Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 10.14.2021City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes October 14, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 91h Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members Present: Terri Hyde; Michael Walton; Lawrence Romero; Steve Johnston; Faustine Curry Members Absent: Karalei Nunn; Catherine Morales; Pamela Mitchell; Robert McCabe Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Program Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Meeting called to order by Chair Curry at 6:00 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 September 23, 2021 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Program Manager Motion to approve by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Romero. Approved 5-0. C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a high priority structure at the property located at 309 Walnut Street, bearing the legal description 0.551 acres in Block 5, Shell Addition. — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The first view of the subject property is an 1886 photo taken from the Williamson County Courthouse looking east. In a location that appears to match the subject property is a one-story house with what appears to be a front gable and front porch and an accessory structure to the north of the house. The first clear view of the subject property comes from the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, which shows Block 5 of the Shell Addition as Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021 having a one-story dwelling with a wrap -around front porch, rear porch, and several accessory structures, including a structure notated as a hot house. The property and structures, which at the time of the 1925 and 1940 Sanborn maps included Block 6 of the Shell Addition as well, do not appear to have changed over that 15-year period. The 1964 aerial photo shows that the north part of Block 5 had been sold and redeveloped, consistent with public records indicating the sale of property by the Shells in the early 1960s. The house appears to have had a rear addition by this point, which today is a rear bedroom and a bathroom on the southeast corner of the house where the back porch was located in the 1925 map. It is not clear if the detached garage on the north side of the property was constructed by 1964, but it does appear on the 1974 aerial photo. The wrap -around front porch appears to have been removed by 1974, and the 1984 Historic Resource Survey photos do not show the front porch, but rather a front stoop with concrete landing and steps. The windows, siding, doors, trim and decorative features all appear to be original to the late 1890s house, and the front fagade features two windows with stained glass borders. The style of the house is Queen Anne with a hipped roof and front gable. The Queen Anne details include the gable ornaments and stained-glass windows, and a view of the original front porch would have provided information on additional stylistic details, such as porch columns and spindlework. This style was popular in the US from 1880-1910 and gained popularity in Georgetown from approximately 1895-1915. It is possible that the original house had a simpler design that was later modified to add the gable details and stained-glass windows, although instances of stained-glass windows in Old Town are known to exist from the early to mid-1890s. Records indicate that the original portion of the house may have been constructed as early as 1885, and the house retains a large portion of historic materials, characteristics and features that are either original to the house or that were added early in its history, on both the exterior and interior, as many of the interior materials including floors, doors, transoms, and hardware are still intact. Although the foundation requires maintenance and additional support structure and exterior elements need repair, the structure is in sufficiently sound condition that there is no clear loss of significance or decay of the structure sufficient to warrant a demolition, particularly given the structure can feasibly be rehabilitated with interior changes and/or living space additions. Ken Wong, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and provided a presentation. He reviewed some of the issues found during the home inspections, which are reasons the owner is seeking the demolition. The property owner, Ken Schiller, addressed the Commission and further explained his request for demolition. Commissioner Romero asked Bostick to provide more information regarding bringing the structure up to code. Bostick explained that bringing the house up to electrical code is something that is recommended but not critical to the building's structure. The foundation as it exists today is not adequate according to our Assistant Building official. Commissioner Romero asked if demolition is approved, that an archival be required Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021 Commissioner Hyde asked the owner if he was able to see the house inside first before buying the house. The applicant stated that because the house was occupied at the time prior to purchase, there wasn't an opportunity to dig further to identify the mold issue. The applicant states an inspection was not done prior to buying the house. Chair Curry opened the Public Hearing. Dana Hendrix, 809 E 41h St., knew the previous owner of the house. Hendrix's house had similar kinds of issues as the property for this item, and had renovations done to address those issues. She is opposed to the demolition. Chair Curry closed the Public Hearing. The applicant, Wong, addressed the Commission, and responded to the public speaker. The house was squatted in, the comment by the applicant was not meant to malign the previous owner. The property owner also addressed the Commission and stated that the owner he bought the property from supports demolition of the structure. Motion to approve demolition by Commissioner Johnston. Motion fails for lack of a second. Motion to deny demolition by Commissioner Romero. Motion dies for lack of a second. Motion to postpone this item until more information is provided regarding the mold issue by Commissioner Hyde. Second by Commissioner Walton. There was discussion between the Commissioners regarding the mold issue presented by the applicant, and that this is not in the Commissioner's purview. Commissioner Johnston supports demolition of the property as it is not historically unique. Bostick provided an overview critical deadlines and timeframes for the Commission and applicant should the item by postponed, or denied. Motion to postpone decision -making until the November 11 meeting and provide the applicant more time to explore alternatives to demolition and more information on the cost for mold remediation for Item C (2021-42-COA) by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Motion passes 3-2 with Commissioner Johnston and Romero opposed. Commission took a break at 7:47pm, and returned at 755pm. D. 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 facade at the property located at 1002 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 1 and the north 28 feet of Lot 2, Block 26, Glasscock Addition. (2021-46-COA) — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The W. K. and Kate Makemson House is a Queen Anne Victorian structure. The Makemsons purchased the northeast quarter of Block 26 of the Glasscock Addition from F. W. Carothers in 1896, and C. S. Griffith is believed to be the builder, although the Makemsons hired the Belford Lumber Company to construct the house next door (to the south) iii 1913. Tiie house has later additions but retains many of the historic architectural Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021 features of the original style. A small, non -historic, metal shed located on the south property line and set back from the primary street fagade has deteriorated and requires replacement. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 10' x 14' or 140 sq. ft. shed with an 8' height and a 50 sq. ft. covered porch or "lean to" in a similar style and location as the existing shed and located 6.5' from the side or south property line, which would not require a setback modification. The proposed siding is an engineered wood lapped siding with an appearance similar to that of the siding on the main structure. The existing 88 sq. ft. shed is deteriorated and requires replacement. The proposed replacement provides the desired storage capacity with a similar appearance and materials compatible with the main structure. The request meets the criteria for approval and does not present a substantial change to the character of the property, nor does it diminish the character or affect the historic main structure. Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item D (2021-46-COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Approved 5-0. 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 fagade and replacing historic architectural features with non -historic architectural features at the property located at 907 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description Lots 5 & 6, Block 19, Glasscock Addition. (2021-49-COA) — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a rehabilitation and rear addition to the high priority main structure on the property, which began as an 1890 Folk Victorian structure and later expanded with rear additions. The applicant is proposing to remove the 1950s and 1960s-era rear additions, construct a new rear living space and screened porch addition with a two-story portion for the living space addition, replace the historic windows, replace the historic siding, remove and replace the existing chimney, replace the historic front door, and remove the decorative detail above the front porch, as well as adjust the slope of the roof over the front porch to create a steeper slope to assist drainage. The subject property has been in the Stump family for more than a century and is well documented in the application materials. The applicant has also pointed out that there are a couple of errors in the Historic Resource Survey. In the first page of the historic survey, the owner in 1984 was listed as Mrs. Travis Wiggins. The correct owners at that time were William R. Stump Sr. and Francis Gene Comer Stump, the present owner's parents. Mrs. Wiggins owned 901 S. Myrtle, a house that was demolished not long after that to make way for the new home that now faces 9th St. On the second page of the historic survey, construction was listed as 1920, but research indicates 1890. The applicant is requesting approval to demolish the 1950s and 1960s additions which were constructed by the Stump Family, and which do not represent characteristics or materials that have been determined to be historic in their own right, even though each of the additions is more than 50 years old. With the removal of the additions the applicant is requesting approval to construct a new rear addition which would be behind and to the north of the historic main structure, primarily visible to the left or north of the main structure and from E. 10th Street, as the historic main house constructed in 1890 has an "L" shaped plan that would obscure most of the addition from the main fagade. A portion of the additioi4roof may Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021 be minimally visible from the primary street fagade, however due to the steep -pitched historic roof and the lower roof slope and ceiling height of the addition, the second floor of the rear addition would be approximately 2.5' taller than the existing historic structure. The addition is also proposed to have a screened side porch in a location similar to an early screened porch prior to the 1950s addition. The addition is proposed to use lapped fiber cement siding to match the proposed replacement siding for the main structure, and the windows are proposed to be square proportions with divided lights rather than the long vertical proportions of the historic windows in order to differentiate the new addition from the historic portion, with an asymmetric gabled roof over the second -floor portion of the addition to minimize the overall roof height. The rear -facing windows are proposed to have high sills and have horizontal proportions. As part of the rehabilitation scope the applicant is also requesting to remove and replace the lapped wood siding and the windows, both of which are known to have lead -based paint. Although the materials have been maintained through periodic repainting and reglazing, the thin glass windows continue to provide maintenance challenges and do not provide a tight closure in the window opening, which allows dirt and debris to enter through the window gaps. Although the applicant could employ the use of storm windows or other techniques, they prefer to install single -hung energy -efficient windows in the same size and light pattern as the historic windows with a vinyl -clad wood rather than the all -wood existing windows. The windows would also have screens. The removal of the wood siding would also remove layers of lead -based paint, and the replacement siding is proposed to be fiber cement lapped siding with a similar profile and reveal. The trim would be repaired or replaced with either fiber cement trim or cedar. The remaining brick chimney no longer functions and the applicant is requesting approval to remove it and construct a new thin -set brick chimney in a new location further to the interior of the house than the existing chimney. From the applicant, "We plan to fully demolish both chimneys in the house as they are unsafe. The plan for the new chimney, mentioned in the specification, is to use a modern wood burning stove that takes in outside combustion air and is fully air sealed from the interior. It will be in a fireplace -like setting, using the old mantel and surrounding trim. It will be in a different room though, and go through the attic with double wall steel inside a steel box. On the roof it will appear as a brick Folk Victorian chimney, even though real bricks will not be used above the roof. We will use brick appearing tiles thin set to cement board. We have installed several of these, and they were big hits, particularly in the last winter storm. They will heat 1,000 sq ft. or more, without pulling out all the air in the house. They also use very little wood." As the existing chimney is not on an exterior location the new chimney would have similar characteristics to the existing, although a change in interior location. The applicant is also requesting approval to replace the historic front door with a new front door which would have a glass section and a transom. The proposed foundation leveling and repair does not require approval of a COA, however the applicant is proposing to replace the underpinning or skirting with a mesh and concrete skirting that would have an stucco appearance. To address an ongoing maintenance issue and remove a feature that is not original to the house, the applicant is requesting approval of the removal of the decorative railing above the front porch roof and the replacement of the roof with a slightly steeper - pitched shed roof to assist with drainage and cleaning leaves and debris, which collect Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021 moisture. The applicant has provided photos from 1917 and the 1940s showing the porch without the railing, which was in place by the 1960s. Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item E (2021-49-COA) by Commissioner Hyde. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Approved 5-0. F. 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 800 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 & 8, Block 50, City of Georgetown. (2021-51-COA) — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of two hanging signs that would be located under the existing building canopy. The signs are proposed to be constructed of metal components, with white acrylic housing that would create a halo lighting effect around the brushed aluminum letters applied to the face of the signs. The signs are proposed to be 54" x 18" or 6.75 sq. ft. in size and hang from the existing metal canopy supports, providing a minimum 8' of clearance above the sidewalk. The two businesses do not currently have signs and propose the canopy signs as the least impactful to the historic fagade. Business signs for the Steele-Makemson Building have not included fagade signs in recent years, but rather have been attached to the canopies and installed on the windows. The proposed signs keep with that precedent. The proposed hanging signs meet the size, materials and clearance requirements in the Design Guidelines, but as they are located in Area 1 of the Downtown and proposed to be illuminated, they require approval by HARC. The proposed window signs meet the requirements in the Design Guidelines and can be approved by the HPO. Halo illumination styles are permitted in Area 2 of the Downtown and in Old Town when utilizing a warm white light. The LED lighting is proposed to be 3,500K, between the warm white and neutral white range. Chair Curry opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item F (2021-51-COA) as presented by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Walton. Approved 5-0. G. Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for: • residential infill construction; • a 3'-0" setback encroachment into the required 15'-0" side street setback for the construction of a residential structure 12'-0" from the side street (east) property line; • a 13'-0" setback encroachment into the required 25'-0" street -facing garage setback for the construction of an attached garage 12'-0" from the side street (east) property line; • 4'-9" building height modification to the required 15'-0" building height to allow a residential structure to be 19'-9" tall at the rear (south) setback; and • a 0.03 floor -to -area ratio (FAR) modification to the 0.45 floor -to -area ratio for the Old Town Overlay District, to allow a floor -to -area ratio of 0.48 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021 at the property located at 1404 E. 16th Street, bearing the legal description Lot 2A, Block 3, Nolen Addition. (2021-55-COA) — Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new two-story, single- family residence with attached two car garage facing the side street. The proposed design includes a concrete foundation, typical wood framing, black composition shingle roof, and a combination of brick and board and batten siding painted a shade of white with black vinyl windows, either 1/1 single hung or fixed single pane. The proposed structure has gable and hip roofs and an asymmetrical facade with a partial second story over the rear of the structure and above the side -facing garage. The footprint is proposed to be 3,182 sq. ft. with a 783 sq. ft. second floor for a total of 3,965 sq. ft. Included in the request is a setback modification to allow the structure to be constructed 12'-0" from the side street property line instead of the required 15'-0" in order to provide a 4'-6" increase in the setback for the side property line, between the existing single -story structure on the adjacent lot and this proposed structure. That setback includes the side -facing garage. The structure is proposed to be constructed at the rear setback, and the second floor, which is also at the rear setback, is proposed to have a building height of 19'-9", 4'-9" above the required 15'-0" maximum height at the setback. Based on the lot size of 8,232 sq. ft. the floor -to -area ratio for the structure is limited to 0.45 or 3,704 sq. ft. The increase in FAR from 0.45 to 0.48 allows for an additional 261 sq. ft. for second floor living area, inrhidino,a hPdrnnm The Commission addressed the questions presented by staff. The applicant addressed the Commission and explained that there is a 6 foot easement on Virginia St that isn't incorporated into the lot. The setback is farther than the requirements. H. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Johnston Approved 5-0. Adjourned at 8:39p. i ^-1v1, C-1 Approve , -F96,Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary 7 — wA- s_% I %w Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Meeting: October 14, 2021