wants it noted that every time there is a demolition a piece of Georgetown's history is gone. He wants the commission to understand the consequences. Motion approved 7 — 0. E. Presentation and discussion of conceptual alterations and changes of a two (2) story office building located 511 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 26, Lots 5-6. — Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner Waggoner introduced the conceptual case. He shared the applicable Design Guidelines. The applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the building and reconstruct a larger addition. This property is a high priority structure listed on the Resources Survey. Drawings were provided to show the proposal of the event space. Gary Wang, the architect of this project, presented additional information. The height of the existing house structure is approximately 23 feet at the wall height.. The height of the new addition at the wall height, is approximately 23+ feet also, but the roof height adds another 15 feet. They proposed to use diagonal wood shingles on the new portion, to set apart the new from the old horizontal wood siding. Assendorf Hyde asked what was being demolished. Wang showed the non -historical portion that is proposed to be demolished. Romero asked how this would impact the neighbor to the back. Wang says the building will be set back 10 feet from the property line, per the setback requirements. Waggoner explained the notices that will be sent at demolition request. Parr asked what portion of the original structure is being maintained. Wang says most everything, including the structure, the chimney, the siding, keeping the upper story, but changing tiZe north side to add a window and doors. The front door is proposed to change. Assendorf-Hyde asked about the fence height. Wang says it is supposed to be a privacy fence. Assendorf-Hyde and Parr ask about moving the fence line that is obstructing the view of the original house. Wang says it can be discussed to lower the portion of the fence that is in front of the house. He reminds the commission that Tamiro H across the street will be a tall structure and the fence is to protect the privacy of this space. Parr also suggested doing something to break the solid wall of the fence, stating it is not pedestrian friendly. Hood understands the need for privacy but the carport is an icon for this house and suggests reducing the size of the fence, but likes the crisp look of the orange brick that matches the house. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 Browner asked the commission to review all the guidelines in regards to this project. Chapter 6 — the main entry is proposed to now be on 6th Street, instead of the original Main Street entry. Staff see the main entrance as still on Main Street with the service or secondary entrance on 6t" Street. Staff can't guarantee that the change of the north side structure won't change the survey priority, but can guarantee that the project will meet the local guidelines. The street facing facades will not be changing. The existing siding is to remain and just be repaired. Hood asked if the addition has to be as tall as it is proposed. Wang says many ideas were tried but they want this height. Commissioners are concerned about the scale of the addition. Guideline 7.3 is mentioned as a way to discuss the scale, to look at the roofline of the new building in contrast to the existing. 7.10 defines the roofline and Hood discussed the difference in a hip roof with a smaller rise in comparison to the shed roof with a larger slope. Wang says the proposal is a stronger look and they liked it. Wang explained that the new structure had a different hierarchy and the new addition needs that strength. Justin Bohls, property owner, took the podium to explain. He explained that with his experience from another event center, they want to increase the light and block the sound at the same time. This area is approximately 30 feet wide and needs the pitch and height of the new space. Bain says in 7.3 and 7.9 it states the addition should remain subordinate to the main structure and he feels that this addition is too big and does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood and does not meet that criteria. Waggoner reviews the elements from Chapter 13. He feels there is a variation in material. Hood believes that the applicant has met the intent of 13.3, variation in materials, with the addition of the secondary entrance and separation from the main structure. 13.4 relates to mass and scale, by varying the building height with setbacks and fagade heights. Romero feels that this is going to affect the level of priority and feels that it meets the guidelines. Morales does not think the monolithic fence meets the character of the street, with the materials or the ten foot height. Parr asked if the fence could be reduced to 8 feet instead of the 10. Hood agrees. Bohls explains that they are dealing with privacy events and wants to insure that. Hood says they need to consider the human scale at the sidewalk level and still offers privacy. The commissioners generally concurred. 13.4 states building heights of larger projects should provide variety, how does that apply? Hood is concerned about the east side elevation. Wang says that elevation is 99 feet long. Hood likes the design but feels it is not consistent with the guidelines. Assendorf-Hyde agrees that the east side is also lacking articulation. Bohls says there is a ten foot buffer where they will plant trees and install a brick wall fence as requested by the neighbor. They are also trying to insulate for the sound buffering. Hood suggests changing the elevation of the roof and the east wall to add the articulation and improve the massing of that east side. Wang and Bohls thanked the commission for their comments. F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) of a four (4) story commercial retail and office building at 204 E. 8th St., bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 — 8. — Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner Sofia Nelson presented a general overview and history of the project. Madison Thomas reviewed the guidelines and the different elements of the development and how they either Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 comply or do not comply. She was asked to review first those guidelines that are not complied with. Matt Synatschk spoke representing the developer. They feel they have met the comments from the commissioners at the concept review and comply with the majority of the guidelines. Bain asked how they complied with 13.3, a new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by variation in the fagade height to reflect traditional lot width. Synatschk feels they have broken up the modules with the parking garage and the front module, and then other modules as defined by the plaza, and the steel tower element and staircase. Bain says it still looks like one large building. Synatschk stated that did not work with the original plan and they felt like the commissioners did not like it so they attempted something different. Bain asked why staff recommend approval if items did not comply. Nelson explained that staff identifies where the project meets and where it doesn't. They use the guidelines and also the UDC for review. They recommended approval because they felt that the developer met the criteria that were outlined in the concept review by the commission. Parr says she still has a difficult time with the lack of modulation. Parr asks why the back corner is 42 feet tall. Synatschk states it is a result of the ground elevation. Parr and Romero asked about the windows on the back of the building that looks down on the neighbors and event center. There is concern that there is not a transition from the large building to the smaller structures. They request possibly smaller windows, or even higher from the floor, to obstruct the complete office view, to give more privacy to the people below. Peter Dana, 1101 Walnut St, first expressed concern that the signs posting this public meeting were not up most of the time. He also expressed concern about the modulation. He expressed that he does not feel this is special, and that it does not comply with enough of the guidelines to be approved. Pam Mitchell, 1017 S. College, with additional time donated by Scott Firth, 1403 Olive. Ms. Mitchell states this development has not changed enough to be approved and there are still egregious items with this project. The scale and mass are not consistent with the surroundings. There is no articulation on the east side. She showed pictures of surrounding scaled buildings. She is also concerned about the heritage trees and calculates that they cannot be replaced. She also discussed the backdrop to the courthouse in the courthouse view from IH 35. She does not believe the project exhibits the values of the community. Susan Firth, 1403 Olive, submitted a letter and reiterated her points, asked for denial of this project. William Harris, 1607 E 19th Street, loves this neighborhood and wants this corner to be better. He points out that adding the bricked in windows are against the design guidelines. This project looks like it belongs in Dallas. Larry Brundidge, Pine Street, has met with the developer and does not oppose the project but does not approve it either. Concerned about the conceptual review that was given and that the commission has not given the developer good suggestions. He says the commission has a responsibility to pay attention and be honest with the applicants. Barbara Price, 1504 Barcus, volunteers in Old Town, asks the commission to not approve this project and to find something that will contribute to the neighborhood. She asks the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3 Meeting: April 26, 2018 commission to consider the impact of this decision. She thinks this would be better in another location. Ann Seaman, 810 S. Church Street, is concerned about the portions that do not comply. Design Guidelines regarding scale are not being met for this Area 2, a transitional area. Appreciates the comment about losing a piece of history when demolition permits are given and when large buildings dwarf the neighborhood. Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Synatschk spoke again and explains that the structure lost in this location gave an opportunity for development and they are allowed to build to 40 feet by right and to have 95% impervious coverage. Readyhough spoke about the impervious cover and says they will be pouring pervious concrete in the parking area, which although the building will cover the property 98% the calculation will be 95%. They feel they meet the intent of the guidelines. Madison reminds the commission to use the guidelines in their findings. Browner asked about the changes that were made and presented on the dais. Synatchk said the brick arches were added, as a representation of the historic light and water works building. They also enclosed the south end to insure the fire code was met. Staff has not reviewed those changes. ('nmmi8�i^,ner3 d1Sc'.assed tl':e project. Motion by Assendorf-Hyde to deny the application as presented based on the DG 13.3, it does not comply and the building is too large for the lot size; 13.6 the building is intentionally not modulated, 13.18 the building does not convey a sense of scale in the transition zone; it does not comply with UDC Section 3.13.030 E New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. And H; The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District.. Second by Morales. Approved 5 -2. (Hood and Romero opposed). Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Bain, second by Morales 9:53 pm. Approved, Art Browner, Chair Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 26, 2018 Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 5 of 3