HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 08.25.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
August 25", 2022 at 6 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Burns, Vice -Chair; Karalei Nunn;
Tom W. Davis; Alton Martin; Lawrence Romero; Alternate Pierce P. Maguire; Williams
"Jud" Harris
Members Absent: Jennifer Powell
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nathaniel Waggoner, Historic Program
Manager; Meredith Johnson, Historic Preservation Consultant; Maddison O'Kelley,
Historic Program Manager; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist
Meeting called to order by Chair Michael Walton at 6:00 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://govemment.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Commission.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 11, 2022,
regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission - Jessica Lemanski,
Planning Specialist
Commissioner Davis requested that the language in the introductory remarks be changed from
"Board Members" and "The Board" to "Commissioners" and "the Commission".
Commissioner Davis requested to change reference of "Commissioner Alton" to
"Commissioner Martin" and reference to "Alternate Williams" to "Alternate Harris".
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 1 of 11
August 25, 2022
Motion to amend the minutes by Commissioner Davis, changing "Board Members" and
"The Board" to "Commissioners" and "the Commission", and any reference to
"Commissioner Alton" to "Commissioner Martin" and "Alternate Williams" to "Alternate
Harris". Second by Alternate Macguire.
Motion approved (6-0, Commissioner Romero abstained)
C 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 18' -
0" encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage 7- 0"
from the side street (west) property line for the property located at 1202 E. 13th Street, bearing
the legal description Lot 1, Block 1, Coffee Addition (2022-24-COA) - Nat Waggoner, Asst.
Planning Dir.- Long Range
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting to
construct a one-story addition that will add two bedrooms, one bathroom, laundry room, and
one -car garage. The additions are proposed at the rear of the primary structure. The applicant
would like to add a master bathroom on to the existing home that will help connect the old
home with the new addition, using the current back porch as a connection, which will become a
hallway. Waggoner shared the history of the site as it relates to the 1925 and 1940 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps and displayed historic aerial photos of the property to display how the home
has changed over time. He also shared the proposed project drawings and materials and spoke
to the nature of the additions, noting that it will be situated 7' from the Laurel Street side
property line and 11' from the rear property line. The encroachment would not put this house
too much closer to the street than other houses on Laurel. The current house is 13.5' from the
Laurel Street property line. The addition will measure 31' by 24' for an area of 809 sq. ft. and the
new master bathroom, to be added between the main house and the proposed addition, will
measure 13' by 5'. The current house is 1,288 square feet. The addition will leave 36" between
the accessory building as a pathway.
Waggoner reviewed the design guidelines and established that staff has determined that the
proposed project complies with 19 of the 20 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines and 6
out of the 8 approval criteria in accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development
Code.
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 (35 notices), and 2 signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written
comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request.
Chair Walton opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 2 of 11
August 25, 2022
Applicant is here and wishes to address the Commission.
Julie Craig, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and stated that this
is her third time proposing to the Commission after being denied due to initial plans having a
second story, which blocked the view of the accessory structure behind the main house. Her
proposal tonight is a one car garage as opposed to two-story, and the living space has two
bedrooms, one bathroom, and a laundry room that connects via a hallway.
Commissioner Davis inquired about the roof covering the master bath addition and connecting
hallway. He states that he has no problem with the look or size of the addition, but the plans do
not indicate how the gabled roof will slope towards the back wall of the master bath or connect
with the existing roof. Craig said the master bath will not be viewable by anyone and the
builder assures her that it will connect fine. Commissioner Davis reiterated that the
Commission needs to see specific plans for how everything will connect and meet design
guidelines before approving the COA.
Commissioner Davis also voiced concerns about the scales of the drawings provided by the
applicant and the closeness of the additions.
Craig voiced concerns about spending more money on plans the Commission may deny again.
Commissioner Davis reiterated that they need more detailed plans to approve.
Craig reminded the Commission that this is a medium priority structure, not high priority.
Commissioner Nunn stated that she understands the discrepancy in the scale of the drawings
and is not very worried about that. The building official will look at the roof before issuing a
permit, so she has no issues with the project.
Chair Walton asked when they came to the Commission for the first two hearings? Craig
confirmed 2020 or 2021.
Chair Walton clarified on the convenience criteria, and that the applicant did not comply.
Commissioner Burns asked about the justification of the setback encroachment and how that is
rationalized? Waggoner noted that the southwestern portion of the opposite block has
structures closer to the street than the applicant. There is about 14 feet between the back of curb
and the applicant's property line, and another 7 feet from the property line to the face of the
garage. Vice -Chair Burns asked if the 25-foot setback requirement is from the curb or the
property line? Waggoner confirmed from the property line. Vice -Chair Burns asked if staff
looked North of 13t" street? Waggoner said no. Vice -Chair Burns asked if staff only looks at the
block the property is on? Waggoner replied that in the past, yes, staff has only looked at the
block. On this particular project, staff looked at the surrounding block and the street it faces
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 3 of 11
August 25, 2022
(Laurel), and staff found some similarity on the southwest side.
Romero clarified that the project will be under one composition roof. Craig said yes, a 3-cap
shingle roof.
Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth.
Craig pointed out that she included several projects with examples of driveways similar and
closer to the street than hers in her Letter of Intent.
Motion to approve Item C as presented by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Alternate
Macguire.
Motion approved unanimously (7-0).
D 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 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
Meredith Johnson presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting to
add additional coverage to the newly added porch by constructing an extension to the roof,
which will begin at the existing ridge and extend out towards the street. The design of the new
roof feature will be a gable that opens facing the street, with three columns to be added to the
porch to give the impression of a supported roof. The applicant is also proposing a second gable
addition to the front facade. This second gable will be on the south side of the home, on the
portion that is already projected towards the street. The new gable addition will not add length
but instead will be used to "balance" the first gable addition. Both gables would sit "on top" of
the existing roof. Finally, the applicant is proposing to enclose an existing carport which is
attached to the primary house and is assembled under the same roof as the rest of the house,
which is stylistically appropriate. The applicant is proposing to infill the existing openings to
the carport with brick, garage doors, and windows. The windows are located on the north side
of the building, facing E 15th Street and will be relocated approximately 18" to the left. Johnson
also spoke to the location and history of the property.
Johnson went over feedback from the Commission that the applicant had received at the
7.28.2022 HARC meeting, including:
• Provide materials for the gables
• Provide accurate, dimensioned and scaled drawings including the columns, ridges, and
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 4 of 11
August 25, 2022
gables to reflect current conditions
Provide a roof sketch (if going forward with the gables)
Provide additional information as to how the garage will be enclosed, including how
you intend to brick in the opening and move windows towards the back of the garage to
avoid setting them so far to the front.
Provide additional information as to how you intend to add brick to the front and
middle column of the carport.
Johnson reviewed the proposed project drawings and materials.
Johnson reviewed the design guidelines and determined that the proposed project complies
with 22 of the 37 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines and 1 out of the 8 approval
criteria in accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code.
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 1. written comment in favor
and 0 in opposition to the request.
Johnson noted that based on staff's findings, they recommend approval of the request with the
condition that the proposed windows meet Design Guideline 3.5.G. for materiality and that the
proposed porch addition be designed in a manner that supports the Ranch style. Meredith also
noted that postponement of the item is not an option tonight as the previous public hearing was
held and action must be taken on the item.
The applicant is here to answer any questions the Commission may have but does not have a
presentation.
Chair Walton opened the floor for questions and comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Romero inquired on the Letter of Intent and asked if this project request would
not fall under approval criteria A (solely a matter of convenience)? Johnson said that because it
was built up to the setback, there was no other way to build without encroaching on the
setback. Chair Walton clarified that it is considered by staff to be a matter of convenience.
Commissioner Romero asked if they are extending the gable out. Johnson said yes.
Chair Walton asked the applicant to approach the podium to address Commissioner questions.
John Patch, Applicant, confirmed that they are extending the gable. The corner on the far right
of the home collects water internally and destroyed the foundation in the front, including the
beams, and the house has had a lot of flooding problems. The owners had originally planted
landscaping to mitigate the water, but it was not effective, and the porch was put in to mitigate
the flooding further. However, it is a western facing porch and they would like to cover it to be
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 5 of 11
August 25, 2022
able to enjoy it as it gets very hot in the sun. The gable projection would be to balance it out and
break up the roofline.
Commissioner Romero asked if the garage door is lit? Patch clarified that a lighted door means
there's windows on it in this context.
Vice -Chair Burns asked staff about the suggested condition to comply with Ranch style, and
what they meant by that. Waggoner said that in staff's previous review, they did not dive deep
into the Ranch style aspect of the application, but upon a more recent review, they would like to
see a more stylistically appropriate design.
Chair Walton asked if the front concrete path had been recently added or repaired? Johnson
said yes, it is new. Chair Walton asked if there was landscaping before? Johnson said yes, there
was grass and vegetation along the perimeter and a planter, based on the 2016 HRS. Chair
Walton asked if the sidewalk was added to mitigate the flooding issue or in anticipation of a
porch addition? Patch said it was added to address the flooding issue, as there was no other
way to keep water out of the foundation at the front and side of the house. The brick is vented
there, and the owners ended up tearing out Oleanders in the area to protect their dogs and put
in the sidewalk to divert the water. Chair Walton asked if the gutters were new as well? Patch
said he did not think so.
Chair Walton said he would like to see the roof extension without adding the gable and be able
to solve the water issue and shade the porch, but he is unsure how to achieve that. Patch said it
would either be a gable or a hip roof, but the owners would like to avoid the hip roof. If the
board and baton nature of the design is throwing the Commission off, he could probably
eliminate that. Chair Walton suggested a back porch spanning the entire width of the house
with a shed roof. Patch said a shed roof would not contribute to the Ranch style either. Johnson
said a shed roof is common for adding onto historic homes, but it is most common to see one
gable on a ranch style home, not necessarily two.
Commissioner Nunn asked what the material the windows should be? Johnson said they are
vinyl right now, but they should be something more in line with design guidelines such as
wood.
Commissioner Davis commented that putting a new gable that does not align with historical
integrity of the Ranch style home concerns him. He does not have a problem with any other
design aspect.
Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth.
Applicant and owner asked that the Commission be specific about design criteria if denied.
Motion to approve as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Martin.
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 6 of 11
August 25, 2022
Commissioner Davis amended the motion to approve the garage and deny the proposed roof
because it destroys the Ranch Style look of the home. Second by Vice -Chair Burns.
Amendment fails (3-4) (Opposed: Walton, Romero, Martin, Nunn).
The Motion to approve as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Martin stands.
Motion to approve as presented. Approved (4-3). (Opposed: Burns, Nunn, Davis).
Motion to take a 9-minute recess (7:21 pm-7:30 pm) by Chair Walton. Second by
Commissioner Romero. Approved unanimously (7-0).
Commissioners reconvened at 7:30 pm.
E Public hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for: a 15'-6" setback encroachment into the 20'-0 front setback to allow the addition of a
porch and stairs 4' 6" from the front (west) property line; a 11'-0" setback encroachment into the
required 15'-0" side street (north) setback to allow a residential addition 4'-0" from the side
(north) property line; and a 10'-0" encroachment into the required 25-0" street -facing garage
setback for the construction of a detached carport 15-0" from the side (north) property laze;
and new residential construction for the property located at 1903 S. Church, bearing the legal
description .165 acres, Block 4 (W/PT), Southside Addition. (2022-51-COA) — Nat Waggoner,
Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Meredith Johnson presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting to
build a new infill residential project, including modifications to front and side setbacks. The
subject property is located on the corner of South Church Street and 17th 1/2 Street and was
previously developed as a single -story, medium -priority residential structure approximately
1,200 square -feet in size and an approximate 270 square -foot detached garage. The exterior of
the house utilized asbestos shingle siding as the primary material. This property is generally
located on the southern entrance of the Old Town Overlay District and surrounded by single
story homes ranging from an estimated structure age of late 1890s to new build. The lot itself is
an irregular shape with about 17' between the property line and the beginning of the Right of
Way pavement. Johnson reviewed the location of the property, current setback requirements,
and the proposed layout, drawings, and materials for the project, noting that the proposed 1,614
sq. ft. residence will contain three bedrooms and 2.5 baths. The overall dimensions of the house
are 30' wide by 67' wide, and the proposed house is similar to others on this block, including
1905 S. Church at 1,572 sq. ft, 1902 S Church at 1,704 sq. ft, and 1912 S Church at 1576 sq. ft. One
outlier is 1907 S Church at 896. The street -facing fagade (west elevation) has an 18' long porch
that encroaches into the 20' front setback
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 7 of 11
August 25, 2022
The existing 270 sq. ft. detached garage will be converted into a small guest house and will have
30 sq. ft. added to the rear. The current configuration of this structure encroaches the 6' side
setback. The guest house is 10' 11" tall as measured from finished grade to the peak of the roof.
Finally, a 288 sq. ft. carport will be added to behind the home to align with the existing
driveway off 17th 1/2 St. Again 1907 Church Street has a similar detached parking feature as do
both 1902 and 1906 Ash. The carport will be 12' tall as measured from finished grade to the peak
of the roof. One similarity this new construction will have with surrounding historic properties
is the foundation — main structure will be pier and beam, the guest house will be slab on grade.
The different techniques will differentiate the two. The exterior materials of the primary
structure and the guest house are to be cement fiber siding (Hardie board) and cement fiber
trim around windows and doors. The proposed windows for both the house and the guest
house are 9 over 9 wood, single hung, throughout the house and the guest house. About 2' of
cement will be visible between the finished floor and the finished grade. The proposed roof
material for all three structures is asphalt shingles.
Jolulson established that staff had reviewed the proposal and found that the proposed request
meets 31 of the 37 applicable criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance with the
Historic District Design Guidelines. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the
request and setback modifications.
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 (33 notices), and
2 signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in
opposition to the request.
Chair Walton opened the floor to Commissioners for questions or comments.
Julie Weaver approached the podium to answer Commissioner questions.
Commissioner Nunn asked clarification on whether the house foundation is still in place.
Weaver said yes, the slab that the old garage was sitting on is still in place as well as additional
foundation that was added to the front to allow the addition to be built.no foundation on the
carport? Commissioner Nunn asked about the garage foundation. Weaver said yes, it is still in
place. Johnson clarified that the carport garage is new, and the guest house is existing. The
carport has no foundation.
Commissioner Martin asked if the setback requirements were already in place when the original
structure was constructed? Waggoner said the original structure was built in 1930 and he is
unsure if setback requirements were present. He guessed that they were not.
Commissioner Romero asked for further clarification on the front fagade encroachment.
Johnson said the applicant is asking for a 15'6" encroachment into the required 20-foot setback,
leaving 4'6" between the proposed porch stairs and the setback. Johnson clarified that staff's
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 8 of 11
August 25, 2022
math is based off the furthest point in the setback, so the stairs, porch, and fagade would all be
encroaching on the setback. In terms of materials, scale, mass, and design, it complies.
Commissioner Romero asked if there was another way to position the structures on the
property without requiring the encroachments? Weaver said there is probably a way to do so,
but she did not want to have to remove the piers, which would completely change the structure
and not allow for the addition she is wanting. They would also have to add additional piers to
the back of the house for them to add the addition. She said it is also a possibility that the stairs
could come off the side of the porch as opposed to straight off, as it would save a few feet in
terms of encroaching on the setback.
Commissioner Romero asked staff if there were any problems with the carport portion of the
project. Johnson said that from a location perspective, the carport encroaches upon the required
25-foot setback. In terms of materials, scale, mass, and design, the carport complies.
Vice -Chair Burns asked why we are considering setback encroachments and not an infill project
for the main residence? Waggoner said it is considered an infill, but they are requesting a
setback modification for the new construction.
Chair Walton asked for clarification on the approval criteria Items A and F in the staff
presentation (Slide 16 of Staff presentation):
A: "Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience: Does Not
Comply"
F: "Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with
relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed: Does Not Comply"
Johnson said that for Item A, staff found that the item is a matter of convenience and therefore
does not comply. The porch on the front is a design choice, not a requirement. For Item F, the
proposed footprint is larger than what previously existed since they are adding to the rear of
the home.
Chair Walton asked if the piers are all old or are there new piers that have been poured?
Weaver said no, there are new ones on the additions on the side and back. New ones are on the
additions on the side and the back. As for the convenience portion of the criteria, Weaver said it
is only convenient because she would like to use the existing foundation.
Chair Walton asked if the car port is moved back to comply with the setback requirement, is
there even 25 feet to allow that? Johnson said yes, there is room.
Commissioner Davis said that since the original structure was demolished without a COA, we
should archive the history of the medium priority house that was destroyed, and he would be
willing to overlook the encroachments if an effort was made to archive the historical property.
Weaver said the materials from the house are to be repurposed, but she does not know about an
archival package. Sofia Nelson advised that the Commission must review the proposed
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 9 of 11
August 25, 2022
setbacks based on the approval criteria, and it cannot be traded for other conditions.
Chair Walton opened the public hearing.
Larry Olson, 9th Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and spoke to the
construction in old town and living within the setbacks. He questioned if granting these setback
encroachments could be perceived as a reward for illegally demolishing a medium priority
home? Olson suggests denial of the COA.
Commissioner Martin comments that the house had been allowed to deteriorate significantly
and recalls discussion of the dilapidation of the home. He suggested the applicant get in touch
with Liz Weaver for archival materials, and he agrees that it is distressing that the home was
demolished illegally. As far as setback requirements, the car port could probably comply with
the setback by moving it south 10-15 feet.
Commissioner Romero commented that the design should comply with requirements since
there is no existing structure on the property anymore.
Chair Walton commented that the carport could be pushed back to comply with the setback
requirements. There are adjustments that could be applied to comply with code.
Commissioner Romero asked why they did not totally demolish the structure, and why the
piers are remaining? Waggoner said that HARC denied demolition, but the applicant secured a
demolition permit due to danger of the structure. The Chief Building Official did not find the
piers to be a danger, so they were allowed to stay.
Motion to approve the COA with the condition that the carport be moved to comply with the
setback requirements by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Romero.
Commissioner Burns amended the motion to approve the setback modification of the guest
house, but not for the new home or carport based on the fact that it is merely a matter of
convenience. No second. Motion to amend fails.
Motion to approve the COA with the condition that the carport be moved to comply with the
setback requirements by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Romero stands
Motion to approve with stated conditions approved (4-3) (No: Burns, Walton, Davis).
F Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson introduced Maddison O'Kelley, the new Preservation and Redevelopment Manager, to
the Commission.
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 10 of 11
August 25, 2022
Nelson updated Commissioners on the budget, which opens a new position to be working
under Maddison O'Kelley.
Chair Walton asked about City Council forming a Downtown Master Plan and UDC
adjustments. Is there anything that HARC could discuss? Nelson said that the Downtown
Master Plan will be considering height in the downtown area and codifying that in the UDC
update. Any updates to the UDC that HARC would like to see should be discussed at a future
meeting.
Chair Walton requests an item on the next agenda to discuss the UDC and Downtown Master
Plan and advises his fellow Commissioners to bring any UDC talking points to the next
meeting.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romer. Second by Alternate Macguire.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Michael Walton, Chair
Historic and Architectural Review Committee
August 25, 2022
Jennifer Powell, Secretary
LJn,(,- ins, Vic, Cyr
Page 11 of 11