HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 09.22.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
September 22"d, 2022 at 6 p.m.
510 West 9th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Commissioners Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Jennifer Powell; Tom W. Davis; Linda C. Burns;
Alton Martin, Lawrence Romero
Alternate Commissioners Present: Pierce P. Macguire
Commissioners Absent: N/A
Alternate Commissioners Absent: Williams "Jud" Harris
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and
Redevelopment Program Manager; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist
Meeting called to order by Chair Michael Walton at 6:02 pm.
Public Wishing to Address the Review Commission
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found
at the Commission 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 Commission considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Commission agenda by
filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Commission meeting.
The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient
information to inform the Commission and the public. For Commission 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 Review Commission.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 8, 2022, regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Committee - Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist
Motion to approve Item B by Commissioner Davis. Second by Alternate Macguire.
Motion approved (6-0) with 1 abstaining (Commissioner Romero).
C Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that
creates or adds to a street facing facade, removal of historic architectural features for a property located
1811 Eubank Street, bearing the legal description Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition (2022-46-COA) -
Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager
Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report and established that the application is requesting a COA to
construct an addition that is 1,874 sq. ft. of air-conditioned space to the rear of the existing structure.
The applicant would also like to remove an existing pergola and re -design the front of the home to
include a porch addition with a gable that will extend from the house to provide shelter. In
accommodating the construction of the proposed addition and home renovation, the applicant is
proposing to demolish portions of the north and east facing exterior walls. No square footage of the
home will be removed in the demolition of the exterior walls. The applicant is also proposing to replace
the asphalt roof material with standing -seam metal. The applicant is also requesting a demolition of an
existing non -historic accessory structure at the rear of the property and construction of a new, detached
274 sq. ft. accessory structure in its place.
O'Kelley established that, in accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, staff
has determined that the applicant has met 2 out of 7 applicable criteria for approval. In addition to the
approval criteria, staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 28 of the 41 applicable
Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3.
Public notification for this item has not been published as this is not a public hearing and no action will
be taken by the Commission.
O'Kelley explained that the purpose of this conceptual review is to gather feedback from HARC in the
following areas:
1. Is the gable addition appropriate for this house per Design Guideline 3.5.E.1?
2. Does the accessory structure have an appropriate roof per Design Guideline 3.4.F.2-3?
3. Are the windows appropriate for this house per Design Guideline 3.5.G.2-3?
4. What information would HARC like to see added?
The Applicant is present and wishes to address the Commission.
Gary Wang, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and noted that the
characteristics and designation of the home is a range, especially in relation to its characterization as a
ranch -style home. Wang noted that although it is considered ranch style, there are mid-century
elements they are attempting to pull out of its design, such as the windows and the gable addition.
Chair Walton asked what condition the house is in. Wang established that the house is in good condition
and has had improvements to the interior, but the exterior could benefit from improvements. The shape
of the home, the roof, and the existing main house is staying the same; materials and windows are being
changed.
Commissioner Davis commented that the windows proposed are out of character for the neighborhood,
and that inoperable windows in a bedroom is not compliant with the code. Wang established that there
is an exit door in the bedroom, which allows the windows to comply with code.
Commissioner Davis requested clarification on what demolition requests and structures go to HARC for
approval and why this structure does not have an application for their demolition. O'Kelley established
that a demolition request that does not result in a loss in square footage, as well as any demolition
requests on low -priority structures not in the Historic Downtown Overlay, do not require HARC
approval. Demolition requests on medium and high priority structures, as well as any home in the
Historic Downtown Overlay will need to be approved by HARC. O'Kelley explained that because this
structure's demolition does not result in a loss of square footage, the demolition does not require
approval from HARC.
Wang displayed an alternate design option for the gable and noted that there are midcentury style
homes scattered throughout the neighborhood, but none immediately neighboring the home.
Chair Walton asked for clarification on what is visible in the design. Wang established that the changes
are visible in elevation, but not in perspective.
Vice -Chair Burns asked if the front door is centered with the proposed gable. Wang noted that the
existing door is off -center.
Chair Walton noted that the Commission has no specific feedback for the gable addition.
Commissioner Powell commented that the home's immediate surroundings are not of mid-century
style, but the proposed changes do compliment mid-century properties in Old Town. The house does
not blend into the surroundings, but it does not have a lot of stylistic consistency anyways, and the
proposed changes do improve the structure. Commissioner Powell noted that they should try to comply
with the code and historic design guidelines in terms of materials and size, but, overall, the plan looks
like an improvement to the structure.
Nelson clarified on earlier comments on what requires HARC approval. All properties in the Historic
Overlay District come to HARC for approval, while medium priority structures outside the Historic
Overlay District send their materials to HPO. No approval from HARC is necessary for low priority
structures existing outside the Historic Overlay District.
No action was taken by the Commission on this item.
D Presentation and discussion of HARC bylaws and Meeting Procedure - Maddison O'Kelley,
Preservation and Redevelopment Manager
O'Kelley began by reviewing the purpose of HARC's bylaws and Robert's Rules of Order, specifically
Article 1, Items 3-4, and Article 4, in relation to meeting conduct. O'Kelley established the order of
events for Public Hearing procedures, as well as expectations for general rules of order within the
meeting.
Commissioner Davis suggested that when seconding a motion for discussion purposes, the
Commissioner making the motion should clarify that.
Discussion on the amendment process, motion specifics, and adherence to the historic Design
Guidelines when rendering decisions.
Commissioner Powell noted that staff presentations can become confusing when a project is deemed to
"Partially Comply" with the UDC and Historic Design Guidelines, and requests more clarity moving
forward on why an aspect of a project is deemed partially compliant.
Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Powell suggested that when a project is requesting both a
demolition and addition, that there be separate Certificate of Appropriateness given for the demolition
and the addition so there can be more clarity on the scope of the project.
p
Commissioner Davis requested that when a COA is approved with the condition that the applicant
provide archival materials of the structure, the Commission is given access to those archival materials
after they have been completed and reviewed by City staff.
E Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson established that HARC has a workshop with City Council on the UDC rewrite process coming up.
Nelson is recommending a member of HARC be a part of the steering committee.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Alternate Macguire.
Motion approved unanimously (7-0). Meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm.
Michael Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary