HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 02.28.2019Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, February 28, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain; Art Browner; Amanda Parr Lawrence Romero (arrived at 6:10);
Shawn Hood, and Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Catherine Morales
Absent: none
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner;
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action of the Minutes from the January 24, 2019 HARC
meeting. Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner
Sofia made an announcement that the minutes included in the packet were in error and a vote is
not being requested at this time.
No action taken
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Residential Addition for the property located a 1501 Church Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.22 ac. Hughes 2nd Addition, Block D(PT), (COA-2018-032). Madison Thomas,
Downtown and Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner presented the staff report prepared for the
request.
The applicant identified they were present to answer any questions.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing.
Phil Brown, 1602 S. Austin Avenue, spoke in support of the request.
Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, stated the proposed siding strongly reflects the addition is an
addition rather than matching the existing siding in place. He asked the commission review
this element of the request and support a condition that would require the applicant to match
the existing siding on the current house.
Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Parr asked Ms. Thomas which design guideline were used to support the use of
the requested siding.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Ms. Thomas shared that guidelines discussing additions are specifically called out in the
design guidelines and in the staff report.
Motion by Commissioner Parr to approve the project as submitted. Second by
Commissioner Hood. Approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
following:
1) a 20’ setback encroachment along the north property line of the required 30’ setback, allowing
for a residential structure 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.D;
2) a 10’ setback encroachment along the west property line of the required 15’ setback to allow
for a residential structure 5’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.D;
3) a building height exception along the north property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot
maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at 10-feet
from the property line per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C;
4) a building height exception along the west property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot
maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at the 5-
feet from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C;
5) a building height exception along the south property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot
maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at the 20-
foot side setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.C,
for proposed residential infill development on the property located at 1310 Maple Street, bearing
the legal description of 0.66 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 33, S 1/2 (COA-2018-058). Madison
Thomas, AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner, presented the staff report for the case.
Commissioner Hood asked if this case is subject to a 30 foot setback.
Madison Thomas stated that Commissioner Hood is correct.
Ms. Thomas indicated that by definition of residential district within the UDC, the side 30’
setback is required within residential single-family and multi-family district zoning.
Commissioner Hood inquired about whether a 15 foot setback was appropriate considering the
single family homes surrounding the property.
Ms. Thomas stated considering the definition of a multi-family residential district and due to an
apartment complex near the property, they were required to have a 30 foot setback.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the height of the surrounding buildings and what the
height of the previous building concepts.
Madison Thomas stated the height of the setback is not compliant, thus the applicant requested
a modification.
Commissioner Parr asked whether any adjacent, medium-density properties were two-story
structures.
Ms. Thomas stated that the structure to the north is two stories, and the two adjacent multi-
family buildings are also two stories.
Ms. Thomas presented that seven letters of opposition were submitted for this project.
Gary Wang, applicant’s representative, presented the request to the commission. He shared
some background and outreach he conducted with the surrounding property owners. Mr.
Wang shared the changes that were made between conceptual review and the rendering
proposed as part of the request.
Chair Browner opened the public hearing.
Jake French, 901 E. 13th Street, stated he believes that the applicant is trying to squeeze too much
square footage on the site. He is opposed to the request.
Phil Brown, 1602 S. Austin Avenue, stated the project was too contemporary with the
surrounding neighborhood. He encouraged the commission to oppose the request.
Gary Warmick, 1406 Olive Street, expressed concern regarding parking, landscaping, and the
assurance the existing historic structure will not be removed. He stated he was opposed to the
request.
Tony Fusco, 1404 Maple Street, expressed that he was supportive of the changes made between
the first design proposed at the time of conceptual and now. However he shared he believe that
too many units were being added and has concerns about parking, emergency access as the lot
is developed.
Susan Firth, 1403 Olive Street, shared a portion of the letter she submitted to the city. The
proposed infill project is noncompliant in five areas of the design guideline, partially compliant
in two, and noncompliant in four practices with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the
COA should not be approved. Firth then listed the measures she found to be noncompliant,
mainly stating that the traditional character of the neighborhood and surrounding street would
be compromised if the project was to continue.
Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, shared support for the commission. He expressed the concern
regarding the conceptual review process. Mr. Brundidge supported the comments expressed
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
by Susan Firth the previous speaker. Mr. Brundidge asked for the commission to postpone
action on this case to allow for additional work.
Chair Browner closed the public hearing.
Chair Browner invited the applicant to speak in response to the comments stated in the public
hearing process.
Gary Wang indicated he was present to answer any specific questions the commission has.
Commissioner Hood asked the applicant to provide the commission and the audience an
explanation of floor to area ratio (FAR).
Mr. Wang explained the concept of floor to area ratio and expressed that the development did
not maximize the FAR as permitted in the UDC.
Commissioner Parr asked the applicant to speak to compatibility, rhythm and balance of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Wang shared an explanation of his use of modulation and shared with the commission the
different use of roof pitches in order to try to find a roof pitch that would be compatible with
the surrounding structures.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked about how the applicant tested massing and scale.
Mr. Wang expressed that he did the best job he could to meet goals for massing and scale.
Commissioner Bain asked Madison Thomas asked about the cohesion of the height and
materials on the property.
Madison Thomas expressed that the design guidelines does not encourage the use of replicating
the existing development.
Commissioner Parr asked for further clarification on the criteria for the setback modifications.
Madison Thomas presented the requested criteria.
Commissioner Bain asked if we were aware of any other setback modifications made by the
commission.
Sofia Nelson expressed that there have been single family residential development in the time
she has been with the city that have received setback modifications.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked if the project must be compliant with Design Guidelines
for additions.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Madison Thomas shared that this application was reviewed as infill development rather than an
addition.
Motion by Romero to approve the application as presented. Second by Commissioner Hood.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde shared that she supported the changes in design but had
concerns about the compatibility of the design with the surrounding structures.
Commissioner Morales shared that she supported the reduction in height. She was concerned
with compatibility.
Commissioner Bain supported the reduction in height and moving the structures to the rear of
the lot. He expressed concern regarding compatibility. Commissioner Bain does not identify a
basis for denial.
Commissioner Parr supported the design improvements made to the concept. She expressed a
concern regarding the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding structures. She does
believe that the project meets the design guideline.
Commissioner Hood supported the design improvements made to the concept. He shared that
infill developments are guided by design guideline and those are the requirements in which the
projects are evaluated.
Commissioner Romero shared his support of Mr. Hood’s statements.
Motion by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Hood to approve the
project as submitted. Approved with a vote of 5-2 (Commissioners Asendorf-Hyde and
Commissioner Morales voted in opposition to the request).
The commission recessed for 10 minutes.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
residential addition and renovation for the property located at 705 E. 3rd Street, bearing the legal
description of 1.32ac. Shell Addition, Block 4, (COA-2018-061). Madison Thomas, Downtown and
Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner, presented the staff report.
The applicant was present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Parr asked what options were considered when selecting windows.
Ms. Thomas cited that those that would be replaced would be already existing within the
structure, or that would look similar to the structure.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Commissioner Hood asked if there was an opportunity to repurpose existing windows into the
proposed addition.
The applicant stated she was unsure if the repurposing of the windows could happen but is
striving to preserve as much as possible.
Commissioner Hood asked for Madison Thomas to present on the use of the wood siding
proposed for the addition.
Commissioner Romero asked if the rating of a high priority will be reduced if the addition is
made.
Ms. Thomas shared the criteria that the state historic commission utilizes to evaluate resources.
Chair Browner opened the public hearing.
Larry Olson, 9th street property owner, commended the amount of restraint in mind with the
plans for the property yet shared his concern regarding the use of a gable roof. Mr. Olson
asked the roof like be simplified so that the addition does not take away from the primary
structure.
Chair Browner closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parr asked if the applicant can work with staff on the repurposing of the
existing windows without returning to HARC.
Ms. Thomas confirmed Commissioners Parr’s statements.
Motion by Commissioner Hood with the condition that the repurposing of the windows
(working with staff direction and approval) and simplification removal of the gable roof on the
Master addition consistent with the addition.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Parr.
The commission asked the applicant for her thoughts of the simplification of the gable roof.
The applicant believed the roof line was purposefully included but was open to working with
Ms. Thomas to explore options.
All commissioners were in favor.
E. Updates, questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
UDC amendments were posted at www.historic.georgetown/udc. The Public Open House for
the UDC Amendments on March 6, 2019 at 4 pm at the Library was promoted.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Romero, second by Bain. Meeting adjourned at 8:35pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary