Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 08.08.2019City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes August 8, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 91" Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf- Hyde; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Karalei Nunn Absent: Catherine Morales; Josh Schroeder Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Call to order by the Vice -Chair at 6:00 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. — Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve Item A by Commissioner Johnston, second by Commissioner Asendorf- Hyde. Approved (7-0). B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the New Construction of a Single -Family Residence at the property located at 1207 Walnut, bearing the legal description of Snyder's Addition Block 1 (W/PT) (2019-37-COA) — Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is requesting to construct a 2,082 sq. ft. single- family structure on a vacant lot in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure will have two street facing facades —13th Street and Walnut Street. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code, HARC is the decision -making body for all new construction (infill development) in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure meets the development standards for the Residential Single -Family (RS) zoning district. The proposed structure has a floor -to -area ratio of 0.35. The applicant states the design of the house will be a mid-century farmhouse style, with a monochromatic scheme. Architectural details will include a front porch with exposed rafters, two front gables, a dormer and tall rectangular windows. The structure is proposed to have a combination of siding including horizontal Hardiplank 6" lap siding and board and batten at the gabled ends, asphalt shingles, and 3 over 1 windows. The block in which this structure is located contains a mixture of low and medium priority structures. The two structures to the north which front University Ave are designated as medium priority, craftsman style homes in the 2016 Historic Resources Survey. Along 13th, to the east of the subject structure are medium and low priority structures which do not have an identifiable style. Although not within the same block as the subject structure, this infill proposal would identify more with the minimum ranch style homes, constructed between 1930 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 and 1940, located on the south side of 13th Street. The proposed structure fits the character and context of the area Vice -Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Vice -Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Parr had a question for the applicant regarding the renderings and the proposed materials. The applicant provided clarification regarding the rendering. Commissioner Mitchell had a question for staff regarding the height. Irby answered that other structures around the home have a similar height. Motion to approve Item B (2019-37-COA) as presented by Commissioner Parr. Second by Commissioner Mitchell. Approved (7-0). C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an Addition to a Street Facing Facade at the property located at 508 E 7th Street, bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 36, Lot 1-2 (W/PTS) (2019-43-COA) — Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is redesigning underutilized space in their home on the second story. The internal addition would create a dormer on the east -facing fagade of the structure. This dormer would be parallel to E. 7th Street, which would create a street -facing fagade. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing fagade. The dormer is being proposed on a Tudor Revival structure. A Tudor Revival structure was predominantly seen from 1890 to 1940. The identifying features are a steeply pitched roof (usually side -gabled), a fagade with one or more front -facing gables, tall/narrow windows, massive chimneys, and entry porches with a decorative Tudor arch. The proposed dormer utilizes materials (windows, trim, siding, and shingles) that match the existing structure. The proposed dormer will be the same height as the existing dormer on the west fagade. The use of a dormer would be the differentiation of the change to the structure, since Tudor structures were not typically constructed with dormers. The Design Guidelines encourage the use of a dormer for second story additions, rather than creating a full second story. The structure currently has a dormer on the west fagade. The property dormer would match and complement the existing dormer. The use of dormers is appropriate as it allows the two front gables (which are a part of the Tudor Revival style) to be retained. Adding a full second story would compromise the integrity of the structure. Vice -Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Vice -Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Romero invited the applicant to speak. Gary Wang, the applicant, provided further clarification for the Commission. He provided additional information and answered the Commissioners' questions. Motion to approve Item C (2019-43-COA) by Commissioner Mitchell. Second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0). Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a street facing fagades at the property located at 503 E 14th Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5 (SW/PT) (2019-42-COA) — Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is creating an addition for a master bathroom, which affects the south facade (street -facing). The applicant is also creating a covered porch on the rear of the structure which affects the west facade (street -facing). Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing facade. The existing structure is Minimal Traditional style with a cross -hipped roof, constructed mainly of brick. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure has some alternations, but is still significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal Traditional structures are known for their low or intermediate pitched roofs (generally gabled), double -hung windows, and minimal added architectural features. South facade: Overall, the proposed addition to the south facade is appropriate because it is located in the rear of the structure, maintains the existing building materials, and has a slight jog in the foundation which helps to create a differentiation. This addition would be adding onto a previous expansion of the original structure. The proposed addition is also compatible in scale. The existing structure is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. The proposed addition will remove a window from existing east facade; however, the window will be re -installed. West faCade:The addition of the covered porch to the rear of the existing structure respects the original structure in size and scale. To maintain the scale, the roofline is extended — however, this extension does not create differentiation. The Design Guidelines do recommend subtle differentiation, in this instance, the applicant proposes shingle plank siding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the covered patio. While these provide the differentiation encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the style is not consistent with Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials. Vice -Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. Doris Curl, public speaker, is opposed to the project. She commented that the project does not keep up with the architectural style of the neighborhood. Commissioner Parr commented on the setback and whether it is in compliance. She also asked about the material proposed. Commissioner Nunn commented that the arch is out of place. She commented that the arch and the use of materials for the siding don't align. Commissioner Mitchell asked the applicant if they considered other designs for the patio where the arch is proposed. The applicant addressed the arch and provided additional information for the arch, and the homeowner's request. The applicant considered other options that blended in as best as possible. The homeowner wanted the proposed design to provide more shade coverage when sitting in the patio. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 Commissioner Nunn commented about the use of different materials for the siding, and use of different colors to blend in better. Commissioner Mitchell commented about a design similar to the proposed arch, where the overhang can stay more inline with the roofline and still provide coverage from the sun. The applicant replied that the effect the arch would create as requested by the homeowner deals more with inside the arch and the ceiling coverage. Vice -Chair Romero asked Irby about the Commission's voting options, and if the item can be moved to the next meeting for consideration. Irby explained that the Commission can choose to table the item to the next meeting if they would like further review. Waggoner also explained to the Commission members that they can approve the item with conditions to modify the arch if they choose to. Commission members expressed that they would like to see the item be discussed again at the following meeting. Irby explained to Commission members that they have to approve the requests in the item at the same time because the requests are under the same application. Motion to table Item D (2019-42-COA) until the next meeting by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Browner. Approved (7-0). E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence at the property located at 1103 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 8, Block 25 of the Glasscock Addition (2019-50-COA) — Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is requesting to construct a fence which does not meet the Unified Development and Downtown Design Guidelines criteria for height and materials. Fences in the Old Town Overlay District are regulated by Section 8.07.040 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC states that fences located in a front yard or side setback abutting a local or collector -level street are allowed with the following limitations:1.) Fences shall be limited to four feet in height, except in the Old Town Overlay District where height is limited to three feet. 2) Fences shall be at least 50 percent (50%) transparent. For example, a wrought iron fence or picket fence that has openings the width of the picket. 3) Chainlink fences are prohibited in these locations. The property at 1103 Elm Street, which contains a medium priority structure, had a 6' fence which was recently removed. The original fence was considered legal non -conforming because it did not meet the UDC requirements as it was located in the side street setback and 6' in height and not 50% transparent. However, Section 14 of the UDC states that legal non -conforming status is no longer valid when the non- conformity has been expanded or removed. The original fence was removed and the applicant is requesting to construct a new 6' fence in the approximate location, which is 3' higher than allowed by the UDC. Section 3.13 of the UDC gives HARC the authority to approve fences that are inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and the applicable guidelines. The Commission asked the applicant about the material used for the fence. The applicant spoke and explained that wood is being used, and the fence is 16 feet from the curb. The applicant also explained the reason for the height of the fence is to provide privacy. Vice -Chair Romero opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Vice -Chair Romero closed the Public Hearing. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019 Motion to approve Item E (2019-50-COA) by Commissioner Parr. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved (6-1) with Commissioner Mitchell opposed. F. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director There are no updates at this time. Commissioner Parr asked about the vacant historic planner position. Waggoner explained that interviews have been held. However, due to recent legislative changes, staff have been working to review Department processes in preparation for the effective date of a new bill. Adjournment Motion to ad' r y Commissioner Nunn, second by Commissioner Mitchell. Meeting jour ed at 7:05pm. �tt iW Approved, oeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Meeting: August 8, 2019