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