HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HARC 02.11.2021City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
February 11, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meetinz: httns:/liSit.ly/3a2FiiL
The regular meeting convened at 6:OOPM on February 11, 2021 via teleconference at:
http://bit.ly/3b9PBh1
To participate by phone: Call in number: (346)248-7799 or Tall -Free: 888-475-4499
Password: 742129
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the "ask a question" function on
the video conference option; no in -person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Faustine
Curry; Terry Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. — Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- AppIicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public heaxing. if a member of the public would
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: February 11, 2021
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. if a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://govemment.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 28, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. — Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (7-0).
E. Presentation and Discussion of three components of the Design Guidelines Update project:
1. 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness report, sharing the number of applications and most
frequent project types as well as a selection of HARC-approved finished projects.
Bostick provided an overview of accomplishments as highlighted in the Planning
Department Annual report:
https://george,towntx.maps.aregis. com/apps/MapJoumal/index.htinl? appid=4b776ed4
elb44913be866b257ebe783e
2. The results of the survey that was collected as part of the Design Guidelines Update Open
House in December 2020.
Bostick provided the Commission an overview of tasks completed to date in
support of the Design Guidelines:
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: February 11, 2021
• Post Oak Preservation Solutions hired as the project consultant (September
2020)
• Design Guidelines Update presented to HARC (October 2020)
• Design Guidelines Update presented in the November Tuesday Talks webinar
• Design Guidelines Update presented to the Main Street Advisory Board
(November 2020)
• Design Guidelines Update presented in the December 8, 2020 City Council
Workshop
• Design Guidelines Update Open House on December 16, 2020
• Design Guidelines Update Survey conducted December 16-December 30,
2020
Bostick provided the Commission an overview of the December 2020 open house:
December Survey Results
• Open House on December 16, 2020 included alive survey
• Open house was recorded and posted with the same survey, open
December 16-30, 2020
• 104 total survey responses
• Open House YouTube video has had 105 views
3. The SWOT analysis of the current Design Guidelines provided by the project consultant,
Post Oak Preservation Solutions.
Commissioners Parr and Morales shared concern that the survey captured negative
sentiments toward "contemporary" building styles when the facades may just have
not been attractively designed. The Watkins Building (commercial infill
construction recently completed at 815 S. Main St.) was brought up as an example
of good contemporary design, although it was noted that the placement (location)
of the building makes a difference in how compatible design is perceived.
Whether buildings are directly abutting each other (shared party wall) or have
space between them was also noted as a key part of overall building design, as
well as the appearance and quality of the materials. Commissioner Parr expressed
a desire to be more specific about materials quality and appearance -- some of the
commercial infill has not had the desired outcome, and there were questions about
whether synthetic materials could be specified for better appearance or removed
altogether in favor of materials that are more like the historic materials around the
Sq
Kuare.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: February 11, 2021
Commissioner Morales - Requested that the online version of the Design
Guidelines be fully HTML tagged/indexed or searchable for improved ease of use
as a digital document; concerns about light pollution and light spillover —not just
dark skies issues, but commercial light spill onto residential properties, which has
come up as an issue in a few recent projects.
Commissioner Morales — Expressed concern about protecting people's views and
sunlight from neighboring development — not making people have to stare at a
brick wall. This is part of ongoing concerns about the transition from commercial
to residential along the east boundary of the Downtown Overlay District, although
that same concern (but less of a focus thus far) applies to the west boundary of the
Downtown Overlay District.
Britin shared that photometric plans and UDC lighting requirements are reviewed
as part of the conunercial site development plan. However, there are instances in
which lighting on the building exterior — particular at the rear of a building — has
been installed after the project, which is more of an enforcement issue, but this is
all still in support of better guidance for exterior lighting. Parking lot lighting is
also a concern and an opportunity for additional guidance for fixture styles.
The Commission generally agreed on changes that make the document easier to
use by the community, separating residential and commercial and adding
information that helps people navigate requirements — what 1S NOT required to
have a COA, for example?
Commissioner Morales — Suggestion to have a review of the document by a
"hacker" — someone who can use an exploitative approach to find the potential
weaknesses in the new document. As context, it was expressed that people keep
pushing the limit on what is allowed, and concern that people will be better able to
be held to a higher standard of design after this document was adopted.
Similar suggestion to have a homeowner review document and give feedback for
ease of use on a mock residential project.
Commissioner Mitchell asked staff to pay special attention to transition areas
between Downtown and Old Town. Applicable in other areas where you have
residential and nonresidential abutting.
F. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments — Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning
Manager
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Historic and Architectural )Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting; February 11, 2021
Meeting adjourned at 7:29pm
'film
_Lv Z!_--
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Tee en4eff H-);-de, Secretary
Historic and Archiledural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: February 11, 2021