HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 01.23.2020City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
January 23, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
Members present: Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Steve
Johnston; Amanda Parr
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst;
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr filling in for the Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 9, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. — Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item A as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner
Browner. Approved (6-0).
B. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
addition of an awning or canopy for a commercial structure at the property located at 109 E. 7th
Street, bearing the legal description Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 39, Lot 2-3(PTS) (0.08 acres). —
Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the
installation of a flat metal and wood canopy across the street -facing fagade of the medium
priority structure. The existing small awnings are not historic and did not receive regulatory
approval, and the applicant intends to remove the existing small awnings and replace them
with a canopy that will extend the width of the building. An aerial photo from the mid-1930s
shows the building had an awning across the front, as did the other buildings along the north
side of that portion of E. 7th St. Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends
APPROVAL of the request for the installation of the proposed canopy. Historic records and
photos show that the building had an awning or canopy originally in a similar configuration,
and a modern interpretation of the original canopy is permitted per the Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde had a question about the type of materials that will be used.
Bostick explained that the proposed canopy diagram indicates paint metal framing and stain
underside of T & G boards.
Commissioner Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Agenda Item B (2019-80-COA) as presented by Commissioner Asendorf-
Hyde. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (6-0).
C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence
that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
property located at 1811 Eubank Street, bearing the legal description Eubank Addition, BLOCK
8, Lot 7-8 - Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval to increase the
height of the existing fence from 3' tall to 6' tall using the same design as the existing fence for
the height extension. The property is situated at the corner of Eubank Street and E.171/z Street,
and currently has a semi -transparent front and side yard fence that encloses the main portion of
the yard. On this particular corner lot, the house is situated close to the south property line and
occupies approximately the center third of the lot depth. This leaves the balance of the yard
space for the property in the front and side yards along Eubank and E. 17 1/2Streets, rather than
in the back yard. The subject property also has a detached garage facing E.171/2 Street that
makes the feasible location for a swimming pool on the property to be in the already fenced
area in the front and side yard along Eubank and E.171/2 Streets. Other residences located along
Eubank Street are situated closer to front property lines and to the street curb, and do not have
the same front or side yard condition. The request for the increase in height is based upon the
applicant's plan to have a below -ground swimming pool on their property, which requires a
minimum 48" (4') high fence per Title 9, Chapter 757 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The
additional 2' the applicant is requesting for a total of 6' in fence height is for additional safety.
To attain the requested 6' in fence height in the front and side yards of the property, the
applicant is proposing to extend the current fence to a 6' height in the same style, which is semi-
transparent per the UDC requirements in Chapter 8.07, as well as Design Guideline 8.25.
However, the Design Guidelines require a front yard fence to be limited to 3' in height in the
Old Town Overlay District. Taller side or rear yard fences may be considered, and the UDC
limits residential fences to 6' in height except in certain circumstances.
The applicant is also requesting HPO approval for a pergola structure within the fenced portion
of the yard, which is an addition to a street -facing fagade for a low priority structure. The
pergola is proposed adjacent to the proposed pool.
Commissioner Parr invited the applicant to address the Commission and answer questions.
Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked how far back the fence is from the street. The applicant
explained the measurements; approximately 25 feet back from Eubanks and about 121/2 feet
from the 17 1/2Street side.
Commissioner Parr asked if the six foot fence would also have the same transparency as the
existing fence. The applicant commented that the fence will be the same at six feet.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the applicant why they are requesting a six foot fence. The
applicant explained that it is due to safety, as she does not want children to be endangered by
having a low fence.
Commissioner Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item C (2019-85-COA) as presented by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell.
The motion dies due to no second motion.
Motion to approve Item C (2019-85-COA) with the stipulation that the fence be no higher than
four feet, by Commissioner Browner. Second by Morales. Motion dies as there is a tie, (3-3),
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
with Alternate Commissioner Mitchell, Commissioner Johnston, and Commissioner Asendorf-
Hyde opposed.
There was discussion amongst the Commissioners as to whether there should be an exception
to allow the six foot fence due to safety concerns. Alternate Commissioner Mitchell commented
that there should be an exception because there is a far setback from the street. Commissioner
rowner' oes not -agree; aridf approved�iis wlT�set precedence for future requesfs.�
Alternate Commissioner Johnston asked the applicant if they would reconsider an alternative
design for the fence, while keeping the existing height. Alternate Commissioner Mitchell also
asked if the applicant would consider adding another barrier between the pool and fence.
Commissioner Parr asked staff what would happen if this item is postponed to the next
meeting. Waggoner explained that the item has to be brought back to the Commission within 35
days.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the applicant if they would consider a different design to
the fence that is less climbable. The applicant is open to other designs.
Motion to postpone Item C and be considered at the next meeting by Alternate Commissioner
Johnston. Second by Asendorf-Hyde. Motion does not pass, (2-4) with Commissioner Parr,
Morales, Browner, and Alternate Commissioner Mitchell opposed.
Motion to approve Item C with the conditions that the fence remain at four feet height and
the applicant redesign the fence to address the safety issue (staff recommendations), by
Commissioner Parr. Second by Morales. Approved (4-2) with Commissioner Browner and
Alternate Commissioner Johnston opposed.
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
demolition of a carport structure and rear addition at the property located at 1215 S. Main
Street, bearing the legal description of Morrow Addition, BLOCK G (SE/PT) (0.236 acres). -
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. This property is located just south of University Ave. on the
east side of S. Main St. It is in the Belford National Register Historic District. The parcel size is
nearly a quarter of an acre and has two structures listed on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey.
The Main Structure is designated as a medium priority structure and is estimated to have been
constructed in 1920. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Georgetown from 1916 shows that lot
as vacant. The house has Craftsman features, including the low-pitched gable roofs, unenclosed
eave overhangs, front porch with brick columns that extend to the ground, multi -pane upper
sash windows, and triangular knee braces under the deep eave overhangs at the gable ends.
The rear porch addition in the demolition request is an enclosed porch, and the construction of
the enclosure indicates that the framing and siding for the porch were constructed atop the
existing porch floor boards. The detached carport with storage is located toward the rear of the
main structure and is designated as a low -priority structure on the 2016 Historic Resource
Survey. It is estimated to have been constructed in 1950. The carport structure incorporates
some of the elements of the main structure, such as the low-pitched gable roof. Its column
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
supports are constructed on the ground rather than on a slab, and the rear storage portion has
some deterioration.
Based on the construction of the rear porch enclosure atop the porch floorboards, the rear
enclosed porch is not part of the original structure, although an open porch is likely to have
been an original feature of the pier -and -beam house. The trim board below the wood siding of
the enclosed porch has a different width than does the main portion of the structure, and the
overlapped edges of the siding on the rear addition do not match with the siding on the original
structure. The porch is not original to the house and does not provide character -defining
features, nor would its removal damage character -defining features. The carport, which is
designed to be consistent with the character and features of the main structure, is noted on the
Historic Resource Survey sheet for the structure as having been re -designated from a medium
priority structure on the 2007 Survey to a low priority structure on the 2016 survey because
"Property lacks significance". In the Demolition Subcommittee Meeting, both Staff and
Committee Members found that the structure lacks significance of its own, and that its
construction has likely been improved more recently from the original structure with the
addition of features such as the decorative columns. It appears to have been originally
constructed atop the ground with metal poles for the column supports, and the existing
concrete drive was poured after the carport was constructed. Staff concurs with the Demolition
Subcommittee finding that the structure does not have salvage value, and that the demolition of
the structure would not negatively impact either the subject property or the surrounding
neighborhood.
Commissioner Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Liz Weaver, public speaker, is in favor of the request.
Commissioner Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item D (2019-70-COA) as presented by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell.
Second by Commissioner Parr. Motion approved (6-0).
E. Conceptual Review of a request for an addition to a residential property located at 1215 S. Main
Street, bearing the legal description of MORROW ADDITION, BLOCK G (SE/PT), ACRES .236. -
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. Bostick explained that this item is seeking feedback from the
Commission.
The existing structure proposed to have an addition has an estimated construction year of 1920,
and is 1,944 square feet, including the covered front porch. The one-story house has Craftsman
features, including the low-pitched gable roofs, unenclosed eave overhangs, front porch with
brick columns that extend to the ground, multi -pane upper sash windows, and triangular knee
braces under the deep eave overhangs at the gable ends. The proposed 2,263 square foot
addition is designed to be two stories in height and will be visible behind the rear and right side
of the main structure as viewed from Main Street. The addition will be attached directly to the
main structure and will provide useable carport space with storage on the ground floor, and
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
bedrooms and family area on the second floor. The addition will require the removal of a rear
wall of the main structure, removal of 11 windows and a door with trim, siding, two non-
functioning brick chimneys, and a section of the existing roof. The applicant has expressed a
desire to reuse the windows, door and salvageable siding materials in the new addition.
The Commissioners discussed issues of scale. Mass and scale need to be reduced relative to the
existing structure, which might be accomplished by reducing the overall height of the addition
or by reducing the added square footage. Commissioner Browner asked if dormers can be
utilized for the proposed addition to reduce the overall height of the structure.
Bostick continued to explain design and materials.
Commissioner Parr invited the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant commented
on trying to make the necessary changes to accommodate the desired living spaces while
adhering to the rules and not needing to request setback or height modifications.
F. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
No updates.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Alternate Commissioner Johnston.
Meeting adjourned at 7:32p.m.
Approved, -J _ :__ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __; Ehair- Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020