HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 05.28.2020II City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic anII
d Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 28, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https.//bit.ly/2RbSgUx
The regular meeting convened at 6:OOPM on May 28, 2020 via teleconference at:
https:/f bit.ly/2RbSgUx
To participate by phone: Call in number: +1512-672-8405 Conference ID#: 305 091196#.
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the "ask a question" function on
the video conference option; no in -person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Faustine Curry; Pam
Mitchell; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Karalei Nunn; Robert McCabe
Members absent: Steve Johnston
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Minna Garcia, Management Analyst; Britin Bostick, Historic Planner
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:02 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public
comments and how the public may address the Commission. — Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, PIanning
Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens'
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide comments
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page I of 4
Meeting: May28,2020
on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, unmute yourself by pressing *6 on your phone and state your name and address. Once the
Chair has the names of everyone who would like to speak, the Chaix will call the names in order, and
when your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another
speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the public wished to allot their time to another
speaker, they may do so when their name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments
and questions must be addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the
speakers during the public hearing portion.
• The public also has the opportunity to provide comments through the Q&A section of the Live
Meeting, located on the right-hand side of your computer screen. Please provide your full name and
address for the record, and your comment will be read by Staff.
*After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and
provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Curry. Second by Commissioner Nunn.
Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a T-
10" setback encroaclunent into the required 6' side (north) setback to allow a residential
addition 1'-2" from the side (north) property line; a 4'-4" setback encroachment into the required
15' side street (south) setback to allow a residential addition 10'-8" from the side street (south)
property line; and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's
characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307 Myrtle Street, bearing
the legal description 0.13 acres out of part of Block B of the Hughes Second Addition. — Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The existing structure is situated within both the side and side
street setbacks for the Residential Single Family (RS) zoning district, and the applicant is
requesting HARC approval of two setback modifications. The first setback modification request
is for a 4'-10" setback encroachment into the required 6' side (north) setback to enclose the
existing carport and convert it to an enclosed garage. The proposed garage conversion would
not extend the building further into the setback, however as the north wall of the structure and
carport is currently 1'-2" from the north property line, the proposed addition of a concrete slab
in the garage and the enclosure of the garage are partially within the required 6' side setback,
and require a setback modification. The second setback modification request is for a 4'-4"
setback encroachment into the required 15' side street (south) setback to allow the addition of a
porch 10'-8" from the side street (south) property line. The porch is aligned with the existing
building and does not extend further toward the south property line than does the existing
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: May 28, 2020
building, but as the proposed porch addition would be constructed partially within the side
street setback, approval of a setback modification is required.
The applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a front and side yard fence designed so that
the portion of the fence along Myrtle Street is 3'-0" in height with less than the min. 50%
transparency recommended in the Design Guidelines, and the portion of the fence along E.
1411, Street is proposed to be 4'4" in height with the same style as the front fence.
The proposed additions and alterations to the street -facing facades are reviewed by the HPO,
which include the conversion of the attached carport to an enclosed garage, the addition of a
rear porch and alterations to the front porch, the addition of the front dormer feature, the
replacement of the aluminum siding with fiber composite siding, a change in the roof pitch and
replacement of the hip roof style with a gable roof and south gable with window, the
replacement of the asphalt shingle roof with a standing seam metal roof, the addition of exterior
light fixtures, and a rear addition with street -facing windows and rear gable. Although the
proposed dormer and gable features are designed with windows, the structure is designed to
remain a single -story structure, and a second -floor area is not part of the design.
Commissioner Parr asked what the applicant needs to do to meet compliance for 50%
transparency of the fence? Bostick explained that for every piece of fence board, there should be
an equal piece of fence gap.
The applicant, Cory Shaw, addressed the Commission and explained that he is okay with
eliminating some horizontal slats if needed to meet compliance of the 50% transparency rule.
Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked what the next steps are in the process if approved.
Bostick explained that there will be a COA memo drafter for the applicant, which will need to
be used for the Permitting Department, and that the fence will need to meet the permitting
requirements.
Chair Parr opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item D (2020-14-COA) with condition to achieve 50% transparency and no
modification to height by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Browner.
Approved (6-1) with Alternate Commissioner Mitchell opposed.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new
fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable
guidelines at the property located at 1407 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of 0.262 acres
out of the southwest part of Block 7 of the Hughes Addition. — Britin Bostick, Downtown &
Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new wood
fence in the side street setback that would be 6' in height, not provide transparency and which
would have horizontally -oriented fence boards. There is a privacy fence existing in the side
street setback. The subject property is listed on the H-istoric Resource Survey with a construction
date of 1970, but the 1964 aerial photo of Georgetown shows that the Ranch style house had
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting. May 28, 2020
been constructed by that time. The photo does not indicate a privacy fence in the side yard in
the original site design, but a wood privacy fence currently exists on the site within the side
street setback. Per the Unified Development Code (UDC), fences in side street setbacks (the
required side street setback for properties in Residential Single Family (RS) zoning is 15') for
properties in the Old Town Overlay District are required to be Y maximum in height and min.
50% transparency, unless HARC approves an alternate fence design. Fences that are installed at
least 15' back from the side street property line and flush with or set back from the front face of
the structure are permitted to be 6' tall with no transparency. The proposed side yard fence is 6'
in height, constructed of horizontal wood fence boards and installed along the south (side)
property line. As there is an existing wood privacy fence in that location, the primary difference
between the existing a new fence would be the design of the new fence.
Commissioner Browner asked when the privacy fence was actually built, and Bostick explained
that she was not able to determine that information as no information was found.
Commissioner Nunn commented that the fence has been up for at least twenty years.
Chair Parr opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked if the visibility requirements are the same for the side
and front of the fence. Bostick explained that they are.
The applicant, Tony Perez, addressed the Commission and commented on the transparency of
the fence. He explained that all boards will touch upon being installed, however, there will be
gaping due to the boards naturally shrinking over time.
Motion to approve Item E (2020-25-COA) as presented by Commissioner Nunn. Second by
Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson explained that future meetings starting in July will take place in Council Chambers.
However, if Commissioners would like to participate by teleconference, that will remain an
option.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Browner.
Meeting adjourned at 6:58pm
M',n ,_rt-%f S
yv�p�#,r�,
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair
{2c
Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: May 28, 2020