HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 7.28.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
July 28, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Linda C. Burns, Vice -Chair; Jennifer Powell; Tom W. Davis; Alton
Martin; Alternate Pierce P. Macguire; Alternate William "Jud" Harris; Lawrence
Romero; Karalei Nunn;
Members Absent: Michael Walton, Chair
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Tadd Phillips, Interim Planning
Director; Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program Manager, Jessica
Lemanski, Planning Specialist
Meeting called to order by Linda Bums at 6:04 pm.
Vice -Chair Linda Bums served as Acting Chair in the absence of Chair Michael Walton.
Kimberly Spencer updated the Commission and. the public on the logistics of the meeting
(Nat Waggoner calling in on Teams to present staff reports, clarifying motions, etc.)
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 mustinclude 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 July 14, 2022, regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Kimberly Spencer, Development
Administration Program Manager
Historic and Architectural Review Committee
July 28, 2022
Page 1 of 11
Vice -Chair Burns opened the floor to Commissioners to discuss or ask questions. No discussion.
Motion to approve Item B as presented by Commissioner Martin. Second by
Commissioner Davis. Approved unanimously (7-0).
C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an
existing street facing fagade for the property located at 1503 Elm Street, bearing the legal
description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition. (2022-3-COA) — Nat Waggoner,
Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and clarified the applicant's request by noting their
intent to construct a total of 1,732 sq. ft. of additions (849 sq. ft. of 2nd floor space and the first
floor addition that include a new garage, new storage, and additional living space is 936 sq, ft.)
as well as a 236 total sq. ft. of structures including a 162 sq. ft. porch and a 131 sq. ft. breezeway
and 450 sq. ft. of new driveway pavement.. 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 roof with an actual height of 24'. The addition is proposed to connect to
the primary structure by a 24 ft. 6-inch breezeway. The garage addition includes 5/16in. x 144in
Hardibacker lap siding to match the primary structure. The proposed windows are JELD-WEN
2500 Series Black Painted Clad Wood Double Hung Window w Natural Interior and Screen
which are to be twice as tall as they are wide.
Waggoner spoke to the location of the structure, the surrounding properties and structures, the
Sanborn maps, and the character of the surrounding residences. Waggoner also presents
renderings of proposed plans and changes to the structure.
Waggoner outlined the conceptual feedback provided by HARC in previous HARC meetings as
follows:
At the April 14, 2022 meeting the Commission provided the applicant the following feedback on
their conceptual plans_
- Concern for looming with full 2nd story bedroom windows - Design Guideline section
3.4.C.3
- Concern for massing, scale and form -Design Guidelines 3.5.0
- Concern architectural character, mass, scale and materials are not compatible with the
historic character of the primary structure - Design Guidelines 3.5.K
- Inclusion of architectural features of existing building - Design Guidelines 3.5.K.5
Waggoner noted the changes made to the conceptual plan following the 4/14/22 meeting, which
include:
- Reducing the total square footage of the addition from 2,623 sq. ft., to 1., 603 sq. ft.
- Reducing the height of the addition from 25' to 22'
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 2 of 11
July 28, 2022
Reducing the 2nd story of the addition to a half story and include dormers
Intention to include architectural details of the primary structure into the addition such
as windows, railing, eave details, and roof forms.
At the May 12, 2022 conceptual, the Commission provide the applicant the following feedback.
- Concern for accurate representation of total square footage of additions.
- The design responded to concerns for looming - Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3.
- The Commission was generally accepting of the mass, scale and form of the addition
with the exception of 1 Commissioner.
- Commissioners noted that the ornamental features are a choice and not a requirement
and that the character of the addition needs to reflect the new addition but does not
require mirrored detail as there needs to be differentiation of design from old to new and
to avoid a false sense of history by mimicking details of the primary structure.
- The dormers on the south elevation of the addition street are side facing - and 3.5.E.2.c
(side facing) meet Guidelines for size and proportions.
Waggoner presented renderings of the proposed changes, discussed floor plans for the ground
and second floor renderings and called attention to the separation of the two garage doors to
separate the driveways. Waggoner noted the connection between the garage addition and the
main living quarters are supported by the breezeway and connected to the extended porch,
noting that the breezeway could be removed with limited interference to the primary structure;
Applicant intends to match materials to the primary structure, and Waggoner noted that the
applicant is now proposing platted wood double hung windows instead of the vinyl windows
proposed at the 5.12.22 meeting.
Waggoner reviewed the approval criteria by sharing that staff determined that the proposed
project complies with 25 of the 33 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3
and recommends approval for the request.
Waggoner also noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, 3 signs were posted
on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the
request.
Vice -Chair Burns opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners. No
questions or discussion.
Vice -Chair Burns opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth.
Motion to approve Item C as presented by Commissioner Davis. Second by Alternate
Macguire. Approved unanimously (7-0).
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 3 of 11
July 28, 2022
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, and a 17' - 8 "
encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage T - 4"
from the side street (west) property line for the property located at 1227 S. Church, bearing the
legal description Lot 16, Block 1, Cody Addition (2022-26-COA) - Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning
Dir.- Long Range
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and clarified that the applicant proposes a 23' 6" by 18'
carport on the west side (rear) of the property oriented toward S Myrtle as the property is
situated between two streets. The carport is open on the sides and provides overhead coverage
with an angled butterfly roof and a proposed height of 12' 6". The minimal design is comprised
of only two materials: powder -coated dark gray metal for the structural posts and beams, and
light gray metal decking for the roof material.
Waggoner noted the location of the property and the materials to be used, which would match
the original structure, if approved.
Waggoner speaks to the location of the primary structure and the surrounding properties,
including the streets backing up to the structure.
Waggoner noted that staff reviewed the request in accordance with the Unified Development
Code (UDC) and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the proposed
request complies with 6 of the 7 applicable criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030 for
a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Waggoner established that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners
within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of
Appropriateness request (42 notices), and (2) signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has
received 2 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 5).
Applicant and owner are present to answer any questions for the Commission.
Vice -Chair Burns opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Davis noted that even though the project was at the back of the house, it backs
up to Myrtle Street, where it would be exposed to those living on Myrtle Street. Commissioner
Davis also cites page 185 of HARC Design Guidelines as it pertains to roof profiles, noting that
he is not inclined to approve this item due to those guideline illustration suggestions.
Commissioner Powell also noted that the addition may not complement the design standards of
the neighborhood and echoes Commissioner Davis' concern for the view of the property from
Myrtle St.
Gary Wang, Principal Architect of Wang Architects on University Avenue (Applicant), to
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 4 of 11
July 28, 2022
address commissioners' questions on the carport as related to the Design Guidelines. Wang
discusses difficult property orientation, opening up to Myrtle Street, neighboring property
carports and garages, the decision for a carport as opposed to a gabled garage or shed roof due
to conflict with existing structure, and inverting the carport.
Vice -Chair Bums opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward.
Motion to disapprove Item D as presented by Commissioner Davis. Second by
Commissioner Powell.
Commissioner Nunn noted that she appreciated the difficulty of the area and property, but
the design of the carport did not fit with the area or comply with design standards.
Motion approved unanimously (7-0).
E Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing
structure for the property located at 305 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 3-7
Block 17 (W/PT), Glasscock Addition. (2022-28-COA) — Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. -
Long Range
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and noted that the property COA appears twice on the
agenda, one for the demolition of a portion of the rear of the property and one for a new
addition to the property. Waggoner shared that the applicant is requesting the demolition of an
approximate 272 sq. ft. addition at the rear of the property. The historic addition is estimated to
have been constructed a between 1925 and 1965 as an enclosure to an original rear porch.
Historic materials of the rear addition include single pane double hung windows and original
wood siding. Waggoner discusses the location and historical mapping of the property as well as
surrounding properties as it pertains to the Sanborn Map, previous additions to the structure,
salvaging the windows and siding, and discusses the approval criteria. Waggoner noted that
the Demolition Subcommittee recommended that the windows to the rear and the wood be
salvaged to the extent feasible.
Waggoner noted that in reference to the demo approval criteria for UDC Section
3.13.030.F.2.a.iv, staff found that it complies with 3 of the 4 criteria. As a result of staff's findings
on the approval criteria, in addition to the Demolition Subcommittee's report, staff recommends
approval with the condition that the windows and siding be salvaged to the extent feasible.
Commissioner Davis noted that he would like to approve with condition that the windows and
siding be reused somewhere in the new addition to the property (on the basis of Design
Guidelines on 4.4 and archiving the home).
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 5 of 11
July 28, 2022
Applicant John Lawton, Green Earth Builders, approached the podium to address the
Commission.
Applicant noted that he reuses as many materials as possible to preserve the historical integrity
of the home. Documentation of the home done by Liz Weaver. Commissioner Davis notes that
documentation of the property should be done prior to the issuance of the COA in accordance
with the 4.4 guidelines.
Vice -Chair Burns opened the public hearing.
Linda Austin,1009 S Elm St., approached the podium to address the Commission. Linda noted
that two homes in her neighborhood had demolition requests approved by the Commission and
that she believed these demos/additions were a net win for the character of her neighborhood.
She is in favor of the request.
Vice -Chair Burns closed the public hearing.
Motion to approve Item E with condition of the applicant providing archival
documentation as it pertains to Guideline 4.4 Sec A along with the reuse of salvageable
materials as it pertains to Guideline 4.4 Sec. B for Item E by Commissioner Martin.
Second by Commissioner Davis.
Commissioner Nunn noted that she did not believe that preserving the windows was necessary,
especially considering it is not required within the code. Does not want to impose an undue
burden that is not required.
Commissioner Davis noted that the windows were nonetheless part of the house during the
historic surveys and the property is considered a medium priority property.
Commissioner Martin noted the conditions could provide clarity to future applicants on the
decisions of the Commission.
Alternate Macguire asked to clarify the conditions of the motion. Answer: Document the
original structure and reuse as many materials as feasible.
Vice- Chair Burns asked Waggoner to clarify why this property required a COA for demolition
and others do not. Waggoner stated the structure was over 50 years old according to the survey
records. Materials are also examined to determine historical significance (siding and windows
in this case).
Approved unanimously (7-0).
F Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 6 of 11
July 28, 2022
for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an
existing street facing fagade and restoring historic architectural features for the property located
at 305 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 3-7 Block 17 (W/PT), Glasscock
Addition. (2022-28-COA) - Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Commissioner Romero entered the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and established that the property under consideration
is located at 305 E 8th Street, three blocks away from the Williamson County Courthouse. The
house is a medium -priority single -story home that was constructed in 1921. The resource does
not have an identified style nor plan. Alterations have been made to the home, but they are
primary situated towards the rear. The front of the home appears to be close to the original
design. The front of the home features a large porch with four square columns. An open gable
sits on top of the porch and features a bracket and a vent. The brackets are a distinct feature of
the home. The applicant would like to make alterations to the rear of the house by enclosing a
porch, adding a second story, increasing the height of the roof, and repairing the exterior of the
home. Waggoner discussed proposed materials and previous additions to the structure.
Waggoner established that staff determined that the proposed project complies with 19 of the 28
applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed in the staff report. Based
on these findings, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As required by the Unified Development Code, one (1) signs was posted on -site. To date, staff
has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request.
Vice -Chair Bums opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commission.
Alternate Macguire asked clarification on the impact of the addition (is that a staff assessment
or more formal meaning)? Waggoner clarified that the roofline is extended 62", making it a
sizable addition to the existing roof, and changes the perception of height of the front elevation
of the project.
Commissioner Powell asked about chimney materials for the brick columns on the front
elevation and whether they're still intact. Applicant said he won't know until the demo work
begins; Tried to minimally change the elevations and gable on the west side to make the
chimney functional; chimney is historically significant and beautiful. If any replacement of
chimney is necessary, new materials would match.
Commissioner Martin noted the asymmetry is strange, but he appreciated the beauty of the
chimney. Applicant responded that the original gable would stay. He plans on taking most of
the footage that is still there and increasing the elevation to allow function, and making an L
structure to aid in flow of the house. Speaks to his past experience in roof extensions and
methods for doing so.
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 7 of 11
July 28, 2022
Commissioner Nunn comments that the elevation of the roof is too big and totally changes the
scale and character of the house. Commissioner Davis agrees.
Commissioner Nunn asked if there was another way to make the street view more symmetrical.
Applicant replied that he didn't want to extend lower story and increase impervious cover, so
the second story was their solution to allow function. Could potentially raise the A frame.
Commissioner Davis advised Applicant if he finds the house needs more demolition, he would
need to apply for another COA for demolition. Applicant understands and notes that he has
done some other projects in town.
Commissioner asked if there was room on the 2nd floor plans to open up a window or door to
break up the slope of the roof. Applicant replied that dormers could be added or potentially
raise the A frame.
Commissioner Nunn notes that it still wouldn't be symmetrical if you want the view of the
chimney. Clarifies that her understanding of the request is to raise the chimney and cut off a
portion to maintain the view, cutting off a portion of the new raised roof, making the view of
the house from the front asymmetrical.
Applicant: Taking the second A frame off, keeping the original North side A frame structure to
make sure the chimney is exposed and functional.
Vice -Chair Burns opened the public hearing.
Linda Austin, 1009 S Elm St., approached the podium to address the Commission. The existing
roof is not attractive, she believes it's quite short. She likes the proposed changes and finds them
aesthetically pleasing, refreshingly minimal, and attractive.
Liz Weaver, 1221 S Main St., agrees with Linda Weaver; the plans look like a big change, but the
existing house is too low/short and the proposed changes are good. She also volunteered to take
pictures of the house tomorrow with the applicant in order to properly document/archive it.
Vice -Chair Burns closed the public hearing_
Alternate Macguire noted that he appreciated the public comments and the context/opinions
they provided to the Commission.
Motion to approve Item F as presented by Commissioner Powell. Second by
Commissioner Martin. Motion approved (5-2, Harris and Nunn denied).
G Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an
existing street facing facade and a 6'- 6" setback encroachment into the 20'- 0" front setback to
allow the addition of a porch 13' - 6" from the front (west) property line for the property located
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 8 of 11
July 28, 2022
at 1501 S. College Street, bearing the legal description of 0.275 acres in Block 97 and 98, Dimmit
Addition. (2022-37-COA) — Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Nathaniel Waggoner presented the staff report and established that the applicant is proposing
to add additional coverage to the porch by adding an extension to the roof. Applicant is also
proposing to enclose an existing carport
Waggoner discussed a presentation error as it pertains to slide 23 in the staff presentation. He
noted that the southern portion of the property is already within the 20 ft setback and as the
gable projects, it will be no farther than the existing wing, so it is compliant with the guidelines.
Waggoner established that staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 19 of
the 21 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3.5 as detailed in the staff
report. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request with the CONDITION that the proposed
windows meet Design Guideline 3.5.G. for materiality.
Waggoner noted that in reviewing ranch style homes, most additions are under the roofline.
Additions comply with materials and roof form. 3.5.k.d complies. The gable modifications are
not unusual and have historical significance in its own right (partially complies).
Waggoner noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness
request (32 notices), and number (2) signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 2
written comment in favor and 0 in opposition to the request
Applicant is present and available for any questions.
Vice -Chair Burns opens the floor to Commissioners for questions and comments.
Commissioner Davis noted that it's critical that buildings intended for renovation must start out
with an exact reflection of what is present on site, and he points out differences in the drawings
versus the actual location and scale of the gables. Commissioner Davis uggests postponing the
decision until accurate drawings are provided.
Alternate Macguire asked Waggoner to elaborate on the review process. Waggoner explained
that Meredith did a portion of the review and he (Waggoner) reviews her work. There were two
rounds of review (needed more information on materiality and setback modification) on this
application. Required to draw site to scale using a computer program (Bluebeam) for initial
analysis/scaling/drawing. Alternate Macguire asked if we do have a scaled drawing? Waggoner
replied that the applicant did provide a depiction, unsure if accurately scaled.
Commissioner Davis stated that the scale and proportion of the drawing from the North side is
not consistent with the photographs (gable on right side of house seems the same height as the
long ridge of the house), and is an important part of the review process. Applicant Jon Patch
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 9 of 11
July 28, 2022
stated that for the scope of work on this project (small), the drawings are suitable. Perspective is
difficult to depict in a 2D drawing. He then acknowledged the drawing from the North had an
error and apologizes.
Commissioner Davis asked if the applicant is intending to put two gables on the front porch?
Applicant replied yes, for cosmetics, but it does not project past the eave of either and is not
necessary to the project.
Commissioner Davis inquired about the materials for the gables. Applicant established that
intended materials are flat panels, sheet goods with no textures and smooth finish. Wood with
board and batten appearance; made of plywood with faux batten strips applied. Applicant
stated they are modifying window openings on the North side to make smaller. Intend to brick
in the opening and move windows towards the back of the garage to avoid setting them so far
to the front. Adding brick to the front and middle column to move away from the front.
Commissioner Davis comments that he would like the columns, ridges, and gables to reflect
current conditions before giving approval.
Alternate Macguire defers to Davis's expertise, would like to see another drawing before
approving (i.e. postpone decision until next meeting).
Vice -Chair Burns agrees that the drawings should accurately reflect the property.
Vice -Chair Burns speaks to the garage in the front and how that will be enclosed, as well as the
asymmetry of the porch and lining up the windows.
Vice -Chair Burns opens the public hearing.
Jon Patch approached the podium to address the Commission. Original windows were
aluminum single pane and have been replaced within the past 5 years. Proposed windows are
identical to the windows on the rest of the house.
Vice -Chair Burns closes the public hearing.
Waggoner asks if there is additional discussion on the impact of additives in terms of the
characteristics for staff feedback. Vice -Chair Burns says she would like some kind of accurate
roof sketch if going forward with the gables.
Waggoner clarifies that postponed items need to return in no more than 35 days, or longer if
applicant is willing to postpone further. August 251h HARC meeting would be the
corresponding postponement date.
Motion to postpone Item G to the August 25th HARC meeting by Commissioner Nunn.
Second by Commissioner Davis. Approved unanimously (7-0)
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 10 of 11
Julv 28, 2022
'1
H Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Tadd Philips, Planning Director
Tadd acknowledged that Sofia is not present, and we appreciate Nat virtually presenting
despite recovering from illness. Also informs that Nat will be moving to a Transportation
Planning position within the City, and we are excited to see what he does.
Tadd informs the Commission that Maddison O'Kelley will be starting August 22^d as the
Historic Preservation Program Manager to replace Britin's position.
Kimberly discusses alternate commissioners participating in public comment with any items
during a meeting. Public comment is intended to provide opportunity for public to inform the
commission on their views. The meeting belongs to the governing body, whether there is an
alternate is on the dais or not. Public does not participate in the decision making, but rather
provides input. Since commissioner is part of the governing body, public comment would not
be permitted.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Alternate Macguire. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved
unanimously 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
AM
�
Jennifer Powell, Secretary
L;��✓ 0AR'r)� 0Ee-i:5cfi
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 11 of 11
July 28, 2022