Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_06.28.2018City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7h Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Terri Assendorf-Hyde; Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice - Chair; Karl Meixsell; Catherine Morales; Amanda Parr (alternate); and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Kevin Roberts (Alternate) Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Glen Holcomb, Building Official; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Consideration of the Minutes from the May 24, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Romero, second by Bain to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7 — 0. B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) A 2 - foot 6- inches setback modification for the existing residential structure to eliminate the existing non -conforming situation per UDC Section 4.08.080.C.2; 2) A Building Height Exception of 2 - feet 6 -inches from the 15 -foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 17 -feet 6 -inches, at the prescribed 6 -foot setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C; 3)Residential Renovation and 3) Residential Addition, for the property located at 1227 Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.2 ac. Cody Addition, Block 1, Lot 16 (COA-2018-003). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Thomas presented the case and explained the application. She explained how it meets and does not meet the criteria of the Design Guidelines. Commissioners did not have any questions. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Romero, second by Meixsell to approve COA-2018-003 as submitted by the applicant. Approved 7 — 0. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: A Building Height Exception of 3 -feet 3 -inches from the 15 -foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 18 -feet 3 -inches, at the prescribed 10 -foot rear setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C; for the property located at 501 S. Elm Street, bearing the legal description of 0.16 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 31, Lot 8 (COA-2018-009). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Thomas presented the case and explained that the project had been reviewed by HARC previously and the commission asked them to come back with adjustments. Staff recommends approval with the pitch of the roofline be lowered or the building be moved back three feet to meet the setback requirements. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 J Bryant Boyd, speaking for the applicant, explained that the dormer has been moved back as requested but the roofline is still not within the standards and therefore the height exception is being requested. He feels the profile is much better and shallower than originally applied and complies with the intent of the guidelines and commission direction. Assendorf-Hyde asked if other changes had been made. No others were made. Hood asked if they had considered moving the garage structure back three feet as suggested. Boyd stated it would not work well for the applicant. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Hood moves to approve COA-2018-009 as submitted (this time). Second by Romero. Approved 7 — 0. D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential renovation of a front porch for the property located at 309 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of 0.17 ac. Whittle Addition, Block 3, Lot 2 (NW/PT) (COA-2018-011). Thomas presented the application. The applicant is proposing to build a wooden porch over the existing concrete porch which will accommodate a commercial use. Staff recommends approval with the condition of retaining the original post columns. The applicant explained the columns were rotten and they do not think it is safe to keep them. Thomas suggests meeting the intent of the guidelines by replacing them with like kind posts. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Hood, second by Morales to approve the application with the condition that the columns be replaced with in-kind materials and style. Approved 7 — 0. E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of an approximate 1,150-sq.foot residential structure for the property located at 1411 College Street, bearing the legal description of 0.135 ac. Dim—mit A ddition, Block 97 (PT), (COA- 2018-016). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Nat Waggoner presented the case. He explained that the demolition subcommittee met and does not recommend demolition of this structure. Robert Pandyer, the homeowner, talks about his neighbors and how old town is not just old houses, but is a community. He asks to take this house down to put a better home there that is more in character with the Dimmitt addition. He gave a history of the additions and changes that were made to this house and how it is not financially advisable to keep patching the house. He asks for approval to demolish and rebuild. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing. Doris Curl, 1404 S. College, spoke for the demolition and asked for more information be included in the packets to neighbors. She feels Mr. Pandyer's plan is viable and intends to support the application however, she would prefer to keep the front fagade intact. Lois Canfield, 1403 Ash St, spoke in favor of the demolition of the property. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 Pam Mitchell, 1017 S. College St, representing the Neighborhood Alliance and while she is empathetic of the applicant, she lives in an old house and understands that there is a lot of extra maintenance that goes into an old house. She is concerned about the precedent being set for demolishing a house to turn it into something new and shiny. She asks the commission to support the demolition subcommittee recommendation of denying the request. William Harris, 502 E 19th Street, expresses concern for making the choice between losing the good neighbor and losing a historical home. Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Waggoner explained to the commission the UDC Section 3.13.030 requires the commission to make findings of fact when considering a request for demolition. He stated the Demolition Subcommittee found that this application was not consistent with the findings for economic hardship, as applied for. Hood asked for comments from Nelson in regard to comments from the subcommittee. She explained that the city legal department advised that the maintenance and upkeep of a home cannot be considered in findings of economic hardship. The lack of maintenance cannot be considered in the criteria of demolition. Commissioners discussed the difference between bringing a structure "up to Code" versus bringing up to more livable conditions. There was a discussion of the difference between being habitable and not being code compliant. Romero explains that the burden is on a homeowner to care for the homes in old town and that burden is to be taken when the home is purchased. The rules state that lack of maintenance or no longer wanting the style of the historic structure is not a reason for demolition. Motion by Hood to deny the demolition of COA-2018-016. Second by Meixsell. Demolition denied 7 — 0. F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential renovation and addition for the property located at 501 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.21 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 36, Lot 5-8 (PTS) (COA-2018-021). Madison 11LU- La.S7, Downtown HlstorlC Planner Thomas presented the case. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the roof on the front fagade remain unchanged. Trent Jacobs, architect, spoke for the applicant. He explained the house is a low priority structure and lacks historical significance. He explained that the home was owned by the Grahams, who passed at 101 years old. He saw the house when it was theirs and wants to bring this back to its significance by restoring some of the materials that were original to the house. He explained that the addition to the back is to give height to the rest of the house, which has seven foot ceilings. He discussed why he is suggesting the changes and reiterates the changes will be sensitive to the historic nature of the house. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Assendorf-Hyde to approve the request with the condition that the roof on the front facade remain unchanged. Second by Romero. Approved 7-0. Chair Browner called for a 15 minute recess. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 Meeting was reconvened. G. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1)Residential Demolition of a rear addition that is approximately 1,021 sf., 2) Residential Renovation and 3) Residential Addition, for the property located at 511 S. Main Street bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac Georgetown, City of, Block 26, Lot 5-6 (COA-2018-023). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Nelson presented the case. She reiterated that the commission reviewed the concept of this project and the commission gave comments that they had concerns about the effect on the priority of the historic structure on the resources survey, how the new addition fits into the neighborhood, the scale and impact is not consistent with the area, and that the fence wall was too tall and shielded the front of the house. The current request is for demolition of the rear addition, a new 4,681 sf addition, renovation of the siding, doors and windows, and wall exceptions. This structure is a 1922, high priority structure, in a Prairie Style architecture. Staff was able to determine that the porches were not original to the structures and so the demolition of the porch would not affect the priority status of the structure. Nelson reviewed the Guidelines for demolition requirements. The recommendation of the subcommittee is to allow demolition of the porch with the conditions that the applicant must salvage as many materials as possible and document any history of those materials. Nelson gave an overview of the new addition and called out Chapter 7 Design Guidelines for adaptive re -use, addition and alterations. She explained that though the addition is set back from Main Street, it is not set back from 6th Street and this is a corner lot. Staff finds that this addition is not compatible with mass, scale, materials and character with the main building. It does not comply with Section 7.9. Staff does not feel that the roof of the addition mimics the character of the existing structure. Nelson reviewed the other renovation items. Nelson reviewed the criteria staff used to review this project and how it complies or does not comply. She made recommendations with the listed conditions. Gary Wang, Architect for this project, speaks about using the intent of the law and interpretations of the law and codes. He asks for the commission to consider the word "compatible" and notes that this building is in area 2 and was a home, but is no longer a home and should not be considered for that. He says the standards used for review are for residences, not for commercial buildings. He says they have redesigned this structure many times and hopes the commission will consider the changes made. Bain asked about the demolition criteria. Nelson and Hood explained why they recommend demotion of the back porch. Assendorf-Hyde asked how much the height was reduced. Wang showed that it was 4 — 5 feet lower than the originally submitted drawings. Staff finds that the proposed demolition to the rear addition of the historic structure is appropriate based on the Design Guidelines and will not impact the priority rating, however the renovations to the historic structure do not appear to be consistent with Design Guidelines Criteria. The request to use metal for the roofing for the addition does not meet the Design Guidelines of finding a material that is the same or similar to the original nor does it match the material of the main structure. Staff recommends approval of the demolition of a portion of the rear of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 structure, with the recommendation that a list of salvageable materials be composed. Staff recommends approval of the canopy removal and the other requests and recommends the following conditions: 1) Maintenance of the existing front door (UDC Criteria #3,#5) 2) Maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing (UDC Criteria #3,#5) wooden windows 3) Reduce the height of the addition to ensure it is not visible over the top of the historic resource (UDC Criteria #6) 4) Use a low -slope, flat, or hipped roof for the proposed addition (UDC Criteria #6) 5) Set back the addition on the 6th Street elevation so the south elevation of the proposed addition does not match or exceed the horizontal plane of the existing structure (UDC Criteria #3,#5, #6) If the request to make the proposed renovations to the existing structure, as reflected in the 2nd set of designs, is approved by the Commission, staff requests an Archival Report be developed for the High Priority historic structure. Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing. Pam Mitchell, 1017 S College Street, made points that she does not agree with Wang about the intent of the law being met. She still feels that this addition is too large and does not take into consideration the size and scale and what is appropriate for the neighborhood. She asks for denial of this application. Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, states he feels this addition is not compatible with the neighborhood. He feels the structure does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines and should be denied. Winnanne Ewing, 105 51hStreet, lives one block away and does not feel this addition will match the neighborhood. She feels this does not comply with the criteria and feels there are too many discrepancies between the proposed building and the Design Guidelines. Charlotte Richards, 510 S. Church Street, feels this is different than any of the other applications (on the agenda) and this does not protect the historical nature of this structure. She says she has lost faith in the commission if they approve this. The building and windows will look directly into their back yard. Ed Richards, 510 S. Church Street, explains that this building will encroach on their privacy and is concerned about traffic that will be infringing on their neighborhood, even though a shuttle will be provided. The applicant has agreed to put up an 8 foot fence on the east side of the property, but that will not block the large building and will completely hide the sunsets to his back yard. Larry Olsen, 300 E 91hStreet, with an additional 3 minutes from Vicki Stubbington. Mr. Olsen showed examples of historic structures with additions that are approved through historic standards and compares the new design to those. He showed a rendering of the house with the addition and shows the impact of it. He spoke to the front fence height being a full wall that will hide the historic building. He feels this will set a precedent for future infill structures and Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 change the character of Old Town. He discussed the north wall of the historic structure. He feels the removal of the wall will change the integrity of the high priority structure. Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Browner asked that the commissioners consider this application in four pieces to allow for deliberation of each. Motion by Romero to approve the COA 2018-023 demolition as presented with the recommendation that a list of salvageable materials be composed as presented by staff. Second by Hood. Vote 3 — 4. Romero, Browner, and Hood for approval. Bain, Assendorf- Hyde, Morales and Meixsell opposed. Motion fails. Nelson asked for a brief recess to review the process going forward. Chair Browner asked for a 10 minute recess for review of procedures. Reconvened. Frost explained the concern, as indicated by the City Attorney, of the previous motion and asked for reconsideration. Motion by Morales, second by Assendorf-Hyde to reconsider the COA-2018-023 application. Approved 7 — 0. Commissioners deliberated the proposal. Nelson explains that we need time to further clarify the process with legal staff. Chair Browner declared another 15 minute recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Nelson explained that any motion made must include the four portions of the application, and that each portion of the application needs to have discussion and deliberation. Browner explained that there seemed to be consensus Bain started the discussion by declaring that the addition was too large, too tall for the neighborhood and was out of scale of the adjacent properties. Maxseil stated he was still in opposition to the demolition of the historic structure and would not be able to support the addition. Hood would like to see the removal from the application of the second story windows, change of the front door, the awning material and the change of the historic windows. Removal of the aluminum canopies is acceptable. Bain concurs. Commissioners discuss retaining the windows, the door and that they allowed the replacement of the south side windows. Hood was amenable to the replacement of the front door. The windows on the south side can be replaced with a more compatible looking window, scale and type as recommended The wall, 7 foot structure with 2 feet transparency was submitted with the portion of the front section more open to reveal the front of the house and carport. Commissioners debated the issue. There was concern about the "wall" on Main Street. The general consensus of the addition is that it is too large, even with the breakup of materials. They asked for the height to be reduced and the applicant complied, but the commissioners expressed that it was not enough to be subservient to the original structure as they had requested. Hood expressed that the solution presented for the wall is acceptable to him. Morales did not feel it was compatible of the streetscapes in this area and was still too tall across the front. They were not concerned with the fence wall on the north and east side. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 The general consensus of the addition was that the applicant had reduced the height but it was still too large and was not subservient to the original structure. There was no consensus on the demolition of the porch addition. Motion by Meixsell to deny the entire application of COA-2018-023, clarified by Browner, second by Morales. Browner reiterated from the discussion that the application does not comply with Design Guidelines 7.1, 7.2, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, and 8.25, and not in compliance with 6.2, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15 and 6.20 agreeing with the staff report. Vote: Approved 6—1(Romero opposed.) H. Conceptual Review for a proposed infill development for the property located at the 200 E. 8th Street bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7-8 (COA-2018- 029). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Waggoner introduced the project and the changes that have been made from the previous versions. The four and three story building is now proposed as a two story building with on- site surface level parking. Waggoner gave examples of surrounding buildings for explaining the context. The scale of the materials, as well as the building, is much more in character of the neighborhood. They have added awnings to the project over the sidewalks for the human scale elements. The applicant has added modulation at the pedestrian level. They have changed the full glass storefronts to be raised two feet from ground level to mimic the buildings in Area 1. Staff gave examples of how the changed application has met the concerns that the commission had voiced previously. Commissioners discussed. Hood likes the new modulation, the setback, the window sizes, only asks for including additional landscaping. He also does not like the kick plate idea, suggests a different material under the glass. He likes the brick lines, but is concerned about the modern material. He likes the second floor window variations to show the modulations. H thinks the stone choice will be critical. He suggests limiting the materials to two brick styles, possibly omitting the stone. Assendorf-Hyde appreciates the two-story building and the scale is now appropriate. The brick buildings in the area have a more linear look, cleaner lines, the stone may take away from the look of the building. Commissioners did not like the stucco, Readyhough said he would change that. They discussed the east side elevation and suggested adding some form of vertical articulation. The suggestion was to introduce the stone to the middle and south end. Morales applauds making this more in concert with the downtown area. She would like to see more landscaping also. Waggoner provided guidelines 13.4, stepping down the building to smaller structures, and asked the commission if they felt they had met this. Hood says the awning has allowed the pedestrian scale and 13.6 calls for modulation, which they have now added. 13.12 encourages pedestrian activity and landscaping with kick plates and commercial storefronts. Hood suggests varying the windows and kick plate materials. Adjournment Waggoner reported that staff will bring a list of training items back at the next meeting. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018 Motion to adjourn by Meixsell, second by Morales. Meeting adjourned at 10:18 pm. Q��4 ;�' z �� Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Meeting: June 28, 2018