HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 4.28.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
April 28, 2022 at 6:00 p.m,
Council and Courts Building
510 West 91" Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Bums, Vice -Chair; Lawrence Romero;
Karalei Nunn; Tom W. Davis, Jennifer Powell, Alton Martin.
Alternates in Attendance: Pierce P. Macguire, and Williams "Jud" Harris.
Staff present: Tadd Phillips, Interim Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director;
Meredith Johnson; Kimberly Spencer, Dev. Admin. Program Manager
Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:03 pm.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to
speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be
called forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing
a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The
request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient
information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please
logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2022, regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Kimberly Spencer, Development
Administration Program Manager
Chair Walton proposed minor edits to the minutes.
Board Liaison, Kimberly Spencer made necessary edits and reprinted the corrected minutes for
commissioners approve and sign.
Motion by Commissioner Davis to approve minutes with proposed edits to this item as
stated, seconded by Commissioner Lawrence. Approved unanimously 7-0.
Chair Walton requested to switch item C with item D at this time.
1 listoric and Architectural Review Commission Page I of 7
Meeting: April 28, 2022
C 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; a 6' 10" height modification to the
required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (east)
property line; a 4' encroachment into the required 20' front setback to allow the addition of stairs
16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the
legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition (2022-10-
COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range.
Meredith Johnson presented the item for conceptual review. Johnson noted that the posted caption
had an error present, and the presentation caption is the correct caption below:
Conceptual review for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates anew,
or adds to ,an existing street facing facade; a 6' 6" height modification to the required 15' maximum
height at the side setback to allow a height of 21'6" at the side (east) property line; a 4'
encroachment into the required 20' front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front
(south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description
0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition.
Johnson shared that the applicant is looking for feedback on the following requests: garage
addition, awning and stairs to the front facade, height modification for garage addition, and a
setback modification for front facade addition.
The questions they are seeking feedback on are the following:
1. Does the garage relate to the nearby structures in character and form, and size (massing and
scale) per Design Guideline 3.5.K?
2. Are the proposed window materials appropriate for the home per Design Guideline 3.5.G.3?
3. Does the entryway addition compatible with the character of the house per Design Guideline
3.5.K?
4. Is there additional information HARC would like at the public hearing?
Johnson presented on the history and historical registry survey status. She shared that the home
was identified as a low priority structure on the 1984, the 2007, and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys. This is
most likely due to the condition of the home and the amount of original material that exists, in this case does
not exist. For example, the two front windows on the home were exchanged between the 1984 and the 2007
survey as the 2007 survey identified that the windows had been made larger as part of the replacement. The
windows on the front of the home, as seen in the 1984 survey photo, were likely the original windows based
on their simplicity however the 1984 survey does not provide sufficient detail to determine.
Johnson proceeded to provide additional context for the setbacks. The proposed alterations to the
front facade of the home would encroach 4 feet into the 20-foot front set back. Given this
encroachment the applicant is seeking a 16-foot front setback to accommodate the propose front
projection. Johnson goes on t clarify that the proposed garage addition will not encroach on front
and side setback.
Historic and Architcctural Review Commission Page 2 of 7
Meeting: April 28, 2022
Jolinson continues to share the proposed alterations in detail. The proposed window replacement
reverts to the simplified one over one styles, as illustrated by the 1984 survey photo, the proposed windows
should also be considered as a non -historic material replacement for a non -historic material as the Historic
Resources Surveys show that the original windows were replaced after 1984. The proposed mudroom and
entryway addition, a 4' by 6' addition at the front of the property, is a utilitarian addition to the primary
structure that will not detract from this low priority's significance.
The mudroom will add some additional depth and interest to the front of the home as well as provide a
livability update to the structure. The proposed garage addition is a two-story structure that will be setback
from the front entrance of the home by 10'. The setback combined with the entryway addition will result in
the garage and the front door to be separated approximately 14' total.
Additionally, the design of the proposed garage shares features with the primary, such as a shared roof style
and roof materials as well as shared windows styles. The shared features demonstrate that the two structures
are related. The proposed garage is different from the primary structure in height, from peak to peak, is q4
feet taller than the primary, and in exterior materials by using a vertical board and batten siding while the
primary structure uses horizontal boards only for an exterior material. The material differences define the
relationship further by highlighting the differences between the two structures: The vertical boards correlate
to the taller structure will the horizontal boards correlate to the shorter, primary structure.
Johnson presents on the various approval criteria and notes that based on the findings, staff recommends
denial of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new or adds to
an existing street facing fagade; a 6' 8" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side
setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (east) property line.
On the contrary, staff recommends approval for a 4' encroachment into the required 20' front setback to
allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 1 lth
Street, bearing the legal description 0. 13 76 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition.
Applicant was present, however did not wish to present or approach the podium at this time.
Chair Walton asks Johnson to review the setback requests. Johnson clarifies that the existing set back is 20'_
Once they make additions, they will then be encroaching 4' into the 20'. They are requesting a 16' rear
setback.
Commissioner Davis asks for clarity on function of space above the garage and if there will be stairs.
Applicant John Lawton approached the podium to share that there will be stairs that come up from the
rear/interior of the building and that a floorplan will be forthcoming, however, it is essentially just one large
room.
Commissioner Romero asked for clarification on proposed material of the windows and why it partially
complies. Johnson shared that the applicant is requesting to replace the current windows with vinyl. She
further clarified that the current windows have already been replaced in the past at an unknown time and the
proposed windows wouldn't technically be replacing "original" to the home windows.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 ol'7
Meeting: April 28, 2022
Chair Walton clarifies that in the instance the current windows are broken they can be replaced with a like
material window. if window is broken, can they replace with like window? Waggoner confirmed, yes, they
can replace it.
Chair Walton notes that item F can be noted as N/A since it does not apply.
Chair Walton also comments on the height of the proposed structure. The height of the current home is 17'
and what is being propose is 21'. Walton notes there is slightly conflicting information on height of the
proposed structure and notes that they would need more clarity to fully consider this item.
Applicant John Lawton addressed the board to explain that the existing structure and the purposed structure
are attached and that the of height differences are the way they are to properly address runoff and allow for
compliance as it pertains to leaks, standing water, and to ensure drainage is shedding away from the second
floor that's being added. Lawton also speaks to the proposed usage of the addition and the height of the
surrounding structures as well as the church parking lot.
Commissioner Burns notes that the garage is out of scale in terms of height, the proposed window materials
would be better if it were wood, however, since they technically are not original to the home windows, there
is not a requirement for wood windows. Burns notes that the entryway is not compatible with the character of
the home, and the board and baton is also not compatible with horizonal siding of the home.
Commissioner Nunn inquires if there is space to do a one-story addition to the back. Lawton shares that there
is a tree present that they wish not to disturb or remove. Lawton also addresses concerns regarding
compatibility noted by Burs. Shares that the feedback he's received in the past from HARC was to
distinguish new from old. Nunn clarifies that criteria was for historical structures and the subject property is
not historical.
Johnson asked for clarification on the feedback regarding the entryway. Burns shares that the home is
symmetrical, and the proposed changes are not symmetrical.
Waggoner clarifies what they will be looking into based on the feedback. Staff needs to clarify definition for
item A and note N/A for item F. Waggoner further clarifies on the height of the proposed structure as it
relates to the existing structure. Staff will provide a more through description of actual height vs. measured
height as it relates to the calculations from a zoning perspective. Waggoner notes they will be considering the
size and scale and feedback regarding the board and baton siding.
Lawton clarifies if he was to drop the top floor by 2' if that would that make any difference? Chair Walton
notes that they are primarily speaking to the guidelines around the addition and ensuring that the proposed
structure does not dominate the existing structure.
No motion required with Conceptual Reviews
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 fagade, a 7' 6 1/2" encroachment
into the required 1.0'-0" rear setback to allow a detached garage 2' 5 1/2"inches from the rear (west)
Ilistoric and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 7
Meeting: April 28, 2022
property line; a 21' encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a
garage 4' from the side street (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. Plarming Dir - Long Range.
Nathaniel Waggoner presented the staff report. He notes that the demolition of the existing low priority
garage was approved at the 4.14.22 HARC meeting. At that HARC meeting, the Commission also provided
feedback on the additions and setback modifications. The Commission asked the applicant to consider
moving the garage east out of the side setback as well as consideration of looming impacts on the residence
to the north.
Waggoner presents on the history of the subject property, noting that the 2016 historic resource survey
identifies this property as a craftsman style home in a modified L plan which was built in 1913 by the
Belford Lumber Company. He shares that the home is listed as the Laura Wileman house on the 2016 historic
resources survey and proceeds to share the history of Laura Wileman and the progression in ownership of the
home.
Waggoner continues by providing information on the setback modifications and design of the garage
addition. He notes that the proposed structure will be in the similar location and be similar in square footage
to the existing (to be demolished) structure. Additionally, the structure will be 15' which is half the height of
the primary structure and will have matching brick to the primary structure. Waggoner also noted a few
similar properties in the area south of 16" Street and along l 6th Street that the has a garage that is facing the
street that is within the 25' setback. Based on staffs investigation into the second storying looming, staff
found that the windows are from the second -floor addition are not looming. As for moving the garage over
further out of the rear setback, the proximity of the existing eave still creates concern with only 2' 11"
between the existing structure and the proposed structure. Any movement would impact the existing eave.
Based on staff findings, they recommend approval of both the addition the additions to the first a second
floor as well as the addition of the garage, and the accompanying setback modifications to the rear and the
street facing setback.
Applicant present, however, had nothing to add to the presentation.
Commissioner Davis expressed concern on watershed off the roof into the neighbor's yard as it relates to the
proposed roofline. He shared that gutters and down spouts would need to be in place to avoid watershed
impact to the neighbors. Architect Gary Wong provided clarification on garage placement and rotation to
achieve applicant's desired outcome and to address Commissioner Davis' concern.
Commissioner Nunn inquired about slide 14 (the west elevation) on whether the rear windows were looming
into the backyard. Waggoner clarified that analysis is performed on properties which are parallel (if one
property is exceeding the rear of an adjacent property) to each other, not necessarily properties which are
facing each other. It's further discussed that this type of looming that Nunn is questioning is not addressed in
the code.
I Iistoric and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 7
Meeting: April 28, 2022
Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion to approve item as stated by Commissioner Burns seconded by Commissioner Davis
Approved unanimously 7-0
E Discussion and possible action to appoint a subcommittee of the HARC for review of projects -
Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Waggoner presented item E. In anticipation of several complex downtown infill projects staff
would like to ask the Commission, as part of their review and approval process if they would find
value in having a subcommittee, look at that project, in conjunction with staff and help staff
answer questions around clarity of what's being requested, or clarity around the design guidelines
themselves, or any particular technical issue so that as these projects come forward, staff is
presenting a clear picture to the committee so that they can take action. This could potentially be
done on an as needed (per project) basis or for the review of several projects.
Chair Walton opened the floor for questions from the commissioners.
Commissioner Romero asked about the logistics of how this subcommittee would function and
provide feedback since they sit on the commission. Waggoner shared that it would be similar to
the demolition subcommittee in that a public meeting would be held, and minutes would be
recorded. However, overall feedback from the committee is being sought so that we can identify
and narrow down the role of the subcommittee.
Commissioner Davis asks clarification on how having a subcommittee is different than what is
already being accomplished in our regular commission meetings? Waggoner notes that the project
under consideration will be larger in scale and more complex.
Chair Walton states that he'd like the commission to not work with staff directly, but rather assess
the pre -conceptual. Walton sees value in putting together review meetings ahead of the
commission meeting to review staff's findings and provide feedback in that format prior to the
item being resented to the full board so that the items in question are not continually postponed.
Commissioner Davis and Romero expressed concerns over ethics and would like to make sure
there is clarity on how this would impact the full board when these items are presented in that
format.
Alternate Commissioner Harris clarified on the need for recusal if this subcommittee was utilized.
Waggoner clarified that if the subcommittee is assessing conceptual reviews, there would not be an
issue with recusal. Harris continues to share his support of a subcommittee based on prior
experience with certain projects in the past where items came back to the committee several times
and resulted in there being a sense of pressure to get something done. If there were prior iterations,
the sense of pressure or urgency would be minimized, which would result a more desirable
outcome for the city.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 7
Meeting: April 28, 2022
F Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. -Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long
Range
Waggoner presented Tadd Philips as the Interim Planning Director and shared that Council
approved design financials for that parking garage, and we're moving forward with a
development agreement to continue with the real estate transaction.
Commissioner Burns asked for clarification on the timeline for the conceptual design for parking
garage? Waggoner shared that the first step would be an Administrative Exception for height, a
site design and then staff would bring the item forward. Waggoner will keep the commission
apprised of these developments as more information is provided.
Chair Walton served on the original citizen design committee for the parking garage and expressed
concerns over conflict -of -interest. Waggoner clarified that since the award was given on Tuesday
night at Council they will likely be starting with a new design.
No further Questions/Comments.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Powell. Approved
unanimously 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
1
Je ifer P vell, ecretary
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 7
Meeting: April 28, 2022