Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the City of Round Rock Historic Preservation Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 28. Call this meeting to order at 06:00. Just as a note that this meeting has been was rescheduled due to the weather last week, the freezing rain and temperatures. So we are holding this meeting this evening. So, item a, call the meeting to order, and item b, we will do roll call, please.

Commissioner Conrad? Here. Commissioner Ellum?

Here.

Commissioner Parson? Commissioner Simmons? Here. Commissioner Wolf? Vice chair Whitaker? Here. Chair Anderson? Here.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move item D up to do next, the Pledge of Allegiance. So if we can stand.

Allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

To honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Okay. Item C, citizens communication. I don't believe we have any citizen communications, so we will move on to item E, approval of minutes. Consider approval of the minutes of the November.

Are there any changes?

It's been noted that I got the that I have the chair and the vice chair switched, and the names through the whole document, so.

Oh, okay. Okay, we'll make those changes.

Sorry about that.

Corrections to the minutes to be Vice Chair Whitaker, Chairman Anderson. Thank you, Kirsten. Any other changes? And if not, I welcome a motion.

I move that the, minutes be approved as corrected.

I second the motion. All

right. All in favor of approval of the minutes say aye. Any opposed? Minutes pass. Moving on to item F, certificate of appropriateness. Consider F1, consider a presentation and action regarding the certificate of appropriateness for 100 East Main Street, Number HP24-seventeen. Kirsten? Good evening, Commissioners. Good evening.

So this is the old Broom Factory, built in 1880. This was a recorded Texas landmark. It was designated in 1970, just before Round Rock had a preservation program, and later became a part of the became a contributing structure in the downtown historic district, and that was named in 1982. The building was modified for vehicle services between 1930 sometime between 1936 and 'thirty eight when Highway 81 was built on what's now Main Street. There's a small photo there that shows the opening in the made openings in that wall and the side and the back wall at that time, and only the front opening was the only one that was reversed in 1982.

So there are four parts to this request. The first is a reconfigured back staircase, was noted in last summer or last year's tax exemption inspection. So part one of the conditions there is for the for that exemption to qualify this year is that they needed to get a certificate of appropriateness for work that was done after the after the fact. Another is to replace cedar shingle roof on the porch roof on the back to replace the cedar shingles with standing seam metal room metal in a Galvalume finish. They replaced a light fixture under the back staircase with one that's more period appropriate, and covered the steel lintel on the back wall with a stone veneer soldier course.

This is the staircase, the part that the work that was done last summer, and there it was mostly repaired. They were doing a lot of repairs to the to the stairs, including replacing a lot of and there was some bracing that was in place, which was what was noticed at noticed last year. And some have noted that there's actually some work going on right now, which has not been discussed. But appropriateness issue is not there is not repairs. That doesn't require a certificate of appropriateness.

It's that the last landing was removed, and it so that the stair run goes goes down directly. So that there's two landing, those are the three. The that change has been reviewed by the Texas historical commission, and they've approved it retroactively. As a note, number secretary standard for rehabilitation number nine relating to new additions is here that they shall be new new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Clarified in the guidelines for rehabilitation is that code required elements should be should appear contemporary, simple, and secondary to the historic structure.

And STEP believes that the more straightforward staircase is appropriate, in fact, more appropriate than what was there before. Second part is the back porch roof, which was added in 1982 at that time. There was a a side staircase where the balcony is there, And the staircase was too close to the road, so they were when they redid it, they redirected it to the back. And there was, at that time, a metal building, kind of a one story metal building attached to the back that housed the tap bar, and that was removed and replaced with this porch so that and a stair to the to get direct access to the 2nd Floor. Here we also believe standard nine applied.

The THC approved this. Staff also believed that the standard number nine applied and that the metal roof was appropriate on the back porch. It a new item in its material that was available at the time that the in the building's period of significance. Third was to replace the light fixture under the under the stairs with something they felt was more period appropriate. Didn't give a product number, but the illustration they provided shows a a dark metal gooseneck fixture.

The Texas Historical Commission approved, approved this, but conditioned that the new fixture should be attached to the staircase and not to the wall, which is what appears to be the case at the in their in their illustrations and and the current mounting. Mhmm. Staff also followed the standard number nine applied here and agree we agree that it's appropriate, so we request that they give us the product number and installation location before ordering the fixture. The fourth item was a little more more took a little more interpretation. This was to propose covering the still lintel on the back wall that covered the vehicle opening with a limestone veneer soldier course.

It's a row of of vertical stones across the top, mostly to disguise the or to cover up the lintel, which is rather rusty and tenants have felt that it's not that attractive. So the THC disapproved that per standard number two. They felt that felt that lintel should remain exposed as a record of the adaptation for vehicle service in the nineteen thirties. Text of of standard number two is here. Staff felt that number standard number four also applied.

Standard number four being changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right, not necessarily not necessarily original features, but features that that kind of show the building's journey and evolution over time can gain significance in their own right and will be retained and preserved. There are a little we noted that the other remaining vehicle opening, which is on the side and has is filled with windows, has a different kind of lintel. It's kind of a steel wrapped rintel. The picture on the bottom is a little hard to see because everything's painted black. The awning's painted black.

The windows are painted black. The lintel's painted black. But that's more like the closer to what's depicted in the 1938 photo. So we're not sure that's the 1938 lintel above the thing. I mean, it's a nineteen nineteen thirty opening.

It's not necessarily the nineteen thirties lintel that's there, But we don't know that without knowing more about the history of the building when this when it was this part of the 1982 renovations. And if it was, does that mean it's it is outside the period of significance and shouldn't be preserved, or does that another part another aspect of its history that should be preserved? So it's just saying that there's it's worth exploring the appropriateness of this fee of that feature and noted that in when you if the commission disapproves the application, they can't apply for a year, so hoping that we can put something in the motion about allowing it to revisit it sooner if it becomes if the applicant decides to revisit.

Do So the staff you mean on for staff to approve No. Or come back to the commission before a year?

Yeah. Yeah. And we would probably want to hear what the Texas Historical Commission has Yes. To say about it

Because right now they're saying that they would not approve what they Right. Yeah.

Is it the lintel or is it the opening that's significant, So Yeah. Not sure there. But anyway, based on the standards for rehabilitation number two, four, and nine, staff recommends approval as presented with the following conditions. The new staircase configuration is approved. Standing sieve, Galvalume finish roof on the back porch is approved.

The new lighting fixture is approved with conditions that the fixture will not be attached to the stone wall, and product number and mounting location will be provided to staff before ordering. The stone veneer over the steel back lintel is not approved, but if additional information about the lintels becomes available and the applicant wishes to have the CHPC reconsider it, we waive the year waiting period for the HBC to reconsider it. That's Steph suggested And unfortunately, looks like we do not have the applicant here to answer questions.

Okay, thank you, Kirsten. So I'll open it up for questions, discussion, questions.

I think one of the main things that needs to be pointed out is that they're already working on it and doing the things that were on the CFAs. And my understanding is the same person has bought several of our historic buildings on Main Street. So, you know, we want to make sure that it's understood and set the precedence that process is the process for a reason. And it needs to come through and be approved before they start tearing down, adding, painting, whatever. So I'm not sure exactly how we do that.

Maybe based upon this motion that we make. But I think it really needs to be brought to their attention. Yeah. Yeah.

Any other questions or comments? I know that definitely, Kirsten did cover about the light fixture and the location of it and what it is attached to, and I believe the material let's see just what was shown in the picture just for staff approval on that before it's ordered and installed. So I wanted to note that. I also agree that if it could be brought up it's kind of part of an education thing for what we do with preservation, is educating our property owners and public about the process for the C of A and approval, and so that could be relayed back. I don't know if that needs to be included as part of the motion, but any other comments, discussion on this application?

If you'd like something done specifically, you should include it in the motion.

So and also just in stating about communicating or educating the property owner, that needs to be included in the motion as well, is what you're stating?

Yes, what you'd like to be conveyed to the applicant. Yes. Thank you.

So, there's a motion

to move towards providing the educational process.

To add that to the Excuse me,

is your microphone on?

I'm sorry?

Is your microphone on?

Yes. Is it still not here? Okay. Is that okay. Test it, test. Yeah. Can she

we're going

to move to provide educational process related to, the COA. That,

yeah, before work is is started, that they go through the the certificate of appropriateness process. Mhmm. And that to be added to the motion. And also well, I think that I think that covers it, if any else has any.

Well, and make sure any changes from our recommendation of any kind has to come before staff for them to see and make a decision. We're approving it as recommended, but they kinda seem to go rogue and do other things. So we just wanna make sure that it's it's done properly and as stated. Yeah, and I think

it's stated for in terms of the light fixture and all, that they're to be provided to staff, the product number and the mounting location provided to staff for ordering, so that could really be, you know, stressed to the property owner.

And I think through the educational process,

that will be stressed.

Agreed.

At this point, is there a motion? I'm not sure. I had actually moved.

We were in the discussion part first, and so I'll go ahead and move to

provide the educational process related to the COA.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Elam. Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay. Can I, sorry, you're not approving the staff recommendation, you just want him to be educated on the process at this point?

Okay, you

want to clarify?

Female Yes. That's what we want versus them going rogue and starting on items that aren't listed. So, the future reference, right?

Think that's just what she was saying in the discussion was part of the we were just saying that that should be part of the motion that's being and the recommendation. I think we can combine it together. Can we? Okay.

You can add whatever you'd like to the motion. Just make sure you're including everything that you want in there, including if you're accepting any of the staff recommendation.

So, we are we are accepting the staff. I moved to accept the staff. We moved to accept the staff recommendations, as well as the educational process of the COA.

That is I've seconded that

motion. Okay.

So, it has been seconded motion and seconded. The discussion is that it is the recommendation the recommendations that have been put forth from staff to the commission, including the communication about the process of the CFA, both for starting the project and also the new lighting fixture as well. I just want to note that in the discussion. So, any other discussion on that? Okay. All in favor of this motion, say aye.

Yeah.

Roll call. Roll call.

Sorry. There's a roll call. So, Commissioner Conrad?

Yes.

Commissioner yes. Commissioner Simmons? Yes. Yeah, okay. Vice Chair Whitaker? Yes. Chair Whitaker? Yes. And Chair Anderson?

Yes. Alright, so I believe there's unanimous approval of the motion. So, motion passes.

I'm sorry, who was the second?

Let's see, Simmons. Commissioner Simmons. Motion by Commissioner Elam. Unanimous approval. All right. So we'll move on to item G, G1, under the planner's report, consider a monthly update regarding projects relating to historic preservation commission actions and goals. Lily?

Evening, commissioners. Good evening. The January monthly update has been included in your packet. You all have been registered for a webinar this Thursday from noon to 01:30. That's hosted by the NAPC, and it will cover historic resource surveys. And you should have received a confirmation with a link to access that. If you did not, you can let us know. The next Lunch and Learn will be on February 11 at noon at the Baca Center. Elroy Habberla will be presenting on his book, Kinney's Fort. So that's on February 11 at noon at the Baca Center.

And what was the name of the book? I'm sorry. Kinney's Fort. Okay.

Yes.

We have some exciting news. As you are aware, the C of A has been issued for the stagecoach N, so that project is

complete. Also Sorry. March 11, or is it February 11?

February 11.

Okay. It's in the notes. It's March, right? Am I reading it wrong?

I believe it's February, but I might have said March accidentally. I apologize. But February 11.

Sorry to interrupt you. Just that's good.

No, no problem.

Team Sport, it's okay.

Yes. So the CFA has been issued for the Stagecoach Inn, so the project is now complete. And construction on Heritage Trail West is also complete. Note that the original contract did include interpretive signage. That has been moved under a new contract and will be completed in the near future. So staff are from planning are working with Parks and Recreation to review that material.

Very good.

Do you have any questions? On

the trail, was the has the Native American statue been commemorated or opened or whatever they call it?

Not yet. So it's been installed, but the unveiling ceremony is still pending. So we'll be able to share information once that's been scheduled.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you for those updates. It's very helpful in keeping us and the public informed of the ongoing, so the projects that the city is involved with. This is a great update too, Lilly. Thank you very much. Any questions for Lilly?

No. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Item G2, consider discussion regarding upcoming preservation events and activities. So at this time, commissioners, this is really if you know of any upcoming preservation events and activities, this is the time for us to share, and I can start it off. Lily had mentioned about the Lunch and Learn on the history of Kenny Fort.

That's wonderful, and those Lunch and Learns are always very informative and interesting and educational, so I encourage you all to attend that. And on February 13, at the Williamson County Courthouse, there's going to be a presentation. It's seven to 08:30. A speaker from the Texas Center out of Shriners University, Don Fraser, will be the speaker for that. So, that will be a wealth of historic information. And so that's on the let's see, was the toast

of Toast of the Past.

Toast of the Past. And you get the tickets on Eventbrite. Yeah, and also through the Williamson County Historical Commission Facebook page as well. So, any other events that anyone would like to share?

No? No?

And also, there are copies of Authentic Texas, the Heritage Magazine of Texas, available at the visitor center here. There are stories that cover articles from, as Lily mentioned, the Heritage Trail here, so that's available there, as well as on the region as a whole. So, we're always looking for content to go in there, but be sure to stop by the visitor center for that history information as well. Give me a moment here. Covered up all my papers.

Yep. Make

sure I'm not missing anything. Okay. So we'll move to item H for adjourning this meeting at 06:25 p. M. Thank you.