Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. The meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission will now come to order. Kirsten, would you do the roll call, please?

Commissioner Conrad? Here. Commissioner Ellum? Commissioner Simmons? Commissioner Wolf? Here. Commissioner Peterson? Vice chair Woodiger? Here. And chair Carson?

Here. Could we stand for the pledges, please? Honor the Texas flag. Excuse me. Item D, citizen communication.

We have one Pamela Anderson.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm Pamela Anderson, executive director of the Texas Brazos Trail Region. It's a heritage tourism nonprofit serving 18 counties across Central Texas, including Williamson County and Round Rock, where we are headquartered, and have been for the last couple years. Our organization is one of 10 nonprofit heritage trail regions that make up the 10 Texas Heritage Trail program.

The program encourages communities to partner, preserve, promote Texas historic and cultural resources, while also supporting local economies through heritage tourism. At our core, we help communities turn history into something people can visit, experience, and support. We work with local governments, historic preservation commissions, like this one, museums, and organizations to ensure stories don't stop at city limits, but connect to a larger regional and statewide narrative and initiative. Rad Rock is a perfect example. Its location along historic north and south travel route shape early settlement and commerce.

Just today, I had the delight of presenting on this topic at the Baca Center through the Round Rock Preservation's invitation at their lunch and learn program, sharing the city's rich heritage with attendees. One of the clearest reminders that this legacy of Round Rock is one of them is the Harris Stagecoach Inn, preserved thanks through grassroots efforts led in part by this commission. I brought copies of our latest Authentic Texas Quarterly to share with you tonight, devoted to historic lodging, featuring the Harris Stagecoach Inn, our very own here in Round Rock. Over the years, we've also shared other Round Rock stories, like the city's journey to becoming the city's sports capital of Texas, the restoration of the Heritage Trail and Bathing Beach, and now this chapter on the Harris Stagecoach Inn. These aren't just history lessons on a page, they're visitable places where people can stand where history happened and really understand how Round Rock came to be.

You can also find stories like these anytime at authentictexas.com, and I invite you to explore through there, and also subscribe if you wish for the quarterly publication to come straight to you. Heritage tourism is about preserving what matters, telling authentic stories, and inviting locals and travelers to experience them. If there are Round Rock stories or sites you would recommend to be considered for this publication or other collateral pieces, marketing pieces we produce, our region through our statewide and regional resources, we'd love to know, so please contact us, and we'll be happy to work together. Thank you for your time and your continued stewardship of the Round Rock's historic places. Thank you.

Thank you. Item e, the approval of minutes. E one, consider approval of the minutes of the 11/18/2025 historic preservation commission meeting.

I can make a motion, but I don't know if you can hear me because my light doesn't work. Is Okay. That

Speak up.

Okay. I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the 11/18/2025 meeting. I second.

It has been moved and seconded. Okay. Commissioner Conrad?

Yes. Commissioner Ellum? I'm sorry. She's out. Commissioner Wolf?

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson?

Yes.

Vice chair Whitaker? Vice chair Whitaker? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Yes. Yeah. Chairperson.

Yes. Item F, certificate of appropriateness. F1, consider a presentation action regarding proposed amendments to certificate of appropriateness HB25-ten at 609 East Liberty Avenue.

Good evening, Good evening, commissioners. This is considering, regarding a case that where the certificate of appropriateness was approved last, May. It's for a garage apartment and three car garage in the back. The house itself is Folk National, believed to have been built by J. E.

And Augustufson around 1920. So in May, certificate of appropriateness HB25-ten was issued to end condition that the final selections for windows, doors, garage doors, and hardware must be approved by staff before ordering. No selections were submitted. When construction was complete, the inspection was requested on December 29 and several elements were found to be not conforming with the certificate of appropriateness conditions. This puts the property in violation of the zoning code.

The applicant requests amendments to the certificate of appropriateness for retroactive approval of alternative materials. So what this is saying is if you think, no, that that's not appropriate, change it back, then you don't do anything. You leave the conditions as they are. If you think, yeah, that's perfectly appropriate also, then you make an amendment to say to add that as an appropriate option. Or if there's some way to if you think it could be you think what's there is not really not really appropriate, but it could be mitigated to be more palatable, then, you make an amendment to that effect too.

The existing conditions, the first one, some relate to the just the construction of it. So any alterations to meet zoning, building, and or transportation requirements must be reviewed by preservation staff to determine whether amendments to the C of A are necessary. The two garages may be demolished because they're not mentioned as significant in the historic resource survey form in our utility buildings. The metal panel roofing is appropriate, and the prefinished black color is appropriate for a new construction garage. Fiber cement laps siding and trim are appropriate but must have a smooth texture.

Windows must be wood or metal clad wood. Staff must approve the series before ordering. Door and garage door selections must be confirmed by staff. Appropriate doors are wood or fiberglass with a simple design and glazing pattern and may not include plastic moldings. Where there are divided lights on windows, doors, and garage doors, the grills must be on the exterior of the glass because we don't permit the grills between the glass.

Hardware selections must be confirmed by staff, and the paint color of lionfish is appropriate if paired with a white trim color. Garage doors must have the same color scheme as the walls, but the standard doors may be a contrasting paint color of a paint or stain. So first item is the windows that were the windows that came in in this middle were Andersen 200 series, which are vinyl clad wood, double hung windows. The staff recommendation on that that was on the slide and in your in the staff analysis was that for new construction, the HPC prefers wood windows but is allowed aluminum clad wood depending on the details. Not all aluminum clad wood but some aluminum clad woods are appropriate.

The HPC is not allowed vinyl or vinyl clad windows. And the conditions that made it into the certificate of appropriateness are windows must be wood or metal clad wood. Staff must approve the series before ordering. Where there are divided lights on windows, doors, and garage doors, the grills must be on the exterior of the glass. And what was actually installed was vinyl clad windows without grills. They already have slightly different placement, different materials, look slightly different design. So what was illustrated were two over two windows. The way the the, condition was written is just like if there are there are mountains, they have to be on the outside of the glass. They can't be between layers of glass. But it didn't seem to specify that they had to be there.

The details around the trim are a little different. The windows on the left are a little ended up being a little further off center or off balance in the built version than in the recorded version. Also, they are single hung instead of double hung, and so the screens are only on the bottom sash. And the doors, the submitted doors were from the Anderson 200 series vinyl and the submitted garage doors were they were illustrated, but they were not specified. They were described as standard fiberglass doors.

And the staff recommendation there was vinyl clad is not appropriate, mostly thinking mostly referring to the doors. And the conditions that were in the certificate of appropriateness were the door and garage door selections must be confirmed by staff. Appropriate doors are wood or fiber glass with a simple design and glazing pattern and may not include plastic moldings. Where there are divided lights on windows, doors, and garage doors, the grills must be on the exterior of the glass. Hardware selections must be confirmed by staff.

So, the doors, slightly different doors. This is a fiberglass door. What's different about it is that it doesn't have the glazing. It wasn't clear from the way the condition was stated whether glazing was necessary or whether both are equally appropriate. Similarly with the garage doors, again, what was illustrated is different from what got, got installed.

The ones that are installed are also a different material. Steel instead of a fiberglass or wood and and also do not have a glazing pattern, whether or not that's important. The hardware and lighting were to be were to be approved by staff, but they required staff approval, but they didn't specify the CFA didn't specify parameters. Like, it didn't say it had to be one finish or another, what was installed. A It's Kwiksite Juno knob and deadbolt and venation bronze and the home decorators collection, one light outdoor wall sconce in black.

The paint, the submitted paint was Valspar 8,000 forward ash forward e six d lionfish with a gray color. Didn't specify a trim color there. And the staff recommendation was that the garage door should be the same color as the walls and entry doors could be a contrasting color or stain. The conditions that are in the CFA that was approved are the paint color lionfish is appropriate if paired with a white trim color. The garage doors must have the same color scheme as the walls, but the standard doors may be a contrasting color paint or stain.

What was applied was lionfish walls with white trim doors and garage doors. So the garage doors here are still white. I think that was the only, issue with this one. And currently the applicant is in violation of the certificate of appropriateness and must redo the work and to be in order to be in compliances. Or if you feel like what was actually installed is equally appropriate, then you can approve that and, add an amendment that would, make those allowable. Mr. Demerick is here.

Good evening. My name is Dominic Burton, owner of, DJB Business Solutions. I partook in this project. As stated, it started in May 2025 when the initial documents were submitted and approved. I guess, to touch on the windows that were illustrated and the drawings versus what was installed.

During the initial submission in May that got approved, in June 23, I submitted a revision two to the drawings that ultimately altered the elevation views and it put a note in the, drawings as far as the window types and the, and the door types. This was my very first project. So my understanding at the time was as long as I updated that information, speaking with my case manager, Dalton, I forgot his last name. But previously when I had to upload revised documents, I talked with him and asked what the process was and it communicated was to me, just upload the documents and we'll see it. That also occurred later on in the project when one of the inspectors asked for, additional information for, structural drawings for the slab foundation and it was that same process.

So my understanding, was just that I was able to make the modifications or revisions and upload the document. Unfortunately, I didn't understand that there was there was something else, another step that needed to be had as far as submitting information and receiving a response for approval. Overall, the issues that with the windows and doors that are outlined is strictly on me. I I didn't understand the process, and I I went with my best knowledge of what the requirements and expectations were. I had the information available that I could have went back and referenced, but when I, started the project and talked to my subcontractor, I gave the direction, to the best of my knowledge.

But looking back, I misinterpreted the notes from the, initial meeting, with the windows went with the wood clad. So wooden window with the vinyl clad on the exterior. What I proposed in the in the write up was if the intention is strictly to see a wooden facade, if it's not necessarily a material issue and it's aesthetic issue that we could clad the vertical, pieces on the windows to show where it looks, like a true wooden window, on all sides. I I don't know what's what's gonna be appropriate. Obviously, my my my hope for this this meeting is that we're able to accept the conditions as they are with with the windows and and the garage doors.

The garage doors are a steel door. I did note in the drawings that it was that it would be a fiberglass door, but they're still standard doors insulated as requested by the client. At that time, I should have came back to the commission for approval, and it just it I I didn't think about it. And so it everything that's listed as far as the windows and doors are truly a mistake on my end. And so I don't want to do anything to go against the expectations of the historic preservation committee, but I don't I don't know where we

I have a question. Did you say at the very first that you had submitted, 06/23/2025, I said you submitted a revised?

Yes, ma'am. Our I submit

copy of that. Did we receive a revise?

There was also a building permit.

On the building permit,

it was not to us.

Yeah. And that was another discussion that I had with Kirsten during the final meeting, I wasn't aware when I uploaded the information, the documents to the permit portal. I thought everyone who who needed to see the documents had access to that. I wasn't aware that I needed to go to the three different permits to submit documentation.

To clarify the processes, after the certificate of appropriateness concerns are usually kind of big picture. And so they generally you can do them at parallel along with the building permit. They won't issue a building permit until there's a certificate of appropriateness. Or you can kind of work out your big picture's issue in the certificate of appropriateness and then work out all the details in a in a building permit. People doing the building permit are really just worried about code and safety and structural soundness.

And so the the changes that they make usually don't affect the overall appearance of it. And so I think, like, we had mentioned that there was a foundation issue. They wanted a bigger pad. It doesn't really affect the appropriateness as far as we're concerned. I did see that there were three resubmittals.

So the second one had the garage doors blanked out, the third one had the garage door thing back in there. So and but actually happened is I I get an approval along with the electrical guy, the foundation guy, the etcetera, the electrical guy. And so I checked it off and then these changes were made after. But that in the submittal. But again, the real the real changes were really just made to the foundation, I think.

Yes. The because the size of the house had to change due to the easement location. So the house the depth of the house got shorter, the length of the house, extended by five feet. And so those documents were resubmitted. Okay.

And as far as updating our process, we're changing the approval sequence so that the certificate of appropriate or the historic review would be like right before the final, final overall review. So any of the changes should have gone through there and be seen.

Try to talk oh, it is working. Okay. So I understand that the certificate of appropriateness was approved back in May and shared what needed to happen. And then I understand that you did things differently than what was approved. And so now to ask us to retroactively approve something differently than what we approved back in May does not seem appropriate in my opinion because it's it's too late you already did it, right?

That that's a true statement but for clarification, I did address the comments by putting information that the type of window, the type of doors that I intended to install in the revised document and uploaded that. The discrepancy is I uploaded it to the overall permit. I didn't understand the process. Again, this is my first project that I've done, so I didn't understand that I needed to go submit that document to the other permit because at that time, I was already engaged with the city inspectors and the case manager and so I was working strictly out of that permit portal, with all of the different revised documents. So I wasn't aware until December 29 when I called for the final inspection, Kirsten and I had that conversation.

I didn't realize that those documents weren't being shared holistically with with all reviewers.

And I do understand that. I just wonder since the certificate of appropriateness that was approved in May was very specific on the types of things that could be done that was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission previously, it seems like a lot of changes were made. And because you had very specific things about what was approved, that seems inappropriate to me that the changes were made. And now, again, I understand what you're saying, that you didn't understand the process, but I don't think at this time it would be appropriate for the commission to approve these changes retroactively.

So I have a question for the city folks. Did we change our process after this?

So a couple things. You're asking if we change our process based on this conversation?

Yes.

So we're looking we have a city permit approval tracking system, and the way that it currently works is there's closeout inspections at the end. What we're looking at now is putting in more inspections. It may not still address the issue because if the materials have already been selected and ordered, it still wouldn't catch it early enough to have addressed these issues of the multiple submittals. When we issue a certificate of appropriateness, we note in the certificate of appropriateness if there's alterations to the building permit that those need to come back for historic review. But there's lots of things that happen with the project with lots of parts.

So he was mentioning a case manager. That case manager has to do with the site development permit. It's also a building permit that goes through building inspections, and separate from that there's certificates of appropriateness that go through planning. So there's sort of three different things that are happening at the same time. When you all approve a certificate of appropriateness, oftentimes you you specify conditions that things need to come back to staff, and so that's what you're telling the applicant at that time when that letter is issued that there's conditions that they need to meet for each of those items and that they need to get that staff approval before ordering.

That gets uploaded into the system just like everything else, and the applicant receives a copy of it after after the meeting. Yes, there are tons of changes and moving parts after that, for sure.

And so is the case manager, is that a city employee?

Yes. There's a case manager that's a contact person for the site development permit, and they are assigned at we have a pre application process for the site development permit, pre submittal meeting, and that case manager is assigned at that time to answer questions about the site development permit.

Did you ask the case manager about this?

I asked him as far as the submission process and that I was directed to upload the documents and they will see when the new documents hit and if there was any questions that they would contact me and that's the way that I proceeded throughout the duration of the project with any changes or any additional documents that were requested or needed to be updated.

I do notice here on the May 21 letter about the certificate of appropriateness from Kirsten that it, you know, it says all the things that were approved, and then it says, once the plans are approved for a building permit, please contact me to discuss whether an amendment is necessary. Please, also, contact me when you have made selections for the window series doors, garage doors, and hardware before ordering these items. So to me, that's pretty straightforward, the steps that needed to be followed.

Did you Did you consult them with Kirsten before you ordered?

Did not. I updated the drawings with the information, with the product information, and uploaded it, thinking that all reviewers would see the information.

So you really did not check with her? In other words,

I did not.

Yeah.

But that was wasn't a decision made just because it was based off the direction that I received asked. Once the meeting, the initial meeting took place and was approved, I was directed to communicate everything through Dalton, the case manager, and that's the direction that I followed. He communicated the process for revisions and things of that nature and I followed his instructions. At no point in time was I ever directed to go by upload to different permits or anything like that. So my understanding was, okay, I'm updating documents.

I upload it and everyone that's involved with the project as reviewers have that information. That's what was communicated to me.

I

had no other knowledge. And again, like I said, this was my first project. I'd just started my business. This is my first project. So I don't have the experience of working with the city of Round Rock portal to understand what that looks like as far as communications and approvals other than what the case manager directed me to do.

I recall we worked diligently over this last year, going over every specific thing that we needed to cover in order for you to be in compliance when So, you made the why did you make changes from what we had gone over?

The windows, I submitted a wood class double hung window. The way I interpreted the note, it wasn't that the windows shall have a grill or it was if it had it, then it needed to be it described how it needed to be. Considering that the client did not want the grills on the windows, I didn't see it as any I didn't see it as me going against the requirements. I read the note as if grills are installed that this is how it needs to be. So as far as that note, I felt like I was compliant.

And right now, I believe the way, Tristan described it, it sounds like I am compliant with that. As far as the wood type, it's cladded with with vinyl on the exterior, which is the wood wood clad windows. But again, that's oversight on my end. I didn't realize that the cladding on the outside wasn't acceptable. That's the only explanation I have as far as the windows.

I submitted a product that I thought met the requirements and I didn't hear anything back. But obviously, I didn't hear anything back because I didn't submit it to the correct

There seems to have been a like, yeah, you keep saying that you submitted, and was your were your submissions simply not acknowledged, or did they go to the right place, or

Other comments were acknowledged as far as it related to building code, the foundation structure. Those reviewers responded back. Originally, I didn't have a product submitted for the windows and doors and that's why I provided revised documents to tell to describe the materials that I intended to install with the expectation that if they weren't acceptable that I would get that feedback. But when I didn't, there was other submissions that I made that I didn't get feedback on. I called Dalton and he said, Yeah, we're good. Same thing with the building inspector.

Yeah. At no time, though, you did not personally contact the historic department, the historic preservation, Joel and Kirsten, you did not consult with them?

I did not.

I'm sorry. What is the name of your business?

DJB Business Solutions.

Okay. So the letters that went out stating what had to be done, you just ignored?

I didn't ignore acknowledged it at the time as the project continued to go on. I thought I understood with dealing with my case manager. I thought I understood. He was the main point of contact that was given me after this meeting that Dalton would be the point of contact for any questions or any direction that I needed throughout the period of the project. And so I communicated with him and didn't realize I needed to communicate with multiple individuals because the direction was given that this is your case manager.

If you have any questions, this is the person to consult, and he would communicate any further steps.

Well, Kirsten, this case manager that he keeps referring to I don't know everything. I have to ask these questions because would that case manager then consult with you, having heard from him?

Possibly. They usually are, like Joel said, case manager is attached to the site permit and so it's usually concerned with those issues. And those will affect a lot of building permit issues relating to all the utility lines and things. So they're kind of in context. But really, a lot of this is still kind of new for us.

I mean, really, until very recently, like a couple years ago, we didn't have any involvement at all with building and building permitting. Mhmm. We just tried to to stay out of each other, but we're trying to be a lot more smooth and unified in our approach and how things are reviewed. In order to it's useful for us to see where confusion shows up. Although with the building permit, can link to it, I do believe I uploaded conditions into there. Not that the other reviewers necessarily are concerned with them, don't look at them. So the conditions from the CFA were uploaded into the conditions section there. But that's not necessarily something you would see. It's something that the others would see.

It sounds like some of that needs to go back to the folks who are kind of working with everybody to either retrain them or put a process in place that if there's a COA on a property that it goes back and they check with y'all. Because if we're trying to do a single point of contact, I mean, that makes sense to have a single point of contact for the city so we're not having to go to multiple people. And if we're doing that, we probably should do it all the way and kinda put notes in the files for them to be able to come back to y'all for answers so we don't have this happen again.

So they see this there is a certificate of appropriateness uploaded into the file, and as we said, the applicant receives a copy of that the day Yeah. After the meeting. But, you know, they're still relying us as the to on us as the historic reviewers to review those portions. It's not the case manager who's reviewing. You know, they're looking at the overall site development permit. They're not doing historic reviews the way that we are.

Yeah. I'm not I'm not saying that they would be doing that. What I'm saying is they should, as the person overall in the project or overall for the city's aspect of making sure that each one of the permits get pulled that needs to make sure they're approved, they should also be checking with y'all to say, hey. There's a COA CFA out here. We need to make sure that it's there's nothing wrong with it before we push the final approval through.

I was talking with the person who the head residential plans reviewer, and he brought that up actually this morning. Again, they're used to having parallel things that, you know, you do your thing and you do and we'll do our thing, which is why we issued the certificate of appropriateness letter that says come back to preservation staff. And then, I mean, even having the reviews in having even having me looking at a building permit is new in there. So, there are kinks. Yeah. So

I think there's two parts. There's the process part, but then there's also the CFAs issued and then that still went to the applicant and does not match what was actually, completed. There may be some potential to, you know, talk through that and what's appropriate or not appropriate for each item and see if there's a potential to come to some middle ground of, you know, how to make elements appropriate that you don't currently feel are appropriate. We do that, you know, with revisions along the This is different, obviously, because it's retroactive and the work is already done. But part of this analysis and the way that this presentation is set up is to look through each element and determine whether what was submitted could still be appropriate or not.

And there's, you know, certainly elements that might be and elements that might not be, based on what you've approved prior, based on design guidelines and and, you know, secretary of the interior standards. In this case, the garage is new construction, what was there before was demolished and then a new garage built. So this is also different in that sense from something that was an existing historic building that was altered. In the case of new construction, it still has historic overlay zoning. It's still subject to the same reviews.

What is different about it is that you're looking at compatibility with, you know, the existing other structure on the site, the historic home, and then also with the neighborhood as a whole.

So based on the review we did in May and looking through all the components, we came up with what we felt was appropriate based on all those things that you just mentioned at the time. And then so as far as review you know, let's we've already done that, and now it wasn't followed. But now you're saying we could go back through each thing again and change what we think is appropriate

based on that? Multiple selections could be appropriate. It's not just one thing is appropriate, and that's the only thing that's appropriate. There's definitely things that are not appropriate Right. In terms of styles and materials. There's probably a little bit more leeway in terms of the fact that this is new construction versus alteration to an existing historic structure. But I think what you need to think about is the precedent that would be set by these elements, you know, if you were to approve something and you don't feel like it's appropriate for something at somebody else in the same situation, then then that causes problems later down the road.

There's the Valley precedent of asking for forgiveness rather than permission.

I'm sorry, say that again.

It's an old Silicon Valley saying to it's old now, to ask for forgiveness instead of permission.

One more thing to note that's along the lines of what you said, Commissioner Conrad. We, as staff, make recommendation for a certificate of appropriateness application when one comes before the commission in our analysis memo, which is in your packet from May. And in this case, we opted not to make a new recommendation, because we had already made a recommendation back in May. So we're sort of punting it to you all to to make that determination whether amendments are okay or not. And and I think that's why I said element by element.

I think you have to talk about each one and determine, and we can go back to the slides about what what was initially submitted to you all that you all saw, what the analysis was, and what the applicant installed, and and you need to go through each one of those and make a determination about whether you would accept an amendment to the CFA or not, or if there's some other the applicant mentioned, you know, putting wood frames on on windows, you know, there may be some other solution that would, mitigate, some of the issues. If you're open to that, you could not be open to any of that. That's for you to discuss. But I think it's important to do it element by element so that not as a blanket

statement. Thank you. Thank you, Jo. So the elements are the windows, door, lighting, hardware, and garage door. Are those the yeah, windows, door, garage, and hardware. But the paint was okay.

We didn't need to go back through each one, but concerning the paint, the commission had said that the garage door should be the same as the body of the structure. You know, you have photos of what it looks like now, so you can determine whether or not what's there now is appropriate. Again, you're considering appropriateness based on, you know, whether it's compatible with the neighborhood, and also with the secretary standards, and with the historic design guidelines for residential properties.

So, we are here because after making quite a deliberate attempt to give you directions to what we needed done and how to do it, and even very specific things. You're in violation of the certificate of appropriateness, because you made changes after we gave you directions directions of of what what would would be be perfect. Perfect.

I think the way that that's worded, I didn't make changes. I proceeded with the best of my knowledge. The first meeting, the agenda from May, the May meeting, yes, there was instructions listed there. I proceeded based on communicating with the case manager who was assigned to me and based on the information that he communicated to me. I feel like the way that it's being expressed right now is that I arbitrarily just went and did whatever I wanted with no respect to the expectations of the Historic Preservation Committee and that's absolutely not the case.

I proceeded with the information that was given to me as this is your point of contact. I communicated with that point of contact with never having done the project on my own like this. I don't I didn't understand what the process was. The only avenue and resource that I had was my case manager who gave me directions on how to move from start to finish of construction in a permit process. And I followed those directions.

I communicated with him throughout the process just as I communicated when I uploaded revised drawings. There was four different inspectors that reached out to me when they saw those drawings uploaded, if they had questions or comments or direction for me to go and, hey, this is an issue that we need to address. So at that time throughout the project, I would upload a document and then City of Round Rock employees would communicate with me who were involved in that process on if there was anything that needed to be changed. I've gone and made multiple amendments to the documents based on information that was given to me by the inspectors and the case manager. So I don't know at what point I would have just thought to myself, hey, maybe I shouldn't be following this process.

Maybe there's something else. I only went with the information that was given to me by my case manager. So I acted 100% in an honest manner as what I understood to be appropriate as far as this is the process and that's exactly what I did. I didn't try to cover anything up or hide anything or change anything without permission to do so. I just never received any feedback until December 29 when I called for that final inspection because the other two permits were closed out.

I called Dalton and I said, hey, what do I need to do to get this permit closed out? I see that these two were closed. He said, reach out to Kirsten. I did that and that's when her and I coordinated and that's when I was informed that, hey, you should have submitted those two to this permit portal. I didn't know that until I went to close the project out.

Everything else went accordingly with the other two permit numbers. I didn't have to upload separate documents to the other permit, but they were able to receive the information and close that permit So I don't understand the where I went wrong as far as following the instructions that was were given to me.

So, Joel, this case manager, that's a city employee

Yes. That you keep?

So, this case manager, did this case manager at any time then communicate with you all? I'm trying to see where this communication breakdown was because he thought he was doing what he was supposed to

The only thing I can and I wasn't involved and Krista may have more comments on her coordination with the case manager. But you know the thing that I see is historic preservation is a very specialized review and it doesn't happen all the time when we have permits that go into the permit portal. If there's a historic property, it has a flag associated with it and that's how folks know that, you know, there's something else here that needs to be addressed. I'm not exactly sure applicant mentions talking to other building inspectors and along the way so you know it sounds like it would be similar to reach out to Kirsten based on the letter that she issued but you know clearly that was not interpreted that way and you know we need to figure out how to proceed based on how it was interpreted and and figure out you know how we can bring this applicant into compliance in whatever way you deem is appropriate.

And there were there were other inspectors and persons that were listed on the initial meeting agenda that reached out to me throughout the process as well. And with my experience with working with City of Round Rock and City of Austin on the commercial side, that's the natural process that we take. We have one point of contact which is the case manager, and you'll have 15 different permits, but you go to that one point of contact. And so, again, I understood the process as what was directed to me. I followed those steps I don't know where I went wrong in terms of just the process itself.

I my best to communicate with all persons and then anytime I had any questions, I reached out to my case manager, and was given directions. And I did in this instance as well as far as, hey, how do we close this permit out? And that's when I was given direction to reach out to Kirsten.

When you reached out to all these people, you thought you were you

thought you were I reached out to Dalton.

Were you discussing the COA, the instruction?

Discussed every aspect of the project from May all the way to the end. And and I didn't go through details on that sheet because the direction that was given to me when I submitted revision one was make the revisions, upload it, we see it. If we have any issues, we will reach out to you. From revision one forward, there was four or five different revisions and that process was followed and communications took place between the city, whether it was Dalton, the case manager, or the city inspectors. Anyone who had access to that portal, they communicated with me on the expectations and I would that is the reason why there was, I believe, four total revisions because specific people would reach back and get feedback, and I would update the documents to those comments, and we would move forward.

Well, I'm go ahead.

I was just going to say, I would think I understand what you're saying about your case manager and all these changes you made, but I would have thought that if, like, when this letter was sent out in May saying what was approved and then saying, you know, please contact me. It said twice to please contact her, once even before ordering these items. I would have thought if this if the instructions were do everything through your case manager, she would have put that in the letter and not said It

was the same process with the building inspectors. It said that this person would review and approve. Contacting someone isn't just verbally. It I made contact with the city of Brown Rock.

It gives her phone number and her email. So it to me, this was very specific on what was approved and then what the next steps were. And so that's my confusion about why we're having this long drawn out conversation. I'm hearing you say you didn't read it this way, but I would think this is why

I she put this

in didn't say that it was the particular item to the window grills that I made that comment. I understand the language that's written on the paper. I followed that direction by providing the information to all persons that were

Except for her.

I don't know who has access to the portal.

It doesn't say anything on here about going doing the you know, going to the portal. It says go to her office. And so that that would be my confusion is that there were specific instructions, and I don't understand now why

That's mine.

We're debating or or having more discussion about approving something that happened even though this said do something different. And so at this point, I think that we either need to make a motion, to not approve this, requested, retroactive approval or if there's another motion that somebody would like to make. And I did you ask I I didn't mean to talk when you wanted to talk. Sorry.

No. You're good. Mister Burton, so just to clarify, sounds like you followed the inspection and the permitting everything to a tee and the only miscommunication was just submitting the hardware and the materials to Kirsten before ordering in them. Is that accurate? That is based on my understanding from the meeting that I had in May here.

I was given a case manager that that would that I would communicate with moving forward. That that was what what was communicated to me is, okay, we had the meeting, we identified agenda of items moving forward, this is the point of contact and he will direct you as far as the communications with the different parties. I consulted that individual and was instructed to follow a process and that's the process that I followed. I believe that at that time, if Dalton would have said everything for this, you need to go through this department, it's not everything isn't funneled through me, then I would have had a better understanding and I would have taken those steps. I understand that the piece of paper says something, but I also understand what the agenda says where the agenda also note different building inspectors to consult.

It lists out everything. The process that was implemented based on my case manager was I'm the contact and that's what was communicated to me in this meeting. This is your point of contact moving forward and I followed the those directions. I'm just wondering if we can put more checks and balances in the future where maybe we can have kind of an approval materials or, you know, certificate of approval or something that kind of filters through us before it's actually ordered. I don't know

if that So part of what you all have done in the past is, said that staff could make have reviews or do reviews along the way once the applicant has decided on the materials to order. So that's sort of been the process that we've been going through. Yes. That requires that the applicant comes back to Kirsten to get those approvals. And we

can did

that to make it quicker for the applicant so that they didn't have to come back in front of us again a month later. And that's why you go to staff. But you completely ignored the entire document.

Well, I still think there's some miscommunication, you know You think what? Absolutely. There's some miscommunication in the process. Absolutely. Again, historic preservation review doesn't happen with every project.

It's, you know, there's only a certain number of projects that this review would, you know, this type of review would be necessary. And that's why it's required that that person comes to the commission first and gets the CFA before getting the building permit. I think there's still some, you know, clearly from this project there's some conversations that need to be had. However, you know, I guess what you all need to think about is how it works from a, you know, when you're saying staff can approve this if it doesn't happen along the way, you know, how that's going to impact that project in the future.

Thank you, Joelle. Well, what I would like to know for me to be able to think through this is how did how does case manager get in the way of the communication between this department? Because usually maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember

Ever hearing the word case.

Ever hearing about this case manager. Yeah.

So back to back to the case manager. The case manager is assigned at the pre submittal meeting that has that has to do with site development.

It's site

development, it's fire, it's, you know, utilities, transportation, all the folks are in there, and a case manager is assigned to help shepherd that person through the project. Again, it is rare that especially for new construction on a historic building, because it really doesn't happen very often. You know, so this is not something that they would see very frequently. Right?

That's what I

was Because usually the building's already there, and there's modifications, and it needs a building permit. It doesn't need site, you know, site review the way that this project needed. And so it would just be a question of working with building inspections through that process, which we would issue the CFA before the building permit. We would upload that in the portal, and it would be in there, which we did for this project too. But again, lots of moving parts with this project, much different than the typical projects that also have historic preservation reviews.

So this is definitely a learning process Because for this It's a little different. I I don't know that it, you know, we can continue to have the same conversation. So I think, you know, the staff recommendation based on the presentation was to go through each of the items and talk about them rather than talking about the process. How is the applicant going to move forward now, given the current situation?

I'd like to say something. I personally would have a problem approving this, having sat here through hundreds of CFAs over my ten years here, some we've approved, some we haven't, to just arbitrarily change the way we do things. I'm I'm sorry for your misunderstanding, but that's your job is to make sure that things are done, you know, the way that they were required. So it I wouldn't have a clear conscious personally changing

the way we do things. Mhmm.

It's my personal opinion.

And I'm not asking to change anything. I'm communicating how the process was communicated to me and I I don't wanna leave this meeting with the idea that I just arbitrarily did anything that that was opposite of the expectations of the committee. That's that's not there's no purpose of me doing business if that's the way that I would operate. I'm that's that's not the way that I facilitate my business or anything. This is the very first time that I've done this type of project.

It's the very first time that I have engaged in this permit process. And so it's a learning curve for me as well, but I honestly thought that I was doing the right thing by communicating with my point of contact. As far as steps forward, I would I would like to work through what could be done with the products that are in place now versus taking everything out. The the building permit that both permits are closed, are approved and closed. Therefore, the client is occupying the house to to go remove all the windows and change them out and things that'll be a substantial impact to them.

Considering that the finishes on the new structure reflect the finishes of the previous structure. It has the historical components from an aesthetic standpoint, they're present. If you drive through the neighborhood, you'll see this exact same finishes on several houses the surrounding area. I don't I don't understand, and and I would like to understand with the materials that are installed, what could be done that's appropriate to you all that that doesn't require removing and replacing those components completely? If if it's just from a aesthetic standpoint to obtain the historical view, then there's definitely things that could be done without removing the materials that are in place.

But obviously, that's not my decision.

Commissioners, do you have any comments?

Can we go back to each slide for each item? Will you all go through that and look at each individual item?

I personally would say that we did all this back in May to go back through each thing individually again. It's like we're having to do things twice. Is it possible that the applicant would go back through each item and say what they could do to make it get as close as possible to what was approved in May, and then share that with us at the next meeting for us to look at rather than having us go through and figure it all out. I'm I'm not trying to shirk our responsibilities, but just trying to determine if there's a potentially more efficient way. Because at this point, I would not approve the, certificate of appropriateness because or amend it because we approved it previously.

So the applicant had some potential, modifications that could be made to each to some of the elements. Do you want to talk a little bit about As

precedent, there were the only other case that I can think where there was a contractor who was kind of on autopilot. He was just used to doing things out in the county, doing them however he wanted to. But he was really good. And he saved a building that probably would have died otherwise. So in that case, he put in windows on an addition that had the grills between the glass.

And in that case, I mean, ripping out windows and exchanging all the ones on the edition would have been at least $20,000 for when it gets you have to rip out. It's not just ripping out the windows. You have to rip off the siding in order to get to the windows, and you have to rip off the flashing, which adhesive. Is And, you know, it's going to destroy the vapor barrier under that. But what the commission decided at that time was to allow allow him to put up wooden screens over so that it kinda hides the or hid the curls between the glass on the windows, so that it was less noticeable.

This case is not so much an issue of the the things. It's the vinyl is the is the problem. It's not that I my reading and and how we've dealt with other cases has not just because the illustration shows grows between shows the the two over two doesn't necessarily mean that they have to do. But if they do if they do two over two, then they have to have the girl on the outside. But something in this case to disguise the, excuse me, to disguise the vinylness of it.

It might be something that could be, crafted and added to it, which wouldn't involve ripping off the siding and the Tyvek and everything else. It would be more expensive than just ordering the right thing in the first place, but, but not breaking. Other things is like, we do a certificate of appropriateness, they're based on what what is proposed to you at that time. So there's I mean, there's a range of other things that could sometimes be appropriate as I'm thinking here more of the parts like doors, windows oh, sorry. Not windows.

The the doors, garage doors, the hardware. I mean, there's more than one set of hardware that's appropriate. In the in this case, we didn't if the conditions didn't even really state what made it appropriate or not. If, like, for the door, if you feel like that, you'd like, yeah, that's appropriate to, you just should have you should have proposed that in the first place or something. It's one thing I don't see a reason to force them to change a door if you think that the one that did get installed is appropriate.

The applicant did submit, and it's in your packet, some potential solutions for the elements. So you can see that in the packet already.

Can I clarify what person just said? Did I hear you say that adding wooden window screens to cover the vinyl clad windows would be appropriate?

It was what was decided in another case as a way of mitigating it. It was mean, it's still an added expense. I have a photo of it in here. Okay. Let's get And of how it turned

And then the painting, the garage doors to match the wall color would be appropriate. Those two things are things am I interpreting that correctly? Are two things you're saying would be acceptable?

If the case by case, that was what I thought for what came to mind for the windows just because the thing before if you garage doors are a lot easier to change out. If you feel like they're if you feel like this is perfectly adequate for for the area, for whatever, then fine. If you're if you're what you'd have had approved was wood or or fiberglass and then kind of what was implied just because of what it was illustrated is that it would have moldings and windows on it. If you feel it goes really contribute to making it appropriate, then by all means change it out. The most of it changes is pretty easy to change except for the here, let me So

And, Kirsten, that would be almost the same thing as what we did on the outbuilding at the mansion where we just had them put the trim back on there after they did it wrong, remember?

The outbuilding at the mansion, the oh, okay, yeah, that one.

The back building is stable. So

with this particular building that Kirsten's referencing as a window example, again, it was new construction.

I'm sorry?

With this particular building that Kirsten is referencing, if we can show the this one. Can we show that on the

I don't know.

On the screen? Yeah, on the monitor.

So for this particular building that Kirsten is talking about where the windows that were installed on the right are inappropriate Right. The results is what's on the left. Again, just to reiterate this new construction, similar to this project, new construction. There's really a different level of appropriateness for existing buildings that are modified versus new construction.

New construction. Back of this was new construction also.

Yeah. Correct. That's what I'm saying.

Oh, I'm sorry. Don't hear you.

New construction. So mitigation was a way to make it compliant, which, you know, I I think if you're gonna specify something like that, have to be really clear about why you would permit this in this case for this 06/2009. The new construction aspect of it is is a big part of it. Because if someone had a historic building and came in and put it in vinyl windows Yeah. The the the treatment of that and the appropriateness of that would be less than, you know, would would be more severe or whatever you wanna say for that than than it would be for new construction where you're looking at compatibility with the neighborhood.

Regarding the garage doors, the applicant talks about, I don't know if you can show, that the paint scheme was done to replicate what was there prior.

I'm sorry. Which

So that's what the applicant had. This here, Kirsten. This one? Yes. So I'm I'm just sort of addressing commissioner Conrad's comment about going through each item as the applicant has done that in a submission that they provided prior to this meeting for each of those elements.

It does seem like trimming out the windows would bring the look closer to what the main house is, And it does look like the garage doors, the idea matches between what was there originally, not on the original structure, but on the addition that was torn down to what we what you put on there. I can see that. So is that is retrimming those that out with to match closer to the house, is that something that you'd be willing to do? Yes, sir.

If you feel like it hides the vinyl ness of it.

Yeah. I think it would hide I think it would like, from the previous pictures you showed us of the other house that kind of went through the same thing, that it was a much closer picture than these, it looked pretty good.

If a change is made, like with the windows here, is is there a deadline or a timeline that's put in place?

If you get one, if you specify one. Okay.

If that was to be acceptable in this meeting, I would have the changes taken care of by the end of this weekend. And I would submit whatever documentation that's necessary to show that, but I would make those changes immediately.

Okay. I would like to make a motion to I don't know. Am I amending the c of a? So amending the c of a to address the new construction vinyl clad windows that are in there right now to make them more appropriate to clad them in, wood to match the as best as possible, match the, windows on the house currently. You might require building up the window trim to create a special attachment service.

You might need to, add a wooden window screen, but the idea is to match as close as possible the structure that is on the main house, or the look of the structure on the main house on the existing windows, and maintaining the trim color that that, matches the rest of the house on, I guess, the addition.

Are you specifying just trim, or are you seeing screens to put screens over this? Right now, they're they're single hung, so there's a screen over just the bottom half. And if you were doing screens, it would be an opportunity to have

Would the would the screen would the full screen, would that make it closer to the original house?

Yeah. I think right now the house just doesn't have them installed to it. Okay. Installed, but yeah.

So let's go ahead and do that as well, which would be the, adding a wooden window screens to cover up the vinyl cloud windows that yeah. So that

so that screens off the existing house.

Yeah. I think so. But they put it originally had them at some point.

Any other clarification? And if you have questions to reach out to the staff, one of these two ladies with any questions or, amendments or any kind of, judgment calls on what's correct for this situation, they will be able to handle those kind of questions for us.

Okay. What I just mentioned to Kirsten is that they removed all the screens off of the original house. So I guess They would match if we

had screens on this this side.

Well, what my question is, once I install the white screens, if they turn around and immediately remove them, how do I protect myself from Put

them up there and take a picture.

Yeah. Okay. So so I just want to make sure that I was clear with that. Put them up. Take a picture. I don't

want send it in.

Okay. So that's fine. I could do that.

Can you clarify if you're talking about two parts or one? Is there trim and screens? Or just wanna make sure we're documenting this correctly.

I I do not have an answer to that. You

would probably have to build up the trim in order to have a something to attach the screens to.

Yeah. So build up the screens or build up the window to a window building up the window trim to create a sufficient surface to attach the screens to. And, yeah, I would also admit the the current or the existing CF of a or COA to allow for the doors that are the garage doors that are in place and the regular door that's in place, along with the hardware that's already there because I have seen those lights in the neighborhood. I I do think they match the surroundings.

I have a question on the door in the middle of his I'm sorry. I just have a question. The top panel of the garage door, could that be replaced with light with like it is in the original drawing?

I I would have to contact it.

Because that would solve that part of the issues of how

it looks.

What do you mean? Yeah.

And then just the trim around it.

Are you talking about the trim around the garage?

The

The trim and then the the window lights in the top? Because that's in one panel. So that could possibly he could possibly replace that top panel and put

Oh, you're talking about other garage door?

Yes. And not have to replace door.

I mean,

I think that would that would make it. I think since it was on the original one that we see here on the picture, looking like this matches closer to what there was is there right now for a new structure versus

But that's our original approval.

Yeah. That was based off of the drawings that were that we saw that were possible.

I don't even

know if it is or not.

Yeah. I mean, that would be just from my own experience of having those kind of, like, you can pull that panel out and put a window panel in, but it doesn't look quite right in in Okay. From what I've seen done.

Just a thought.

It's easier to do with wooden garage doors where they are they aren't quite as attached the same way, so it's easier to sub one out.

So the other element is paint.

Yeah. I don't like the painted garage door look, so I like the what's there what was there matches what is there now as far as the garage door painting. So that's everything in my motion.

If you leave it if you don't make an amendment there, you're saying it has to be painted gray?

No. To keep it how it is right now.

So you're making an amendment to to leave it as it is? I can't what? You're making an amendment to leave it to leave the garage unpainted.

Yes, as it is right now.

Or another way to think about it is the only amendment he's making

What? Or no. It's because whatever we originally put in there would be an amendment to that to allow for what's currently in place to remain in place. So the only thing that my amendment's really changing is the clouding around the windows and the screens that go over that.

Okay. Then, amendment sorry. Amendments to leave the doors, garage doors, and hardware the same and the paint the same.

Right.

Okay. So one mitigation. Three

Do what? Yeah. I'm I'm through.

Are we waiting on a second

Yes.

Of your motion?

Yes. I

second the motion.

The motion is

We'll do this from here from this, microphone. So Commissioner Conrad? Yes. And commissioner, Wolfe? Yes. Commissioner Peterson?

Yes.

Vice chair Whittaker? Oh, I'm sorry. I answered my fingers. I'm sorry. Commissioner Peterson?

Yes.

Okay. Vice chair Whittaker? Yes. Okay. And chairperson?

Yes. Okay. Okay.

Alright. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

The next We will

sorry, one thing. We'll send the applicant a letter tomorrow.

Item G is the planner report G1, consider a monthly update projects relating to historic preservation commission actions and goals.

The February monthly update was included in your packet, so I call attention to the most recent Lunch and Learn that Pamela put together over noon today had 26 attendees and the video will be posted soon. The next big thing to bring up is the update on the schedule and procedures for this year's tax exemptions because we have one new commissioner here who hasn't who hasn't been through it before. So it's the program was established in 1982. The goal is to prevent deterioration of the city's historic resources to neglect. Approval is based on meeting specific maintenance criteria in the code of ordinances.

So in 1982 they've listed 16 particular items that properties are inspected against. And to identify items that if left unrepaired will cause structural damage or compromise historic integrity, the historic integrity of one of those items is that they are current on all their certificates of appropriateness and don't have any unapproved work. And the applicant has a year to address the noted items. The exemption exempts 75% of the city portion of property taxes because we can't speak for any other taxing entities, but rewards time timely and appropriate maintenance to prevent loss and encourages reinvestment of those tax savings into property maintenance. As a process, WCAD accepts exemption applications between January 1 and April 30.

Applications are submitted there. They tell me when they when they receive them, and then the staff performs an on-site inspection against the 16 items and fills out an inspection report. The reports and photos that from the inspection are then upload are the each each commissioner is assigned a set of properties. If one of the one of them, the application comes in and gets inspected, then it'll you'll be notified that you have that one of your properties has been uploaded. And, like, can we leave the legwork to to, staff to kinda keep the everything looking consistent, between different forms, but then the decision is left left to commissioners.

So then you decide whether it's a pass, needs maintenance, or fail. The difference between those a pass means there aren't any problems. And also each item, like, also gets a gets a a passer needs maintenance rating, you can tell them that. But the overall one, if it has mean maintenance, that means that there's a problem, you're but they'll get the exemption this year. But if it's not fixed by next year, then they may not fail, of course, means that there was something from last year that they didn't pay that didn't get fixed appropriately.

And then when for those who receive a fail application, then we have to coordinate with them and invite them to come and address you at the May meeting where you vote on all the, on on all the ratings to see who has met the requirements for the exemption. And then after you make your recommendation, then it goes to the city council. The first reading will be June 25. So HPC responsibilities in this is that a few properties will have had developments on the 2025 issues. If there have been, like, certificates of appropriateness issued since then, that'll go in with the photos and the inspection report.

Review the emails and from staff and and check the the inspections that are uploaded to SharePoint. Compare the '25 and twenty twenty twenty five and 2026 inspection reports and photos to see what the difference is, how how things have changed since last year. And check my ratings to see if you disagree with someone. And if you do or if you don't think that's an issue, then we can change it on the form. And just be really and make sure that the wording is really clear so that they know what they need to do by next year.

The other most important thing is to identify properties that may not may not be meeting the conditions for the exemption for discussion at the May 19 meeting. And you definitely have to discuss any property that might be failing, but you could also discuss other properties that are just unusual for some reason or where you're not sure what should be done to fix it. And then it it's a kind of a tight schedule. They could take applications up until April 30, and then you have a you need to get them in your packets more than, like, a week and a half, two weeks early. So, we would need to get all the assigned inspection reports by May 4.

If you can especially if there's a chance of someone failing, if you can oh, I'm not gonna be able to to start inspections until March, but if you can, review them kind of as they come in instead of all waiting until the April, that helps. As of this as of yesterday, we received applications for 13 properties, and like I said, I haven't been able to do inspections yet. Wait for the May 19 meeting, we need full attendance to discuss the inspections. Assumption is that you'll at least look over everybody's recommendation, not just the ones that were assigned to you and just, you know, make sure that you agree with them and that there's nothing unusually weird, but that's not as in-depth a thing as as as actually making those at the rating in the first place. So at the meeting, HPC will discuss the ratings and identify any properties that have identified as possibly failing.

Address failed inspections, the staff will let people know they're in danger of failing and invite them to address the HBC at that meeting. And then you vote on a recommendation to city council. So I'll collect it in exhibit a. It was a table of of what the readings are. Important dates. You got in their packets, you got a calendar that has the the general dates for when we need things. So applications can be submitted between January 1 and April 30. Inspections will be performed and uploaded as received, so in this case between March and and April. All HPC inspections must be completed by May 4 in order to have time to get them in your packets. The recommendation is made at the meeting on May 19.

The council's first reading for the exemption will be on June 25, which leaves them one more meeting if they wanna have it. Often they dispense with the second reading, but if they there is time for them to have a a second reading before July 15. And Were there any questions?

And G2, considered discussion regarding upcoming preservation events and activities? Anybody?

We have it in writing.

If you've not ever attended anything in the historic Williamson County Courthouse, this is an opportunity that's well worth your time. Doctor. Clark is amazing. He ran the golf site for many years, and he's got stories upon stories, number one. And number two, it's held in the courtroom where Dan Moody fought the KKK down, so it's worth it.

Quite historic. And with that, we are adjourned.