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