Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 01.28.2021City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes January 28, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. Teleconference Meeting: htt s:Hbit.l /3a2FjiL The regular meeting convened at 6:OOPM on January 28, 2021 via teleconference at: https:Hbit.l y/3a2Fj iL To participate by phone: Call in number: (312)626-6799 or Toll Free: 833-548-0282 Webinar ID#: 963-0498-5179 Password: 541609 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; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Faustine Curry; Terry Asendorf--Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 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. 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 on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5 Meeting. January 28, 2021 entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your screen. 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. 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. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://go%�ernment.georgetowii.org/(,atcgt)rV/boards-coi-ninissit)ns/. Public Wishing to Address the Board C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. — Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0). E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a low priority residential structure at the property located at 1304 E. 1511, Street, bearing the legal description 0.36 acres, being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41, Block 6, University Park. — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the demolition of a Low Priority structure under the criteria of loss of significance found in UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a. The house at 1304 E. 15th Street, which was built near the end of 1947, is an example of the post - WWII Minimal Traditional houses that were constructed in newer subdivisions surrounding the older residential areas of Georgetown. Minimal Traditional housing styles were popular in the US from the early 1930s through the 1950s, when the popular style transitioned to Ranch style homes. Although located on the same block as a house within the Olive Street National Register Historic District, which has structures primarily constructed between the 1890s and 1940s, the University Park Addition and its surroundings to the north, east and south has houses I3istoric and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5 Meeting: January 28, 2021 constructed primarily during the two decades following WWII, according to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown. Most of these structures were not old enough at the time of the 1984 Historic Resource Survey to be considered historic and recorded, and the 1964 and 1974 aerial maps of Georgetown help to show what had been developed in those decades. There are a handful of non -historic homes in the area surrounding the subject property, but most of the mid-century structures, both inside and outside of the Old Town Overlay District, are still contributing to the neighborhood character, with minimal infill construction. Per a site visit and photos provided by the applicant, the current structure has had some original features such as windows replaced, but the wood siding, porch and overall design and character of the house are still intact. Some structural concerns would need to be addressed for the successful longevity of the house, including additional support or replacement of the roof ridge beam in the original portion of the house, and leveling and maintenance of the foundation of the original portion of the house and the east addition, which appear to have unlevel floors and some cracking in the underpinning or skirting — the cement -covered metal mesh that surrounds the pier and beam foundation — which would need to be repaired or replaced. The west addition appears to have been constructed atop a concrete driveway, which was not constructed to provide adequate foundational support to the addition, and which may either need to be removed (the addition does not contribute to the architectural character of the structure or the surrounding neighborhood), or to have the foundation reconstructed and the driveway removed. Although in need of maintenance and possibly additional_ support, the foundation of the original portion and east addition do not show signs of deterioration sufficient to require reconstruction or replacement. The wood beams are in good condition and do not show signs or termite or moisture damage, and the concrete piers appear to be in good repair. The soils in this part of the Old Town Overlay District are known to be expansive, meaning that as the moisture content of the soil changes, foundations can and do move and shift, causing floors to become less level and doors and windows to stick. However, remedies are available that do not require demolition of the structure or replacement of the foundation, and some repair and maintenance could reasonably be expected to resolve many of the concerns expressed by the applicant. The current owner applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the structure at 1304 E. 15th Street on August 1, 2019. The HARC Demolition Subcommittee met on -site on August 22, 2019 and recommended disapproval of the request based on: "Concern for deterioration of the structure without evidence of efforts to maintain and preserve the structure. The Subcommittee expressed concern that the removal of the st-ucture would have an impact to the character of the District. The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide additional information on the efforts taken to rehabilitate/restore or realize a reasonable rate of return of the structure and demonstrate that they cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use the structure." The HPO Report for the application recommended disapproval of the request, based on the finding that the information provided by the applicant was "...not enough to determine that the applicant meets the criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030", and provided the criteria for approval of a demolition request as well as the following comments: • The applicant has not provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5 Meeting: January 28, 2021 historic overlay district. • The applicant has not established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lost the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation. • Many of the items listed for repair are items homes of this age require improvement of if regular maintenance had not been occurring. • At this point the applicant has not provided documentation that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or that there is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure. HARC's decision in the meeting on October 10, 2019 was approval of a partial demolition of the existing structure, not to include the original central section. The demolition scope was to be limited to the additions on the east and west ends of the original structure only, including the carport, but not including the central portion of the structure. The property owner had submitted demolition permit application 2019-52979 on July 17, 2019, after which they were informed a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be approved before the demolition permit could be issued. The demolition permit was issued on January 17, 2020 and expired on November 12, 2020 as the demolition work had not been completed by the expiration date of the permit. There was discussion between the Commission and staff regarding how this project style relates to the style of houses in the area. Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing. John Lawton, the applicant, addressed the Commission and further elaborated on the project. Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing. Motion to deny approval of the demolition by Commissioner Browner. Second by Commissioner Morales. The motion carries with a (5-2) vote, with Commissioner Nunn, Commissioner Johnston opposed. F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) .for: a new residential construction (infill development); a 3'-0" setback encroachment into the required 15'-0" front setback, to allow an architectural feature 12'-0" from the front (north) property line; a 3'-0" setback encroachment into the required 6'-0" side street setback to allow an architectural feature 3'-0" from the side street (east) property line; a 7-4" building height modification to the required 15'-0" maximum building height at the front setback, to allow a building height of 22'-4" at the front (north) setback; and a 5'-4" building height modification to the required 15'-0" maximum building height at the side street setback, to allow a building height of 20'-4" at the side street (east) setback at the property located at 406 E. 411' Street, bearing the legal description 0.166 acres, being the east half of Lots 1 and 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition. — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new two -stony house with rear garage. HARC previously approved two setback modifications for the property, a 5'- 0" modification to the 20'-0" front (north) setback as the property has a 15'-0" wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the rear (south) property line, and a 9'-0" modification to the 15'- Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5 Meeting: January 28, 2021 0" side street setback, as the Ash Street right-of-way (ROW) has not been improved adjacent to the property and does not function as a public street. With this request for approval of a new residential structure, the applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a setback modification to allow an architectural feature — a bay window with roof — to encroach X-0" into the approved 15'-0" front (north) setback). According to UDC Sec. 6.04.020.C.10., features that may be located within a required setback include "Sills, belt courses, cornices, buttresses, chimneys, flues, eaves and other architectural features provided that such features do not extend further than 18 inches into any required setback." .As the bay window feature is proposed to encroach a total of X-0" including the roof, the feature requires approval of a setback modification. The applicant is requesting an additional Y-0" setback encroachment for an awning feature proposed to be located over the garage doors, which face the unimproved Ash Street ROW. The applicant is also requesting two building height modifications, both for gabled roofs. Building height is measured as the average of the eave and roof heights and is limited to 15'- 0" at the setbacks in the Old Town Overlay District per UDC Sec. 4.08.080.C. The first proposed building height modification is for a gable roof on the front fagade of the house facing E. 41' Street. The gable roof is proposed to be 22'-4" at the front setback, requiring approval of a 74" building height modification. The second proposed building height modification is for a gable roof and two-story height for the attached garage at the rear of the property. That gable roof is proposed to be 20'-4" and requires approval of a 5'-4" building height modification. The new residential structure is proposed to be constructed with fiber composite lapped siding and fiber composite trim, a standing seam metal roof, Fibrex single -hung 1/1 windows, treated wood porch railings and stucco skirting around the foundation. The design of the structure includes traditional features such as gable roofs, porches and stairs with railings, brackets to support awnings, a front bay window, an exterior chimney, exposed rafter tails and trimmed architectural features, dormers and a pier and beam foundation. Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item F (2020-71-COA) by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved (7-0). G. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Curry. Meeting adjourned at 7:42pm Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: January 28, 2021 Attest, , Secretary M rrA 6-- Page 5 of 5