HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 04.14.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
April 14, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Burns, Vice -Chair; Lawrence
Romero; Karalei Nunn; Tom W. Davis, Alton Martin.
Not in Attendance: Jennifer Powell, Pierce P. Macguire, and Williams "Jud" Harris.
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director;
Meredith Johnson Kimberly Spencer, Dev. Admin. Program Manager
Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:02 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 log on 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 March 24, 2022,
regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Cindy Medrano,
Administrative Assistant
Motion to approve minutes by Commissioner Romero seconded by
Commissioner Martin Approved unanimously 6-0
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page I ot4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for the demolition of a low priority detached garage at the property located at
1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C,
Morrow Addition (2022-12-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range.
Staff report presented by Sofia Nelson. Nelson shared that the garage under consideration
is a low priority structure, rectangular in shape without an identified style. Nelson shared the
definition of a. low priority structure. The garage is situated on a lot with a high priority
residence, known as the Laura Wileman House on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. The
garage fronts W 16th Street while the home faces S Main St. and the relationship between the
house and the garage, however, is utilitarian as the garage shares very few features with the
house. The Historic Resource Survey lists a build date of 1916; however, the 1916 and 1925
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show that the garage was originally to the north side of the
house. The current garage does not appear on the 1940 correction to the 1925 map; thus, it is
reasonable that the garage was not built until after 1940 — unless it was moved around from
the north side, however the current garage seems larger than the garage shown on the
Sanborn maps. The garage is placed to the rear of the home, fitting in between trees and eaves.
The garage was constructed with wood framing and 2x4 studs. The exterior is a horizontal
wood siding, painted white. The roof is a front -gable that opens to 16th Street with an asphalt
shingled roof
Staff found tliat the garage is in relatively poor condition, despite the owner's attempts to
patch and repair. At the time of construction, a foundation was not poured to prevent soil
contact with the siding, so the siding has seen over 100 years of water penetration. The
primary damage is found along the exterior of the garage, where the siding meets the ground
and has deteriorated from moisture. The roof is sagging despite attempts to correct its failing
components. Finally, the primary feature that is shared between the garage and the house are
the garage's east -facing windows. These windows are similar in style to the windows on the
house and may have been incorporated as left -over material. These windows should be
salvaged and potentially incorporated into a future garage. The applicant has described the
ways that the structure does not meet current living standards. Staff has determined that these
issues are a result of the garage was constructed with direct contact with soil and water
penetration. Staff /Demo Sub Committee's recommendation is to approve this demolition for
the reasons set forth.
We have found that the request is has met the approval criteria. The applicant has also filed
this demo request under a loss of significance, noting that the building is no longer historical
or architecturally significant. The applicant has established that the structure has undergone
significant and irreversible changes and that the changes to this build were not caused,
directly or indirectly by the owner. Demo of this building will not cause an adverse effect on
the historic district given that it is a low priority accessory dwelling.
Nelson noted the consideration of a conceptual design in the agenda for the garage
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
replacement.
Applicant came to the podium and shared their love of the house and historic nature of the
neighborhood. Shared that everything they do they wish to do it with a lens of maintaining
the historical and integrity the building. He continued to share that there is lead paint flaking
from the garage and expressed concern re: his young children. Also, due to the comprising
nature of the structure cars are not parked in the garage. Garage also makes wood to soil
contact and floods easily in significant rain events. Roof is caving and 2x4 studs that are not
structurally adequate.
No questions from commissioners.
Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion to approve item as stated by Chair Davis seconded by Commissioner Lawrence
Approved unanimously 6-0
At this time, Waggoner requested to bring Item I up in the agenda since Item C was approved
in relation to the conceptual review. Chair Walton agreed.
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's
characteristics and applicable guidelines for the property at 1415 Ash Street, bearing the
legal description 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition (2022-13-COA) -- Nat
Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Staff report presented by Meredith Johnson. Johnson shared the historical progress of the
property in the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the 1964, 1974 aerial maps, and the 1984,
and 2016 HRS photos. The 2016 HSR identifies the structure as a center passage home with a
one -and -a -half -story wood -frame asymmetrical plan with a gable roof and composition
shingles. The roof includes broad eaves with jig -sawn brackets. The front elevation faces west,
and the exterior includes a brick chimney. The property located at 1415 Ash Street is a high
priority structure which was accepted into the National Register of Historic Places in 1987 for
significance in local architecture and politics/government. The home is one of two known
architect -designed pre1935 dwellings in Georgetown.
The fence is 3' 6" in total height and consists of an 8" brick base with 30" powder coated
custom wrought iron pickets and 716"x16" brick posts, to match the existing chimney and
anchor the corners. The applicant is proposing the fence to be located at the front property
line (west) and beyond the (south) side street property line approximately 18" from the
sidewalk on 15th St. Currently the property line is 4 feet off sidewalk). The applicant is
concurrently seeking a License to Encroach on public right of way through separate
application and agrees to the removal of the fence, if the area is needed for future utilities, at
their expense.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
In their Letter of Intent, the applicant states, placement of the fence beyond the street side
(south) property line along 15th Street is to avoid the root system of a pecan tree and to match
the distance from the sidewalk to the fence (18") as the fence on Ash St. According to the
applicant, this will create a balanced design, and optimize curb appeal. The applicant is
requesting a height of 3'6" to account for the airiness of a thin wrought iron fence, adding
another 6" wouldn't make the fence look heavy, busy, or walled off, to provide privacy and
additional ornamentation along the front property line.
The proposed fence design is similar in materials and height to other properties in the
immediate area and within the Old Town District including the immediately adjacent
property at 1503 Ash.
Both Johnson. and the applicant spoke to the proposed fence and how it will use brick, giving
it a polished look that will match the brick chimney and used for planting boarders
throughout the front yard. The iron work is custom for the proposed fence. The iron is
powder coated black with dulled tips on each end. The iron features a club as an ornamental
detail. At its highest point, the fence will measure 3'6". The wrought iron component will
measure 30" and will be placed on top of a brick base measuring 8" tall. There is about a 2-4"
gap between.the base of the iron and the top of the brick. The total height of the wrought iron
and brick base component will be 3'6". The brick base will lead into seven (7) brick posts that
will measure 18" by 18" and will be 3' 6" tall. The proposed fence would screen the view of
the house, but only slightly as the proposed fence is about 95-98% transparent. The fence does
not affect the integrity of the home as it is removable without causing harm to the structure.
The brick columns support the original chimney which is a notable architectural feature.
Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 2 of the 2 applicable Historic
District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed in the presented Applicable Design
Guidelines.
The proposed fence meets the requirements for transparency. The front yard fence does not
exceed 4'. Additionally, the design guideline for fence materials calls for masonry walls,
ornamental walls, or wood picket fences. The proposed fence does have ornamental iron that
is more delicate than wood pickets. The masonry base is 8" tall.
The proposed fence will partially extend to the side yard and does not exceed 4' in height.
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it complete.
The Unified Development Code (UDC) identifies that residential properties in the Old Town
Overlay District are required to have a 3' tall and 50% transparent fence in the front yard and
side street setback, and the proposed fence is 3'6"'. The applicant achieves the transparency
requirement. The requested height is consistent with the intent of the UDC regulation.
Proposed fence complies with the applicable SOI standards; New additions, exterior
alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the
property and its environment. Additionally, that new additions and adjacent or related new
construction shall be undertaken in such a mariner that if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The request complies with the guidelines for transparency, intent for height, materials, and
general location.
The subject property is high historic integrity. The height and transparency of the proposed
fence supports the integrity of the structure. The materials recommended by the Design
Guidelines d create a high degree of design compatibility for this structure.
Within the Old Town overlay fences exists in a variety of heights, styles, and materials. The
overall character, and the character of the near vicinity of the subject property, is generally
lower height, transparent fences, including wood pickets and decorative iron fencing along
street property lines. The height and transparency of the proposed fence are compatible with
the general character of the district.
Based on the findings presented staff recommends approval of the request for Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, 3'6" in height for the property located at 1415 Ash
St., bearing the legal description of 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition.
Chair Walton opens the floor for questions.
Commissioner Romero confirms that if they approve the COA tonight, they will not have any
review of the proposed materials and final renderings. Johnson affirms this is correct.
Commissioner Romero has concern
Adrian Duncan, applicant approached to address Commissioner Romero's concerns re: the
materials. Dtincan confirms that the brick will match the existing brick on the chimney of the
home. Iron work will mimic presented renderings as close as they can get it. Applicant
confirms Northwest Ironworks as the ironwork company he is using. Northwest Ironworks
will be creating the ironwork and applicant will be installing.
Burns confirms that proposed fencing will look like fence across the street. Applicant shared
that they would have a limestone cap, similarly to the fencing across the street. Burns is
concerned about the phrasing similar at best she is ready to accept with conditions once the
staff can confirm final renderings and materials.
Sofia recommends possible postponement if they need further consideration.
Burns addresses compliance list re: height requirements. Nat addresses that the new design
guidelines are 4 ft. (the old design guidelines is 3ft.)
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion to postpone item as stated until further detail on the materials of fence (brick, iron
details and caps) can be provided, by Commissioner Romero seconded by Commissioner
Davis Approved unanimously 6-0
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for the replacement of a historic feature with a non -historic feature for the
property located at 1206 S. College Street, bearing the legal description .166 acres, Block 3
(E/PT), Hughes Addition (2022-15-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long
Range
Staff report presented by Nat Waggoner. Waggoner shared that all 19 windows for the
home are single pane, double hung wood windows. 6 of the windows measure approximately
30" x 65", three small windows measure about 29" x 44". The home features two sets of
double hung windows on the College Street -facing (east) facade (4 total windows). The
window sashes are made of wood and painted a deep red color to match the eaves of the
house. The frames are also constructed of wood and are painted white to match trim and
architectural features throughout the exterior. The windows are simple and include two panes
each, a top and a bottom. This style was popular in the early 20th Century.
The applicant has requested a COA to replace the existing 19 wood -frame, double hung
windows with vinyl, double hung windows. The location of the windows will not change.
The windows under consideration are character -defining as they are located at the front of the
house and face College Street. The existing windows have single lights on the top and the
bottom. The proposed windows are nearly identical in form, though they differ in materials
and color. The existing windows are wood that has been painted red to offset the brown
exterior and match the trim around the eaves.
In their supporting materials, the applicant states that many of the existing windows have
cracks, and nearly all the windows are sealed shut for moisture control and weatherization.
The applicant would like to install the new windows to not only resolve the weatherization,
moisture, and operability, but also to make the home more energy efficient.
The proposed windows will match the dimensions of the original windows. The applicant did
not include a proposal for repairing rather than replacing the windows. The applicant has,
however, attempted minor repairs such as adding weather stripped and caulking the
windows to seal out moisture. This is the first recommended step in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for windows. However, the date of construction for the home speaks to a
time when the windows would have provided necessary airflow throughout the house, a
strategy that moves moisture as well. The additional moisture trapped by the sealed windows
has likely expedited the damage to the windows. Finally, the proposed windows do not meet
the criteria for materials in Design Guidelines Section 3.5.G.3 which states "Windows should
be made of wood or aluminum -clad wood or fiberglass clad wood. The profiles and jamb
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 0 ot4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and profile thickness." The
proposed windows are not clad, nor do they resemble the original wood windows in
detailing.
Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 0 of the 7 applicable Historic
District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as presented in the Applicable Design Guidelines
portion of the presentation.
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends conditional approval of the request if
the applicant replaces the street facing facade windows with those that meet Design
Guidelines 3.5.3.G with windows that are either the same or a similar material, and the result
will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the
original design of the windows.
Chris Sundgren, applicant is present and addressed HARC. He shared concerns re: efficiency.
Commissioner Nunn shared that she would approve with the condition that in kind
materials are used (wood).
Commissioner Martin confirmed that there are 19 windows in total however it is the 4
that are facing the street that are really in questions. Applicant affirmed that is correct.
Commissioner Romero shared similar thoughts as Commissioner Nunn, expressing that
the material would need to be comparable and meets the guidelines. He shared that the
bevel may be, intrusive.
Commissioner Burns asked about if the applicant has looked into repair. Applicant has
not.
Chair Walton clarified design of new windows since the pictures in the presentation were
not an accurate representation of that the windows look like today. Applicant shared a
picture with HARC that showed that detail of the proposed windows and the house as it
stands today.
Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, addressed HARC in opposition of item. Shared that the
windows can be repaired, and glass can be replaced. She shared that the applicant could
source the glass and the size proposed is very easy to replace. Shared that there are wood
frame interior storm windows that look like hanging screens that can stop the wind from
coming in. Weaver points out examples in town that have either repaired windows or
installed interior storm windows.
Chair Walton closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Walton expressed concern over the common reason presented when applicants are
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
requesting demolition are that non -historic materials were used to replace the existing
windows and that they do not confirm to the design guidelines.
Motion to approve with conditions that replaced windows meet design guideline 3.5.G.3.a.
(Windows should be made of wood or aluminum -clad wood or fiberglass clad wood. The
profiles and jamb conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and
profile thickness.), by Commissioner Nunn seconded by Commissioner Romero Approved
unanimously 6-0
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for the replacement of historic architectural features with non -historic
architectural features at the property located at 509 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal
description 0.24 acres, Lot 6-6 (PTS), Block 15, Glasscock Addition (2022-16-COA) -- Nat
Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Staff report presented by Nat Waggoner. Waggoner shared that the applicant is requesting
to remove and replace the wood siding and vertical board as needed, replace the batten
siding, and re-olace all of the trim. According to the applicant's Letter of Intent (attached) the
siding has seen years of wear and tear from the Texas climate.
Wagoneer shared the historical progress of the property in the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps, the 1964, 1974 aerial maps, and the 1984, and 2016 HRS photos. Structure is a medium
priority structure, surrounded by high and low priority structures.
Waggoner then presented the elevation renderings and reviewed examples of materials. The
current condition of the siding cannot be determined as the house has been wrapped in Tyvek
for weatherproofing as some of the siding, and all the battens, has already been removed. The
remaining siding is original long leaf wooden boards that extend from the skirting to the
soffit. The applicant has stated that these pieces that remain are structural to the home. While
the loss of the original material will reduce the home's overall integrity, the new siding will
ensure that the look of the home is retained longer, and the new insulation will make the
home more livable for contemporary demands.
Waggoner presented on materials to be used: Batten:. 1"x2.5" hardi to be installed on top of
the boards with spacing that will "mimic" the original. Material to match boards. Hardi Trim:
1x4 cm pieces to be installed on corners, below soffits, and around windows and doors. Sills:
2"x6" cedar sill to be installed below windows. Style to match original. Lower Trim: 1x6 cm
pieces to be installed between the siding and the skirting. Tyvek Wrap: To be installed over
the long leaf boards that will remain on the house for structural purposes. Insulation: To
improved climate control inside the house, which previously had very little insulation, will be
installed over the wrap. Hardi Boards: 4'x8' sheets with a cedar mill finish to be installed over
the insulation.
Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 1 of the 8 applicable Historic
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 8 of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines
section below:
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval with conditions of the request.
1. The applicant shall ensure that the new siding will match the original siding in dimensions
and texture, 2'' This project shall include protections to the original material that is to stay in-
tact, including but not limited to protection against moisture, insects, and other elements that
threaten wood, and 3. The new siding shall match the configuration of the original siding
exactly.
Applicant was present but did not have anything to add.
Chair Walton opened the floor to questions from the commissioners.
Commissioner Martin confirmed that trim around the windows are going to mimic or look
like the existed windows and baton looked like before. Applicant confirmed that new
materials will be the same in style and depth of the current windows.
Commissioner Romero addresses if the circular attic vent on the front of the house is going to
stay. Applicant confirmed, yes.
Commissioner Walton addressed if all exterior materials have been removed. Applicant
confirmed that all batts have been removed. Other materials remain and new materials would
go on top of old material.
Commissioner Nunn asked what the profile for the batons will be. Applicant confirmed it
would be the same distance and width that they were before. The spacing would likely be 12"
consistently. Nunn clarifies her question re: profile. Applicant clarified that some profiles are
rounded, and some are a sharper edge.
Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing.
Liz Weaver,1221 South Main Street, addressed HARC. She shared that they are looking to put
in 2.5" wide baton whereas the original is 4" wide. Her request is for the batons to be 4" and
closely mimic_ what the home would have looked like before the batons were recently
removed. Would also request that the profile mimic the time period. What they have
proposed does not.
Chair Walton closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Nunn notes that she does not see shape. Chair Walton shows a few pictures
that have two different types of shape.
Commissioner Romero is hardi board one of the in -kind materials we can approve? Waggoner
confirms yes.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 9 of4
Meeting: April 14, 2022
Motion to approve with conditions as presented by staff (1, The applicant shall ensure that the
new siding will match the original siding in dimensions and texture, 2. This project shall
include protections to the original material that is to stay in -tact, including but not limited to
protection against moisture, insects, and other elements that threaten wood, and 3. The new
siding shall match the configuration of the original siding exactly.) by Commissioner Martin,
seconded by Commissioner Nunn Approved unanimously 6-0
G. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) new
residential (infill) construction for the property located at 510 E 7th Street bearing the
legal description Lot 1, Block 36, Glasscock Addition (2021-67-COA) -- Nat Waggoner,
Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range.
Meredith Johnson presented the staff report. She shared that the applicant is requesting
to construct a new house on a vacant parcel. The new house is proposed to be 2,904 sq. ft. that
will contain approximately 2,245 sq. ft. of living space, a 444 sq. ft. attached garage, and 215
sq. ft. of covered patio and porch space. Johnson reminded commission on questions that
should be considered:
1. Does the new house comply with the looming guidelines of 3.4.C.3?
2. Does the house relate to the nearby structures in character and form, and size (massing and
scale)?
3. Is there additional information HARC would like at the public hearing?
4. What additional information could we bring to you in the next meeting?
Johnson shared the historical progress of the property in the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps, the 1964, and 1974 aerial maps. She noted that the lot is surrounded by medium/low
and high structures.
Johnson proceeds to present on the elevation of the proposed structure, noting roof material,
window types, siding material (smooth hardi siding), inset porch, two architectural columns,
16'xT garage door, various window sizes proposed (some of which do not meet guidelines
3.5.G.2 for size.
Johnson reviews design guidelines. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies
with 11 of the" 18 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapters 3.4-3.5 as detailed
in the presentation on Applicable Design Guidelines. Staff has determined that the proposed
project complies with 11 of the 18 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapters
3.4-3.5 as detailed in the presentation on Applicable Design Guidelines.
Applicant, Chance Leigh, President of Chance Leigh Custom homes is present and
addressed the commission. Leigh notes constraints on lot with the edge of front porch
and garage are pushed back as far as they can due to an existing easement that snake
through the lot right next to the rear of the home. They can't enlarge the footprint of the
home or encroach into the easement. They found out that the easement is the residents
next door that he uses. Since they can't vacate the easement, they have minimal option for
Historic and Architectural Review Commission rage 10
Meeting: April 14,2022
placement of.the garage. Chair Walton clarifies exact location on the map in the
presentation on where the easement is located. Clarified that you are allowed to place a
driveway or a fence over the easement however you cannot place a structure on the
easement. Leigh confirmed they found the pipe underground and water would come
through every once and a while. Inquired if the pipe could be relocated but it is not
possible.
Chair Walton clarifies that there are two lots. Leigh shared that he owns both lots but
there is a non -confirming structure on the property line.
Commissioner Burns shared that she had concern over design (windows not matching
and fagade coming across as flat due to the garage placement/aesthetics do not match his
proposed in the past). Burns proposed possibly requesting a variance re: the setback lines.
Chair Walton agrees with Commissioner Nunn that there may be more opportunity for
creativity in design. On the surface it doesn't look like it fits with in old town. Leigh notes
that he is trying to have some dimension in his design.
Commissioner Romero asks if it is possible to turn the house around for the front to be on
college street. Leigh not an impossibility, just need to approve it with fire and building
permits. He notes that the driveway would need to be considered if adjusting the
position.
H. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition that: creates a new or adds to an existing street facing for at the property located
at 1503 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes
Addition, Block 10 (W/PT). (2022-3-COA) — Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long
Range
Meredith Johnson presented the staff report. Reminds commissioners of questions in
consideration:
1. Does the proposed meet the Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3 for looming?
2. Does the addition meet Design Guidelines 3.5.0 concerning massing, scale and form?
3. Does the addition meet Design Guidelines 3.5.K concerning architectural character, mass,
scale and materials?
4. Are there additional opportunities to meet Design Guidelines 3.5.K.5- acknowledgement
and respect and where appropriate inclusion of architectural features of existing building.
5. Is the breezeway compatible in character and material to meet Design Guideline 3.5.K.3?
6. If any additional information not presented what can we bring to you next time?
The applicant is requesting to construct an approximate 2,323.17 sq. ft. two-story addition
above the existing garage. A portion of the addition is setback from the primary fagade of the
existing garage and creates an overhang of approximately 7' 8". The addition has a gabled
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page I I
Meeting: April 14, 2022
roof with a height of 25'. The addition is proposed to connect to the primary structure by a 20
ft. breezeway. The garage addition includes 5/16in. x 144in Hardibacker lap siding to match
the primary structure. The windows of the proposed addition are a mix of types and sizes, but
they are all proposed to be vinyl.
The applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the existing detached
garage. The addition will increase the garage from two to four cars, will be connected to the
primary structure via a breezeway, and will add significant living space to the property for
the owner's family.
The subject property is a single -story, medium -priority residential structure with 1,863 sq. ft.
of interior space and a 761 sq. ft covered porch that wraps around the west and southern
facades and include columns with decorative caps supporting the roof. The eaves are deep
overhangs and include decorative trim. The primary structure includes double -hung
windows with screens. The structure has an estimated construction date of 1916 but does not
provide a building style or identified plan, according to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey.
The 1916 Sanborn map depicts the primary structure as an L-shaped house with two additions
that alter the plan to become its current rectangular shape. There are three outbuildings, 1 of
which appears to be the existing garage facing 15th Street. The existing 537 sq. ft. garage
facing 16th Street was constructed in 2013 in a similar location to the original garage first
depicted in the 1916 Sanborn map.
The subject property is located on 1/2 of Block 10 and is dimensionally a corner lot with three
street -facing facades. The proposed addition, connected to the main structure via a 20'
breezeway, is setback from the character -defining fagade (Elm Street). The addition is placed
appropriately on the lot with the primary structure located toward the center of the lot. The
location of the addition maintains the existing pattern of 16th Street between Elm and Ash
Streets as there are primary and detached garage structures built at the property lines. The
scale of the addition is not compatible with the primary structure as the proposed addition is
two story, compared to the single -story primary structure. The primary structure constitutes
2,625 sq. ft. (which includes the 761 sq. ft covered front porch). The addition, including the
breezeway, will add a total of 2,523 sq. ft. to the primary structure. The properties to the east
are a single -story home and a home with a partial second story. Residences south of the
subject property along Elm Street are predominately single -story bungalow -style structures.
North of the property, beyond 15th Street, are homes with a variety of stories. Two-story
residences north of the subject property with the University Elm National Register District are
Victorian and Queen Style homes. The mass associated with the addition is concentrated
along the southern and eastern property lines. Along the southern fagade, the looming effect
will not be as pronounced given the separation of the properties by 16th Street however the
fagade does include windows that extend beyond the rear of the building south of 16th Street.
Windows along the southern and eastern facades are single hung vinyl windows, are twice as
tall as they are wide and are the same sill height on each floor and are laid out symmetrical in
each bay.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 12
Meeting: April 14, 2022
Staff have determined that the proposed project complies with 13 of the 33 applicable Historic
District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed in the presentation on Applicable Design
Guidelines.
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, staff have determined
that the applicant complies with 1 out of 8 of these criteria.
Applicant, Randy, and Liza Stroud, addressed the commissioners with a presentation. They
purchased the home with the intent to add to the structure to fit their family needs. They met
with Briton during the options period when they found the home. She stated that it wasn't
reasonable as presented however if a breezeway was present that it may be considered.
Originally were looking at a 3-car addition, however upon looking within the block there
were examples of 4 car additions. They are looking to store a boat, thus needing the 4-car
garage option. Applicant shared their original desire to have a deck but due to looming they
changed their design to remove the covered deck. As far as the 65" windows, they felt that it
was not safe given that it was on the second floor. Applicant spoke to the metal ridge to the
current home and will be salvaging that feature and include into their addition. They will be
expanding from a n 1800 to a 3300 sq ft home. They did an analysis to discover it their request
is reasonable. They found that properties that were greater that 1400 sq ft in the area, 16 of the
49 homes had expanded their footprint of the original home to over 3000 sq ft. Applicant has
also looked at properties that have garages. Of those properties 31% had garages that were
over 1000 sq ft.
Commissioner Davis expressed concerns over massing and scale of proposal. The character of
the proposed does not fit within the old town neighborhood context.
Commissioner Romero expressed similar concerns. Mass is large. Asked if the applicant had
considered a ,one-story. Applicant noted that going to a one story would not meet their
garage/storage needs. Applicant further clarified that one of the things that Waggoner had
suggested was that they consider one and a half set up instead of a two story with the
dormers on the side that face 16th Street. The applicant considered that option but noted that
it takes a bit of the square footage out of the bedrooms. Applicant clarifies that he'd be willing
to reconsider if that would help address commissioners concerns on mass.
Chair Walton concurs with commissioners on size. He notes that the proposed does not
resemble an addition but rather another home. He notes that the "addition" is bigger than the
current home. Chair notes that there are opportunities given the lot size but would need to be
scaled down in terms of mass. Chair also notes that there is also opportunity to increase the
level of acknowledgement, respect, and inclusion of architectural features of the existing
building of your current house.
Commissioner Nunn addresses the stop work order for the other building off of 151" St.
Applicant clarifies that there was a bit of a misunderstanding on our tax roster. It shows that
as a 600 square foot building, it was it's only 520. He clarifies that they are adding the extra 80
Historic and Architectural Revicw Commission Page 13
Meeting: April 14, 2022
square feet to allow for a bathroom. Applicant notes that this area will be a play area.
Nunn clarifies that taking small features from the original home does not address increasing
the level of acknowledgement, respect, and inclusion of architectural features. She also notes
that most of the examples that were provided as comparable would likely not be approved
with today's guidelines.
Applicant asks if there is a target number in terms of square footage that would be more
acceptable? Chair Walton clarifies there is not a particular number its really just the mass and
size of it all.
Commissioner Martin addresses the looming issues. It just exacerbates the scale of this
proposed addition. Applicant notes that they would encounter looming issues regardless of
placement. Chair Walton notes that if the applicant takes a different approach to design the
looming issues may resolve itself.
Waggoner recaps the feedback. Johnson recites feedback questions. Notes scale and massing
re: #2 and #3 feedback questions. Notes #4 architectural relationship between the two
buildings. Nunn clarifies that the relationship had more to do with scale and massing than
with metal trim and roof shapes. Chair Walton also notes that numbers on the exhibits were
not legible. He requests they come back with more clarity on those images.
Johnson/Waggoner clarifies concern on a breezeway. Chair Walton notes that breezeways do
not pose an issue within the guidelines. Waggoner also confirms it moving the mass of that
structure to a single story closer to Elm Street is something that this commission would have
concerns about with that facade. Chair Walton notes that they would need to see what is
proposed in order to speak to that change.
Johnson also clarifies that proposed materials will need to be presented as a part of the COA.
I. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade and an
encroachment into the required 25'-0" garage side street setback to allow a new garage at
the (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal
description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C, Morrow Addition (2022-12-COA) -- Nat
Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range.
Staff Report presented by Waggoner. Waggoner clarified the applicants request is to
construct a new garage (495 sq. ft.) and a 581 sq. ft. addition with dormers to the rear of the
primary structure. In this HARC Conceptual Review he'd like the following to be considered
in the feedback questions below: new detached garage addition, new addition that adds to or
creates a street facing facade, and the garage street (21') and rear setback (74") modifications
for new garage. Waggoner asked for feedback on the following questions:
1. Are the garage street and rear setback modification appropriate?
Historic and Archifectural Review commission Page 14
Meeting: April 14,<2022
2. Does the new addition comply with the looming guidelines of 3.4.C.3?
3. Does the addition relate to the primary structure in character and form, size (massing and
scale)?
4. Is there additional information HARC would like at the public hearing?
The subject property is 1,857 sq. ft. two story home with a 500 sq. ft. open porch and detached
garage. The main structure includes a later addition to the rear of the property. The 2016
Historic Resource Survey identifies this property as a craftsman style home, in a modified L
plan, built in 1.913 by the Belford Lumber Company. This house is listed as the Laura Wileman
House on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey and located in the Belford National Registry
district.
Wagoneer shared the historical progress of the property in the 1916, 1925 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps, the 1964, 1974 aerial maps, and the 1984, and 2016 HRS photos. He shared
proposed renderings (aerial depiction, north, south, east, west elevations) showing the rear
addition and how the ridge line will tie into the current structure along with proposed
materials and paint colors. Additionally, Waggoner shows the proposed garage addition in its
proximity to the main structure and the fence line. Waggoner then presents three similar
garages with similar setbacks to which the applicant is requesting, within the 161h street
vicinity.
Chair Walton opened the floor to questions from the commissioners.
Commissioner Nunn asked for clarification on the setback being requested. Nat that the
applicant is proposing to place the garage 4 ft from the property line which equates the garage
encroaching 21 ft into that set back primarily due to them being on the corner with two front
facing sides to the home.
Commissioner Alton asked if there was any public comment from neighbors. Waggoner
clarified that with conceptual reviews it is not required to seek public comment and the
this is a voluntary request from the applicant to seek HARCs review of the conceptual
plan. Since the applicants will also be presenting this as an item of consideration at the
April 28th HARC meeting, notifications for that item have already been sent out and a
sign is present on the property as of this meeting (4/14/2022) which will open the item to
public comment right now in preparation for the next HARC meeting.
Commissioner Burns asked for clarification on if set back concerns for the proposed
garage are for both 16th street and for the rear of the property. Waggoner shared that there
is a 10ft setback requirement in the rear and the applicant is asking for a modification of a
4 ft rear setback there and a 21 ft setback modification off 16th street.
Commissioner Burns and Chair Walton asked clarification on if the proposed garage will
be going in the exact place of the approved demolition of the existing garage. Waggoner
this would be the case. Chair Walton and Burns requested more information on if the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 15
Meeting: April 14, 2022
proposed garaged can be placed on another location in the property. Is the rear of the
addition on the setback line? The addition is not encroaching on the set back. When the
original garage was built the setbacks were not in place. The new garage will be violating
the setbacks we have in place today and the purpose of the request is to modify the
setback requirements.
Architect Gary Wong approached the podium to clarify. Wong shared that proposed
garage will be in exact location of existing garage approved for demolition with some
modifications making it shorter (N-S) but wider (E-W). This was done to not only
accommodate two cars properly but also to keep the roof line overhang in the rear mirror the
front.
Wong attempted to relocate the garage however there is a large tree in place where the
garage could possibly go. Applicant does not wish to remove the large tree or alter the
front facing facade. Chair Walton asked for clarification on if garage could shift 4 ft to the
East. Wong clarified that the roof lines would collide in that case. Additionally, they are
attempting to keep the 5'2" breezeway walkway in place.
Chair Walton addressed the looming guidelines re: the upstairs bedroom addition. Wong
clarified that it does respect the footprint of the rear 10 ft. setback.
No further questions.
J. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Sofia Nelson presented updates. Introduced Kimberly as the Dev. Admin Manager.
Noted that we will be hiring role specific to boards and commissions that Kimberly will
be supporting.
Noted that this will be her last meeting until the end of summer. Tadd Philips will be
stepping in on an interim basis next to Meredith and Nat.
Addressed the happenings of public comments submitted after posting. Updated that all
public comment that is to be reviewed by HARC must be in by Friday at the time of posting.
We will add any public comment to our records and inform you of the number we received
after posting but we will not be emailing or printing out copies for the dias. The reason for
this is to allow for public transparency —if received after agenda has been posted, the public
does not have an opportunity to review the comments, there is not adequate time for HARC
to review, and additionally not adequate time for the applicant to review and address
comments. Case managers will notate in if public comment has come in after posting as a part
of their presentation. This will be communicated to the public, that when they do present
comment after posting it will need to be presented in person at the HARC meeting.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 16
Meeting: April 14, 2022
Chair Walton presented feedback to Nelson regarding emails not being received from him.
Chair Walton asked for clarity on appeals and how applicants choose their criteria.
Additionally Chair Walton requested more clarity on minutes as it pertains to appeals and
how they can sometimes be taken out of context when presented to council. Nelson clarifies
that all meetings are recorded and are accessible by all.
Chair Walton also requested revision or clarity around Section 4.2. Specifically, in how the
criteria are used, how the words used to describe the findings are used so that confusion can
be removed about Section 4.2.
Nelson notes that staff can look at conducting a workshop to help commission better
understand the design guidelines, how they differ and how they are consistent with the
current design guidelines. Nelson also notes that we will attempt to put more detail within
minutes however they are not intended to be verbatim record of the discussion. Nelson also
notes that if they are not in agreeance of the meeting minutes, they should not approve them
and identify where more detail is needed, however notes that meeting minutes are not meant
to be verbatim.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Davis.
Approved unanimously 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Michakl Walton, Chair
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Meeting: April 14, 2022
)„
Je nifer Po ell, Lretary
Page 17