HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 5.12.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 12, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Bums, Vice -Chair; Lawrence Romero;;
Tom W. Davis, Jennifer Powell, Alton Martin, Karalei Nunn.
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 6:02 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
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 28, 2022, regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Kimberly Spencer, Development
Administration Program Manager
Motion to approve item as stated by Commissioner Romero seconded by Commissioner
Powell Approved unanimously 7-0
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 for at the property located at 1503 Elm Street,
bearing the legal description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition. (2022-3-COA) —
Meredith Johnson, consultant
Meredith Johnson presented the conceptual review. The applicant is requesting to construct an
approximate 1,603 sq. ft. one and one-half story addition to the existing garage and reduce the
existing garage sq. ft. from 682 sq. ft. to 439 sq. ft. A portion of the addition is setback from the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022
primary fagade of the existing garage and creates an overhang of approximately 7' 8". The addition
has a gabled roof with an actual height of 22'. 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 are proposed to be twice as tall as they are
wide except for the shed dormer windows on the south elevation.
At the April 14, 2022, meeting the Commission provided the applicant with feedback on their
conceptual plans regarding looming, massing, scale and form, architectural character, and
materials. Since the 4.14.22 meeting, the applicant has revised their plans in by the following:
reduced the total square footage of the addition from 2,623 sq. ft., to 1, 603 sq. ft., reduced the
height of the addition from 25' to 22', reduced the 2nd story of the addition to a half story and
including dormers, include architectural details of the primary structure into the addition such as
windows, railing, eave details, and roof forms.
At this meeting, the applicant is now seeking the feedback from the Commission before finalizing
their design on the following:
® Did the design respond to concerns for looming - Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3?
® Did the design respond to concerning for massing, scale, and form - Design Guidelines
3.5.C?
® Is the addition compatible to the primary structure in terms of architectural character, mass,
scale, and materials, particularly the dormer design - Design Guidelines 3.5.K?
® Design Guidelines 3.5.3.E.2.b (street facing) and 3.5.E.2.c (side facing) direct size and roof
proportions. Are the dormers on the south elevation of the addition street or side facing?
Regarding looming, the applicant removed the windows that were in question at the previous
HARC meeting. They now are seeking feedback on windows that are fronting East 1.61" Street that
would potentially loom into the 1603 Elm Street property.
Regarding architectural design, the applicant intends to include the following architectural details
and features that includes eave detail, railing detail, metal roof ridge cap and lighting fixtures. All
gable dormers will receive an eave detail consistent with the primary home. Columns of the
original home would be added to support the breezeway and in front of the new garage and
storage addition. The original Metal Roof ridge cap and end pieces will be added to the new
addition ridge line of the roof and lastly, the lighting fixtures on the garage door style of the
existing garage will be brought into the new garage addition. Roof lines pitch on hip fruit hip roof
will be married into the new addition design. Color of siding and trim the color of the siding and
the trim will be married to the existing garage and home. And lastly, window style and size will
either be matched or adjusted to relative size of the existing structure.
Johnson presented on the approval criteria and shared that staff determined the proposed project
complies with 15 of the 33 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3.
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the
following approval criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant complies with 1 out of 8 of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022
approval criteria.
Applicant is present and approached the podium to share his presentation. Randy Stroud (1503
Elm St.).
Applicant shared improvements that have been made based on commissioners' feedback from the
April 14, 2022, HARC meeting. Showed a diagram reflecting the reduction in living space,
elevation, height of addition, roof pitch, primary street view and garage driveway. Stroud
continued sharing a side that showed all the approval/design criteria that have been changed and
addressed.
Chair Walton reviewed the feedback requested slide
Commissioner Nunn shared that the side street is a side street, and the home is facing the side. She
expressed confusion by the list of items that partial complies. Shared she would like to consistently
see the on the items that partially comply, a notation for what exactly it complies and what exactly
doesn't comply so that the item can be better assessed. Nunn continues that share that the newly
proposed conceptual plan is better, however she still has concerns regarding the detail since it is
creating a false historicism to the existing home. Regarding the issue of the looming windows,
Nunn expressed confusion and needed clarification.
Johnson pulled up the slide to further clarify and address her question. Johnson clarified the
looming guideline and noted that the rear of the applicant's property extends beyond the rear of
the property to the south but is separated by a street that's 20 feet wide with a 16 ft setback from
the property line. She shared that while the windows on the second floor of the applicant's
property do extend beyond the rear of the property to the south, it's separated by quite a bit of
distance.
Commissioner Martin shared his appreciation regarding the applicant's effort in addressing the
commissioners' concerns. Shared that the way he addressed the dormers is appropriate and the
descaling of the structure. Martin shared that the looming adjustments are appropriate and
correctly addressed the issues that were present.,
Commissioner Burns echoed the sentiments of Nunn without further clarification.
Walton shared similar feedback and requested clarity on square footage in their next presentation.
Overall, Commissioners together expressed that clarity on partially comply items will need to have
more detail outlining exactly what it does and doesn't comply with and would also like more
information on materials that will be used. Commissioners also noted that the ornamental features
are a choice and not a requirement and that the character of the addition needs to reflect into the
new addition but does not require mirrored detail since there needs to be a differentiation on
design from old to new.
Waggoner summarized feedback and closed on the item.
1 listoric and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022
No motions on conceptual design items.
D Presentation and discussion of the process for determining height in the Old Town and
Downtown Overlays — Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. — Long Range
Waggoner presented item D. The Commission has asked staff to clarify the process for determining
height. At this meeting, staff will provide the Commission a presentation on the standards for
determining building heights in accordance with UDC Section 6.04.030.
Heigh
Building height refers to the vertical distance between lowest finished grade at the edge of the
building or the base flood elevation where applicable, and:
1. The average height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, shed, hip, or
gambrel roof;
2. The highest point of a mansard roof;
3. The highest point of the coping of a flat roof; and
4. Roof parapets, as described in Section 7.04.040.1), may exceed the height limitations
of this Code by no more than ten feet.
Sec. 4.08.080. - Standards Specific to the Old Town Overlay District.
Building Height.
1. Buildings within the Old Town Overlay District shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
However, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance
with Section 3.13 of the UDC to allow utilization of the height limitation of the
underlying zoning district.
2. Maximum building height at the prescribed setback of the underlying base zoning
district shall not exceed 15 feet. For each additional three feet of setback from the
property line, the building may increase in height by five feet. However, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of
this Code to allow building heights in excess of this requirement.
Sec. 4.08.070. - Standards Specific to the Downtown Overlay District.
1. Building Height.
1. Building height in the Downtown Overlay District shall not exceed 40 feet, unless a
Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by HARC in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code.
2. Buildings located along the portion of Austin Avenue that lies within the
boundaries of the Downtown Overlay District shall be at least two usable stories in
height with an overall building height of not less than 20 feet, subject to
compliance with the Courthouse View Protection Overlay District of Section 4.10.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022
However, HARC may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code.
Chair Walton opened the floor to the commissioners for questions.
Chair Walton sought clarification on if the buildings on the square flat roof. Waggoner shared that,
yes, they have a parapet, and that the height varies.
Commissioner Burns sought clarification on height restrictions as it pertains to pier and beam.
Waggoner clarified that you start measuring from the lowest finished grade.
Commissioner Burns asked for clarification on if you must have a setback of 3 feet in order to gain
five more feet of height. Waggoner clarifies the 15 feet that the guidelines would allow would be at
that midpoint of the roof, not necessarily at the eave. For example, if the peak of the house was 30
feet and the eave was at 15, you would get a roof height of 15 feet.
Commissioner Nunn sought clarification on if there is any overlap with Old Town and Downtown
districts. Waggoner shares there is not an overlap.
E Presentation and discussion of the role of a subcommittee of the HARC for review of projects -
Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
The HARC Bylaws provide that the Historic and Architectural Review Commission has the express
authority to delegate review of specific projects (as defined by majority vote of the Commission) to
a Subcommittee of the Commission composed of at least three members.
At April 28, 2022 meeting, the Commission provided the following feedback to the on the possible
formation of a subcommittee:
• The potential role for the Commission could be to review staff work, not to collaborate.
• The Commission wants to avoid postponing or denying projects.
• Meetings of the Subcommittee should be project specific focus of individual cases.
• The Commission does not want to form a standing subcommittee.
• If formed, the Commission sees value in using the Subcommittee as a tool to minimize
likelihood of rejection or postponement of HARC.
• The Commission shared concerns of conflict -of -interest concerns tied to the
subcommittee reporting back to HARC.
• If a Subcommittee is formed to review specific projects, the Commission would like to
establish a clear line separating the roles of the subcommittee from staff.
• The full Commission does not recommend that the Subcommittee provide a
recommendation or vote on items.
• HARC selects members, giving individual expertise consideration collaboration
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022
During the April 28, 2022, meeting, the Commission asked if this Subcommittee would function a
similar manner as the Demolition Subcommittee? The project Subcommittee for project review
would differ from the Demolition Subcommittee in two distinct ways:
1) The HARC Bylaws and the City's Unified Development Code require the formation of
a Demolition Subcommittee. The formation of a Subcommittee for the review of specific
projects is a discretionary act of the full Commission.
2) The City's Unified Development Code requires that the Demolition Subcommittee
provide a recommendation to the full Commission.
Both Subcommittees are similar in that their meetings will require public notification in accordance
with State law.
In addition to feedback from the Commission, staff has identified additional considerations for the
formation of a Subcommittee. The formation of a Subcommittee prior to review of the project by
the full Commission will require additional meeting logistics and requirements of the Commission
and staff. The Commission and staff agree on the need for the full Commission to have clear
criteria to form the Subcommittee. Clear criteria could emerge during the review of a project by the
full commission. Lastly, the willingness of an applicant to participate in a Subcommittee review is
critical..
In reviewing the feedback from the Commission and recognizing the potential value a
Subcommittee may provide in review of project specific cases, staff recommends that applicants
and the Commission continue to use a Conceptual Review process as part of regularly scheduled
meetings of the Commission.
If during review a specific project by the full Commission, the Commission finds that focus of a
particular aspect of a project by a Subcommittee could benefit the applicant and Commission, the
Commission is authorized in the Bylaws form a Subcommittee.
Chair Walton opened the floor to discussion by sharing his feedback. Walton agrees that
Waggoners summarization is correct_ Agrees that a subcommittee can be formed on an as need
basis and that it is up to the commissioners to ask for the subcommittee and be aware of that
resource should it be needed. Walton also suggested that site visitation should be considered as a
part of the subcommittee.
Commissioner Davis shared that he does not see a need for it at this moment.
Commissioner Romero asked for clarification on the intent of a subcommittee. Waggoner shared
that it would be in place to ensure projects do not get delayed with multiple reviews. He continued
to share that there is an active application for infill in the downtown involving height and
futuristically there will be an application for the downtown parking garage.
Commissioners agreed that if there was more clarity on the meaning of partially complies, they do
not see a need to form a subcommittee.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022
Chair Walton proposed that instead of a subcommittee that staff consider the commissions
opportunity to call a special meeting to address concerns as they arise. Waggoner shared that the
commission could call a special meeting so long as we are following public meeting procedures.
Waggoner summarized that what he heard from the commission is to keep our regularly
scheduled meetings of the full commission and continue to emphasize the role that the conceptual
design while remembering that the commission has a tool in their toolkit (subcommittee/special
meeting) if you find in during deliberations and the conceptual that you feel additional
guidance/review is needed.
F Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. -Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long
Range
Waggoner shared that the commissions feedback will be addressed (partially comply and
demolition) in a workshop in latter half of June. The workshop is to provide clarification and have
an opportunity for discussion on role, purpose, etc. Changes to any criteria would be a separate
process.
Commissioner Romero requested from Waggoner to be notified of when the demo subcommittee
is called to meet. Waggoner agreed that he can do that.
No further Questions/Comments.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Davis. Approved
unanimously 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
r
Secretary
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 7
Meeting: May 12, 2022