HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_07.24.2014Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2
Meeting: July 24, 2014
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Workshop
Minutes
Thursday, July 24, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Anna Eby, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice‐ Chair; David Paul; Richard Mee, Ty Gibson,
and Mary Jo Winder.
Commissioners in Training present: Barbara Price
Commissioners absent: Rodolfo Martinez (CIT), Jennifer Brown
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Andreina
Davila, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Call to Order by Eby at 6:04 p.m. with the explanation that this is a Workshop Forum meeting and
there commissioners are allowed to discuss items with the presenters. There will not be any open
public discussions, since there will not be any action taken at this meeting.
This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meeting Act, Texas Government Code 551.
Legislative Agenda:
B. Historic Architecture and Adaptive Re‐use: A Case Study ‐ Howard Langner, Main Street Architect,
Texas Historical Commission
Mr. Langner started the presentation by stating the Georgetown Design Guidelines were well written
and a very good Guide for the Commission to use. He also discussed differentiation and what was
compatible was not always appropriate. All cases are not black and white. He explained it was up to
the Commissioners to look at the Guidelines, which are backed by the law, and to make the hard
choices. There decisions could not be politically based, but based on what was determined to be best
for the city while staying with the Guidelines. He explained that it was not always easy to not be
swayed by what the applicants are describing as a hardship, but they must stick to the facts. Their
interpretations are not always based on black and white facts, but use history and physical evidence
for guidance. He stated they were doing an excellent job. The presentation and discussion ended at
7:15 p.m.
C. Discussion and possible direction regarding the Unified Development Code review process
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager gave some history of the current commission and the
direction the City Council gave in regards to the commission. The Historic and Architecture Review
Commission was established in 2001 to review certain projects in the Downtown and Old Town
Overlay Districts. Its predecessor, the Historic Preservation Commission, was created in 1975 to
“preserve & protect historic and cultural areas, places and buildings.” HARC is comprised of 7
members and reviews plans for changes to buildings, sites, and signage within the Historic Overlay
Districts prior to those changes being made. The Commission issues Certificates of Design
Compliance for approved modifications consistent with the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines
This Commission also makes recommend ations to City Council on the designation of historic sites or
districts, acts and assists the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental
materials relevant to the historic preservation or design review. Additionally, the Commission
renders advice and guidance upon the request of property owners or occupants on new construction
or the restoration, alteration or maintenance of any historic resource or other building within the
District, and performs any other functions requested by the City Council.
On May 27th City Council adopted Resolution 052714-N directing staff to conduct a Comprehensive
review to determine possible amendments to the HARC process, the Unified Development Code and
other city regulations to ensure a continued balance between historic preservation and economic
development,
Brewc*r went ort to state that staff has been working on a timefine to review the commission and the
UDC Standards. She distributed the draft version of that timeline. She reviewed it briefly, stating
that there needs to be a notification process for the Historic Resource Survey revisions coming up.
They are looking at the demolition process in the UDC and Andreina was looking at the current
processes and expectations of staff and council. They are also looking at timing issues that have been
raised by downtown business owners and are discussing ways to make the process easier for
business owners, All these iterns will come before the commission before going to city council for
review and adoption.
K-night commented that she felt the processes currently in place were good ones, just not always
followed. She also expressed concern over the demolition process, and wants the concept review
process to be reexamined.
Winder also expressed concern over the demolition process and that it eerns unfair to the applicants
and does not achieve what was intended. It should save the important buildings, not the
insignificant ones also. She suggested defining significant and insignificant.
Brewer responded that the Council seems to agree with this train of thought and that updating the
Resource Survey should help with some of the issues, by identifying levels of significance of
structures. She also stated the HPC President is working with the city's Home Repair Program to
,avoid those demolitions that occur because of neglect,
Gibson stated he felt the unarm slion was doing the right things but felt a disconnect in
communicating that to the city council and the community. He suggested a Homeowner's
Association for Old Town.
Brewer thanked everyone for their time and comments,
Adjournment Eby adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p,m,
�Y
Approved, Anna Eby,, air
Historic and turd flWdural Review Commission
Weting. July 24,2014
Attest, Nancy Kt
V11
Vage 2 of 2