Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_05.27.2010Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5 May 27, 2010 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 27. 2010 at 6:00 p.m. City Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members Present: Will Moore, Chair; Susan Firth; Greg Herriott; J.C. Johnson; Larry Moseley; Ron Pergl and Dee Rapp Members Absent: none Staff Present: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; David Munk, Development Engineer; Mike Elabarger, Historic District Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for consideration and possible action on the following: Consent Agenda: The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may act on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission's approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation described in the report, unless otherwise noted. 1. Review and possible approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of April 22, 2010. Motion by Johnson to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Pergl. Approved 7 -0. Regular Agenda: 2 Certificate of Design Compliance for site layout and conceptual elevation approval, at City of Georgetown, Block 24, Lot 9, to be known as The Georgetown Off the Square, located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. (CDC-2010-011) Wyler presented the staff report. The applicant seeks site layout and conceptual elevation approval on a proposed mixed-use, three-story infill project. Final site layout, elevation, and material approvals will come at a later time. Centro Partners, LLC and HPD Cambridge, Inc., together are proposing a multi-story, mixed- use infill project for the western half of Block 24, along South Austin Avenue. On March 25, 2010, the two groups came before HARC to discuss the project and get feedback from both the Commission and the public before making any official applications to the City. After taking the comments into consideration, working with City staff, and addressing any concerns or issues, the applicants now seek HARC approval of the site layout, including the structure’s footprint and parking, and the overall location relative to adjacent residential structures. Additionally, in the past few weeks, staff has been working with the applicant on site plan Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5 May 27, 2010 review to ensure what is presented to the Commission is compliant with City regulations. Attached to this report is a site layout that has gone through a staff review and, although not final, should require minimal changes. Only upon final HARC approval of the overall project, will the site plan be finalized and approved. A Courthouse View Protection Height Determination application has been submitted to staff and is being reviewed. A final determination will be presented to HARC when the structure’s elevation goes for final approval. Currently, the applicant is seeking HARC approval for the overall footprint of the building and site layout in addition to conceptual approval of the building’s appearance. The developer, after reviewing the Unified Development Code, Downtown Design Guidelines, and Downtown Master Plan, is proposing a three-story, mixed-use structure that they believe respects both the look of Downtown and the economic vision of the City. The upper two stories will house 35 one and two bedroom units. The ground floor will consist of the 39 required on-site parking spaces, a residential common area, 1,700 square feet of retail space, and 3,700 square feet of restaurant space. This is in addition to required landscaping and outdoor covered seating to the east of the restaurant and common space. The reason for splitting the approval up into an initial approval, followed by a final approval that will occur further down the road, is to give the applicant assurance that the layout of the property and conceptual look of the building is favored and that HARC has no issues with either before marketing begins and final plans are developed. HARC is approving just the footprint of the building and on-site features, such as location of outdoor seating space, parking, and utility locations, in addition to a conceptual approval of the building’s appearance. Once project development is finalized, they will come back to HARC for final approval on all remaining items. This will include final elevation approval and any changes that may occur to the property layout. Staff recommends approval of the site layout and conceptual elevation of the project, as proposed by the applicant, with the consideration that the developer look into reducing the size of the modules, should HARC find they are too large and if reducing the size is feasible for the developer. This recommendation for approval is specific only to the layout of the property, including the building’s footprint, and a conceptual approval of the elevation. The developer has worked closely with staff in the past month to ensure all details are as close to final as possible, before bringing the item to the Commission. As previously mentioned, this initial approval will make way for the next step on the developer’s timeline. Once this has been completed, they will come back to the Commission for final site and structural approval. Chair Moore invited anyone that wishes to speak to complete the Speaker Registration Sheet and submit it to the Recording Secretary. Commissioners were invited to begin their questions and comments. Moseley questioned the amount of parking required and whether that was enough for both the residences and the restaurant. Wyler responded that 39 is the calculated requirement based on the UDC requirements of the Mixed-Use Downtown Zoning District. There was discussion of whether parking would be allowed in the private driveway and other options that would be available. Wyler responded that the driveway at the front door was for loading and unloading only, not parking. Pergl questioned the delivery of items for the building and restaurant, since there is not a designated loading area. Dave Sanders, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5 May 27, 2010 applicant, responded that they planned to use the 5th Street parking spaces or the main entry’s driveway for deliveries. He felt this was enough. Rapp questioned the location of the trash pick-up, located in the middle of the lot. Wyler explained that this was the only location that had been available based on other features of the site. Firth pointed out that the doors used for the screening do not always stay closed and that the sight and smells of the trash should not be visible to all the neighbors and patrons. They suggested looking for other options. Mr. Sanders explained that they had looked at other options and were planning a smaller dumpster that would have daily pick- up, hopefully avoiding the smells and overflow. He explained that the townhome residents behind the property also received trash pick-up from the rear access.. Moore asked Sanders if they had met with the neighbors. Sanders responded that they had met with three of the eight neighbors and wanted to continue working with them. He understands their anxiety about their views being blocked and rear access being reduced. Sanders was asked to describe the articulation used on the building. Sanders responded that at the request of the commission the dome has been removed from the west side of the building and they removed the red sculpture. They have inserted plantings where they could in the recesses of the building, giving a dimensional change as well as a color change at ground level. The south elevation has been narrowed for fire truck access to the driveway. The east side elevation was provided in the packet to show what would be seen from the townhomes. Firth noted she disagrees with the landscaping elevation on the Austin Avenue elevation, stating the amount of the landscaping being shown would not fit in that space. Sanders disagreed. He stated he plans to work with the Urban Forester to place as many trees and plants as possible to replace the existing stressed and sick trees that are on the lot. Pergl expressed concern regarding the base floor being all one face, with no offsets on the Austin Avenue side. He suggested breaking the plane. Moseley stated he thinks the building “reads well” but that he does not believe it should be built on Austin Avenue, but in Austin. He likes the proportions of the building, but not the proportions of this building compared with others in Georgetown. Johnson and Herriott expressed agreement with Pergl, suggesting varied windows, recessed doors, more articulation on the Austin Avenue (west) side of the building. Moore opened the Public Hearing: Andrew and Mandy Solin, 406 S. Main Street, feel the width of the alley is not sufficient to hold all the traffic that will be generated by this development. They also complained that the parking garage will have two 25’ openings, only 25’ from their home. They feel this will be a semi-public space right at the back of their property that will have lights overflowing onto their property all night long. They are concerned about the smell of garbage. And their main concern is the 40’ high garage wall that will be at the corner of 4th Street and the access driveway, stating the entire building is out-of-scale for the size and location of the lot. Moore closed the Public Hearing as there were not any more citizens coming forth. Rapp asked for confirmation that there will not be any long term parking allowed in the driveway. That was confirmed by both Mr. Sanders and staff who explained it will most likely be posted or painted as a fire lane, still to be determined. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5 May 27, 2010 Moore asked the developer to address the concern of the garage lighting. Sanders explained the lighting will be recessed and enclosed in the garage. He stated most people are more concerned about an open parking lot and those lights, not the enclosed variety. Firth explained she is still concerned about the scale of the building and compares it to the two story structure that will be built across Austin Avenue. Elizabeth Cook asked the Chair to recess the regular meeting to convene an Executive Session. Chair Moore recessed to Executive Session at 7:41 p.m. Executive Session was adjourned and the Regular Session was reconvened at 7:56 p.m. Chair Moore opened the Site Plan discussion and explained possible actions that can be taken. Rapp stated in general she likes the site plan, but was not sold on the trash enclosure location, citing the townhome owners have valid concerns over the noise of the pick-up, sight and smells. Pergl stated a dedicated loading area is still needed outside the fire lane. There was discussion of possibly putting the loading zone on 5th Street. Motion by Moseley to approve the footprint of the building and on-site features with the following exceptions: location of the trash, the aspect of the loading zone, directing the developer to work with staff to develop a more acceptable solution to those two features as indicated on this site plan. And based on their work with staff, we would like it returned to the commissioners for approval. Second by Johnson. Approved 7 – 0. Commissioners then sought clarification of the conceptual elevation and what is included in their approval. Wyler explains that the conceptual elevation includes articulation and the look of the building, not specific details. If the commission wants specific items changed, they need to make it part of the motion. Rapp questioned the height elevation of the building. It is listed as 39 ½’ from grade but the grade is to be lowered almost two feet in some places. What is the amount of latitude that will be allowed for the height of the building? Sanders responded that in some places, the average height of the grade is used, but in Georgetown, the absolute worst/ highest grade is used to calculate the height of the building. They went to the northwest corner of the lot and have shaved it down about a foot and a half. Then they went up almost 40 feet from there, the rest of the lot is higher so many parts of the building will be considerably less than 40 feet. If there were leeway given, Sanders would like to add back to the parapets on the north side of the building. There was discussion of the height of Tamiro Plaza (approximately 54 feet) compared to this building. Motion by Pergl to approve the conceptual appearance of the building with the caveat that we reserve the right to approval at a subsequent meeting of HARC for building penetrations, building windows, fenestration areas and articulation of the building façade, along with more detail information on the upper floors and roof details and any other information on materials that will be provided. Second by Herriott. Pergl amends the motion to include the reduction of the 60’ runs on the elevations to 30’ recommendations. Second by Herriott. Sanders asks for clarification, taking away part of the building or using techniques to break up the run? Pergl understands that they can use the techniques already in place, not reduce the square footage of the building. Moore brings up the north end of the alley/ access easement and requests adding elements to break up the massiveness of the wall. Sanders says they can add elements to break up the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5 May 27, 2010 effect of the wall on the east side townhomes. Vote on the amendment, approved 7 – 0. Vote on the original motion, 6 -1, Moseley opposed. Chair Moore appreciated the comments and the residents that have voiced their concerns. 3. Reminder that the next regular HARC meeting will take place on June 24, 2010 and that there will be a HARC Sign Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, June 9, 2010. 4. Adjournment Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. __________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Will Moore, Chair Attest, Susan Firth, Secretary