HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 08.12.2021Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
August 12, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Terri Hyde; Michael Walton; Lawrence Romero; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn;
Catherine Morales; Robert McCabe
Members Absent: Faustine Curry; Pamela Mitchell
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Planning Director; Mirna
Garcia, Program Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:03 pm.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to
speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be
called forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
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://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 22, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Program
Manager
Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (6-0).
C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the replacement of a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at
the property located at 110 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.0826 acres being the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03FD2F4F-12C3-4AAF-B6D5-69958809AD28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
north part of Lot 2, Block 40, City of Georgetown. – Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic
Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of light
fixtures to illuminate the dome that was approved and installed as a replacement of the non-
original metal onion dome feature that sits atop the northwest corner of the building, which was
installed in August of 1985. The masonic lodge onion dome is one of the most significant
architectural features on the Courthouse Square. Previous illumination of the dome was
accomplished through light fixtures installed in nearby trees, and as the new dome was planned
for installation the best option to illuminate the feature was via the installation of fixtures
integral to the replacement dome, rather than projecting from nearby structures or landscaping.
As part of an ongoing building maintenance project the lights are proposed to have dimming
capability, and the arms attaching the fixtures to the dome have been painted a color that
coordinates with the building colors to minimize the appearance. The onion dome feature
disappeared from the Masonic Lodge circa 1925 and was reportedly dismantled. It remained
missing for nearly 6 decades until preservation efforts on the Square, spearheaded by the Main
Street Program, supported the restoration of the Masonic Lodge in 1985. The owner at the time,
Laura Weir-Clark, searched for the original dome and considered options for a replacement
before deciding on a galvanized (treated with zinc to prevent rust) dome fabricated by
Campbellsville Industries of Campbellsville, KY. The replacement dome was not an exact
match, but was similar in design, character and proportion, and restored a significant part of the
historic character of the building. In summer 2020 the applicant installed a new dome
constructed of copper, which was painted to match the existing and which had light fixtures
integrated into the dome to illuminate the feature at night.
Chris Damon, the applicant, presented to the Commission and explained the request, as well as
provided additional explanation regarding the light and controller for the light. The light can be
adjusted with the controller.
Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item C (2020-2-COA) by Commissioner Johnston. The motion dies as there
was no second.
Motion to deny Item C (2020-20COA) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner
Romero. Motion fails with Commissioner Nunn and Commissioner Walton for denial and
Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Johnston, Commissioner Hyde, and Commissioner
Morales against.
Motion to approve Item C (2020-20COA) with the condition that the light remain white and
light in color by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Motion passes
(5-1) with Commissioner Nunn opposed.
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03FD2F4F-12C3-4AAF-B6D5-69958809AD28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
• the demolition of a low priority detached garage;
• an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a new
detached garage;
• an 8’-0” modification to the required 10’-0” rear setback for the construction of a detached
garage 2’-0” from the rear (west) property line;
• a 4’-0” modification to the required 6’-0” side setback for the construction of a detached
garage 2’-0” from the side (north) property line; and
• an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for the addition of
dormers
at the property located at 1710 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.20 acre out of the
Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, situated in Outlot 2, Division B of the City of
Georgetown, also being known as the south part of Lot 4 and the north part of Lot 5, Montgomery
Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. (2021-6-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of the demolition of the low
priority attached garage, which is situated on the northwest corner of the property. Public records
indicate that the garage was constructed in 1944, shortly after the sale of the property by the
original owner. The garage has wood frame construction and a hip roof with later additions
including a carport on the front. Structural damage to the garage includes termite damage, the
frame shifting off the foundation, the growth of a large tree at the rear of the structure and water
damage. The current owner is proposing to salvage and reuse any windows or wood that can be
repaired or reused on site. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a new detached
garage, which is proposed to be located 2’-0” from both the side and rear property lines, rather than
directly against the property lines as the existing garage is situated. The positioning of the new
garage would provide improved opportunity for maintenance of the structure, as well as the
removal of some existing impervious cover from the site. The proposed new garage would be 530
sq. ft. in size and have fiber cement lapped siding, asphalt shingle roof and garage doors
compatible with the Craftsman style of the main structure, with a clipped gable or Jerkinhead roof
style to match the roof of the main structure as well as a front-facing window either salvaged from
the existing garage or of the same 1/1 style as the historic main structure. The Jerkinhead roof is
defined as, “The end of a roof that is hipped [sloped] for only part of its height, leaving a truncated
gable. Also called half-hip.” The National Trust for Historic Preservation states, “Though this word
has uncertain origins, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) explains that it could have been a
variation of kirkin-head, in which we find kirk, an old Scots variation of the word church. Perhaps
sloped gables first appeared on the heads, or roofs, of churches, but there seems to be no clear
evidence of this. Another possibility is that the slope of the roof was considered to be “jerkily”
interrupted.” Additionally, the applicant is requesting the addition of two dormers on the roof of
the historic main structure, one each to the north and south-facing roof slopes. The dormer
additions would improve the attic space to be used as additional storage. The dormers are
proposed to be the same clipped gable or Jerkinhead style as the roof of the main structure and be
approximately 10’ wide. The dormers are proposed to have lapped fiber cement siding similar to
the wood siding on the main structure, 1/1 windows and asphalt shingle roofing. Examples of the
dormer style and materials are provided in the applicant’s letter of intent. The historic main
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03FD2F4F-12C3-4AAF-B6D5-69958809AD28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
structure was constructed c. 1920 by C. H. Swenson, who passed away in 1923. His widow and
children sold the property to Sid and Florence Eanes in 1944, and the Eanes family owned the
property until 2003. The Eaneses likely constructed both a rear addition and the detached garage
following their purchase of the property.
Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item D (2021-6-COA) by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner
Nunn. Approved (6-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and the
replacement of a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at the
property located at 1808 Knight Street, bearing the legal description Lots 3 & 4, Block 5, Eubank
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of three additions to the
house, the first a dormer addition to the non-historic garage roof and a window addition to the
garage gable end, which would allow for the space above the garage to be utilized as living
space. The second addition is the enclosure of the existing breezeway between the main house
and the attached garage, which is set back from the primary street façade. The enclosed portion
would have fiber cement siding and skirting to match the existing house and a fiber composite
window in the same 1/1 pattern as the existing windows. The third addition is for a single-story
living space addition to the north of the existing main house, which would be part of the Knight
Street facade. The addition would include a second brick chimney, gable roof with the same
slope as the existing gabled roof, fiber composite windows with a taller and more narrow
proportion than the windows in the existing house, and a small, square window detail in the
gabled street-facing portion of the addition to reflect the original feature in the main structure.
The addition would have a similar stone skirting or underpinning and fiber cement siding as
the existing. The applicant is also requesting approval of the replacement of the historic wood
siding with fiber cement siding. A new rear deck would not be part of the street façade and
does not require a COA. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval to replace the original
wood siding with fiber cement siding in the same lapped profile, and to replace the wood
windows with fiber composite windows in the same 1/1 style. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting HPO approval of a change of roof materials from the existing asphalt shingle roof to
a standing seam metal roof. The change of roof materials would retain the decorative roof ridge
elements that are characteristic of Belford Houses of this style and time period in Georgetown,
of which there are at least four with slight variations and history of additions and modifications
to each.
The applicant, Katia Barrios, addressed the commission and was available to answer questions.
Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03FD2F4F-12C3-4AAF-B6D5-69958809AD28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
Motion to approve Item E (2021-22-COA) by Commissioner Morales. Second by
Commissioner Hyde. Approved (6-0).
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for a 5’-0” modification to the required 15’-0” rear street setback, to allow a porch addition 10’-
0” from the rear street (west) property line at the property located at 1912 S. Church Street,
bearing the legal description 0.15 acre, being a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Eubank Addition
Revised. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Bostick explained that this application was withdrawn and will no longer go forward.
G. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines
at the property located at 209 W. 8th Street, bearing the legal description 0.15 acre, being part of
Lots 6-8, Block 41, City of Georgetown. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new blade sign
(projecting sign) mounted to the southeast corner of the subject property. The proposed sign is
84” tall and 32” wide for a total of 18.67 sq. ft. The sign is proposed to be double-sided and be
mounted on the front façade of the building and above the canopy that wraps the front façade,
next to the upper floor windows. The sign would be mounted with brackets in the same style
and color as the bracket used for the hanging sign over the business entrance on W. 8th Street.
The Design Guidelines limit projecting signs to 15 sq. ft. and 5’ tall and 3’ wide. The proposed
sign would exceed the height standard by 2’, be 4” narrower than the width standard, and
exceed the area by 3.67 sq. ft.
The applicant addressed the Commission and further explained the request.
Motion to approve Item G (2021-37-COA) with the conditions that the sign be the same
height as the architectural vertical band next to the second story windows and that the sign
placement should align with the top and bottom of that band, by Commissioner Nunn.
Second by Commissioner Romero. Approved (5-1) with Commissioner Johnston opposed.
H. Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new residential
(infill) construction and a 5’-0” setback encroachment into the required 20’-0” front setback to
allow a residential structure 15’-0” from the front (north) property line at the property located at
404 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block
32, Glasscock Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 2,544 sq. ft. two-
story residential structure with a 484 sq. ft. detached garage at the rear. The proposed structures
would have fiber cement siding and standing seam metal roofs and be modeled after a two-
story farmhouse with detached rear garage. The front porch is proposed to be 6’ deep with a
shed roof and slender columns and extend the width of the front facade. The house has a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03FD2F4F-12C3-4AAF-B6D5-69958809AD28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
centered front door and symmetrical 4/4 windows on the first and second floors. The applicant
has provided a photo of the design inspiration in the attached Exhibit 3. A 15’ Public Utility
Easement (PUE) exists at the rear of the property and the new structures cannot be constructed
to the rear 10’ setback as structures cannot be constructed within a PUE. The applicant is
therefore requesting a 5’ front setback modification, which would shift the structures 5’ closer to
the front property line to account for the PUE, and which would also align the front façade with
structures on adjoining properties and along the block.
The Commission sought clarification between what was previously approved and this new
proposed project.
I. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
The August 26 is cancelled. The next meeting will be September 9. However there will be a
HARC Demolition Subcommittee on August 27.
There will be a training on historic preservation work on August 26 and 27. If any members are
interested, please let staff know.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Adjourned at 750p.m.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Faustine Curry, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03FD2F4F-12C3-4AAF-B6D5-69958809AD28