Minutes of the  Historic and Architectural Review Commission  City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, August 8, 2024  The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Thursday, August 8, 2024 at The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior tot the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay  6:00 PM at Council and Court Building, 510 W 9th Street.  Texas at 711.  The following Members were in attendance: Jennifer Powell, Stuart Garner  Present were: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Alton Martin,  Public Wishing to Address the Board  Onas subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the meeting room. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the Board Liaison prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior toi the meeting being called to order may speak. Speakers will be allowed upt to three minutes to speak. Ify you wish to speak for six minutes, iti is permissible to use another requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six minutes for a speaker may be granted. The requestor granting time to another speaker must also submit at form Onas subject not posted on the agenda: Arequest must be received by the Advisory Board or Commission Liaison prior to the day the agenda for this mee ng is posted. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the  and be present at the meeting.  Board or Commission members. No action can be taken.  1. Regular Session 1.A Meeting Minutes  Consideration and action to approve the minutes from the. July 25, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission is postponed to the August 22, 2024 regular meeting - Erica Metress, Planning Specialist No action was taken for the postponement of the July 25, 2024, Historic and  Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes.    1.B 2024-49-COA (1608 S. Church Street)  Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for the removal and replacement of historic architectural features on a Contributing Historic Structure (High Priority) at the property located at 1608 S. Church Street bearing the legal description of 0.239 acres out of Block 4, Lot 3&4 (N/T), Logan Addition. 2024-49-COA) - Maddison O'Kelley,  Preservation and Redevelopment Manager Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report.  Commissioner Hein inquired about the extent of the replacement to the front façade of the Laura Cook, applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and explained that balloon construction was involved which did not include conventional framing. Cook explained that the shiplap was attached directly to the siding and noted that both were very damaged. Cook highlighted that they are trying to preserve some Commissioner Hein inquired about the front facade framing. Cook explained that the Discussion on the removal of the front façade between Commissioner Burns and Steve Discussion between Laura Cook, Steve Mayer, and Chair Walton about the assessment Commissioner Powell mentioned that it may be helpful to bring in a contractor to Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. Moved by Jennifer Powell; seconded by Alton Martin to Approve as presented. Voting For: Lawrence Romero, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Alton Martin, Jennifer  house.  shiplap.  whole house would need to be framed.  Mayer, applicant.  oft the front porch and front door. assess the state of work.  Motion Approved: 6-1 Powell, Stuart Garner Voting Against: Linda C Burns 1.C 2024-18-COA (205 E. 9th Street)  Conceptual Review for new commercial infill construction for the property located at 205 E. 9th Street, bearing the legal description of. .05 Acres, Block 9 Lots 5&6 6 AMD, Glasscock Addition. 2024-18-COA) - Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and  Redevelopment Manager  Maddison O'Kelley presented the staff report.  Ryan Cooper, owner, approached the podium to address the Commission and  introduced himself as well as an explanation of the request.    Gary' Wang, applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and  provided a presentation.  Commissioner Hein highlighted the single story historic residential home adjacent to the property and similar historic residential homes across the lot. Commissioner Hein explained that the design guideline is to keep in character of the surrounding area and shared that the material of this proposal does not appear to be in keeping of the area. Wang shared that the property was outlined as the downtown core and highlighted that Commissioner Hein referred to the design guidelines that stated that the structure relates tot the historic houses in the area and the request appears to be unfit for the area. Commissioner Hein shared interest in the alternative two-story design. Commissioner Hein asked if there were two entrances on the first floor of the structure. Wang confirmed that there are two entrances and explained that the middle entrance is to the second floor and the entrance to the right is for the ground floor. Wang shared the alternative approaches that he and his team considered when designing the structure.  this proposal is for a commercial use.  Commissioner Romero highlighted the lack of architectural detail other than the iron and railings and asked for an explanation. Wang shared that the intent was to have a clean Commissioner Burns shared her concerns about the height with relation to the historic single-floor home. Commissioner Burns highlighted the lack of character in design and shared that it felt stark. to her. Commissioner Burns questioned if there was room for landscaping on either side oft the structure. Wang explained that it is intended to have Chair Walton inquired about the requirements for the Mixed-Use Downtown zoning district. O'Kelly shared that the MUDT zoning district allows for a mix of uses with ground floor retail, restaurants, and sO forth. O'Kelley added that the MUDT zoning district is limited to the zero-foot setback and 40-foot building height maximum. Chair Walton referred to design guideline 2.4.A found in the staff report and asked what the applicant could do to make it comply. O'Kelley shared that this guideline speaks to what Wang shared about how this is a difficult site. O'Kelley explained that staff does not have the ability to design for al building that can comply with both the Chair Walton asked what variances would be voted on ini this request. O'Kelley explained that there would not be a variance to the UDC, but there would be variances for the design guidelines as building height and its relation to existing buildings on the block. O'Kelley added that a variance would not be necessary, per se, but it would be an approval of a COA that does not meet allO of the applicable design guidelines.  façade with the limestone, brick windows and a canopy.  landscape on the right side of the structure.  UDC and design guidelines for this site.    Chair Walton called for a temporary recess at 7:35 PM. The meeting resumed at 7:45 To receive clarification, Chair Walton referred to design guideline 2.4.A found in the staff report and asked what the applicant could do to make it comply. O'Kelley explained that the building would need to be set back about 20 feet into the property, a step down towards the residential properties would be required on the third floor to the second floor, changes to a more residential form oft the structure call for a pitched roof, windows would need to be twice as tall as they are wide, and the structure would need recessed entries. Chair Walton inquired about the depth oft the lot. O'Kelley shared that the loti is al little over 59 feet deep. Wang shared with the commission that the building would be 1,000 square Chair Walton recommended that Wang review the front entrances and windows and suggested that he revise the plan sO that the listed features may comply with the compatible criteria. Chair Walton asked staff how the lot was subdivided into the  PM.  feet if it were set back to be in compliance.  current state.  Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, approached the podium to address the Commission and shared the development process to include zoning, subdivision, and site plan. Nelson highlighted that this project was a great example as to why HARC reviews certain requests. Nelson mentioned that not all design guidelines would be compatible with the properties which is why certain projects are presented before the commission. Chair Walton added thati it would be beneficial to lower the overall height of the  building due to the Downtown Masterplan.  Commissioner Powell asked if there is a different way to review the looming concerns when it is a commercial development next to a residential lot. O'Kelley shared that the UDC has provisions for ensuring compatibility between different uses, such as buffering. O'Kelley added that the looming standards adopted in the old town design guidelines are not adopted in chapter two guidelines which regulates all development within area two. O'Kelley concluded with a note that looming is not an applicable guideline within area Commissioner Powell shared her concern with the building height and the open deck on the third floor of the structure. Commissioner Powell voiced that she was concerned with the impact that would make on the surrounding residents. Wang asked if there would be a difference with an enclosed versus open terrace. Powell commented that it would help. Commissioner Martin mentioned how the commission keep the Downtown Masterplan's height restriction of 35 feet in mind and highlighted that the private  two, but it can be shared as a point of feedback for the applicant.    access easement to the left oft the building was intentionally placed for garage entrances. Commissioner Martin shared his concern in that the proposed structure is out of phase with surrounding buildings and added that the emergency exterior stairs should face a street rather than a residential property. Wang asked if the option of stairs that egress and activated by stepping down on the stair would be preferrable. Commissioner Martin commented that ifi it is permitted in al buffer zone, then it would be preferrable. Alternate Commissioner Garner referred to staff's analysis int that the proposed building does not relate to the single-story residences on the block and asked if there is a definition to that finding. O'Kelley shared that there is not an adopted definition in staff's analysis, but shared that staff reviews the design holistically. O'Kelley added that staff reviewed the building's overall height, scale, and simple, commercial form and took all of that into Wang shared he they will do his best to utilize zoning requirements and highlighted that the small lots together will make up the block in the future. Wang assured that he will meet with the owners and address concerns that were voiced in the meeting.  consideration.  Chair Walton opened the public hearing.  Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and shared her concern for the mass, design conflict with the neighborhood, public utility easement, parking, side awning, and height. Weaver questioned whether the current UDC requirements apply or the Downtown Masterplan height requirements. Weaver shared that the commission has subjectivity in height. Weaver continued to explain that the buffer yard is required to be 10 feet wide with various landscaping requirements. Weaver mentioned that the city has the right to change the size of any facilities installed in the easement area, to relocate any facilities ini the easement, and the right to remove from the easement areas all trees and parts or other obstructions which endanger or may interfere with the efficiency and maintenance of any facilities. Weaver shared that the property was  meant to have 6 residences with a driveway. Chair Walton closed the public hearing.  With no further discussion, Chair Walton proceeded to item 1.D.  1.D Discussion Items  Updates on Upcoming Training for HARC Commissioners, Downtown Master Plan, UDC Rewrite, and Commissioner questions and comments - Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation  and Redevelopment Manager  Maddison O'Kelley shared that there weren't discussion items.  Adjournment    These minytes vere approved at the meeting of  Attest    y