Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_HARC_09.23.2024Minutes of the The Georgetown Historic and Architectural Review Commission met on Monday, September 23, 2024 at 6-00 PM at Council and Court Building, 510 W 9th Street. or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. The following Members were in attendance: Present were: Lawrence Romero, Linda C Burns, Michael J Walton, Evan Hein, Robert Blomquist, Stuart Garner, Heather Smith Agenda Notice Public Wishing to Address the Board ; ;!!!! 11 1 M - und on trie- 1!57 ::::::::::::: IF? " ' I table at the entrance to the meeting room. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the Board Liaison prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior to the meeting being called to order may speak. Speakers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. If you wish to speak for six minutes, it is permissible to use another requestor's granted time to speak. No more than six and be present at the meeting. Board or Commission Liaison prior to the day the agenda for this mee ng is posted. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the Board or Commission members. No action can be taken. 1. Regular Session 1.A Historic Old Town and Downtown UDC amendments Presentation and discussion regarding Unified Development Code (UDC) standards related to demolition of a historic structure within the Historic Overlay Districts -- So . Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, approached the podium to provide a presentation on the UDC Update regarding demolitions. Commissioner Hein shared that the words "intentional or negligent destruction" within criteria A of the Demolition Criteria of Approval was not clear on the recourse if it pertains to the case. Chair Walton questioned how demolition due to neglect could be monitored, stopped, or addressed. Chair Walton expressed that criteria A and B of the Demolition Criteria of Approval need to be more encapsulated and clearer in addressing the concept of the prior owner and the current economic situation that Georgetown is in. Nelson followed up with a question on whether the commission would like to retain criteria B. Chair Walton believed that criteria C of the Demolition Criteria of Approval included public safety and hygiene. Chair Walton concluded with his opinion that criteria B of the Demolition Criteria of Approval should be removed. Commissioner Romero agree with Chair Walton. Commissioner Burns shared that property value is such that criteria B of the Demolition Criteria of Approval is no longer valid. Prior to moving forward in the discussion, Nelson summarized the commissioners' comments as recommendations to remove criteria B of the Demolition Criteria of Approval, noting a challenge in knowing what documentation to ask for, a challenge in being fair and consistent, and noting the market changes in the community. Chair Walton highlighted that situations vary when applicants request a demolition. Chair Walton noted that in some instances, the applicant just purchased the property with the intent to demolish the structure, whereas other instances include an inheritance of the property with no means to rehabilitate the structure. Nelson moved forward with the discussion aspect of the demolition portion of the UDC Rewrite Workshop and asked the commission for words that come to mind when met with the phrase "public interest." Chair Walton shared that public safety, public hygiene, and beneficial structures such as a hospital all come to mind when met with "public interest." Alternate Commissioner Blomquist added that the well-being of the public comes to mind. Commissioner Hein shared that affordable housing comes to mind. Commissioner Burns added the need for a grocery store as public interest. Chair Walton shared that emotional support could be included as public interest and gave an example of the fire at the pet shelter. Commissioner Hein communicated that education, parks, and environmental reasons would qualify as public interest. Nelson asked the commission if there were any challenges that may be encountered with qualification for demolition. Chair Walton highlighted that public opinion on different aesthetics and intent of potential uses were some challenges. Commissioner Hein suggested in a criteria that is inherent with the existing structure and not potential use of the property. Nelson asked if there were other factors to consider. Commissioner Romero acknowledged that public safety could include unhouse individuals going in and out of vacant structures. Commissioner Hein added that broken windows attract crime to an area and connected that with a house that may attract crime to the area which would cause safety issues. Alternate Commissioner Garner highlighted that there may be overlap with other cases like a case law on what public interest means. Nelson acknowledged that staff does not want to contradict other rules and highlighted that there should be flexibility for the average reader as most COA applicants are homeowners who do not have a lot of experience in the development process. Nelson shared that staff would draft code language around what was discussed and brought back to the commission for review. Nelson turned the discussion to Maddison O'Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager, to present on process improvements. O'Kelley spoke about a drafted Certificate of Appropriateness Scope of Work Form. For recordation purposes, please note that Nelson's presentation moved forward to item 1.0 and then concluded with item 1.13. LB Historic Old Town and Downtown UDC amendments Presentation and discussion regarding Unified Development Code (UDC) standards Chair Walton expressed that the purpose of the fence would matter and suggested that Walton added that if the applicant would like to complete maintenance on an existing fence with approved materials, then it would require the review of the Historic Commissioner Hein expressed favor of staffs recommended fence standard stating the Old Town Overlay District, fences located within a side setback or on a double planned to have a sidewalk constructed adjacent to the property line may construct a fence 6' in height if more than 15' away from the edge of pavement when 100% transparent." Commissioner Hein's only hesitation was with the portion of the standard that refers to 100% transparency. Nelson clarified that the idea behind the percentage was regarding a wrought iron fence. Chair Walton thought that the language regarding a double front or corner lot needs to be clearer, re rea to Tences-ioca if they would like to see the measurement from the property line retained, or if there Iwe circumstances in which they would like the measurement from the street. Nelson recommended to include language regarding fences that are in the sight triangle or fences that create a known safety issue. Nelson shared that she and staff would need to workshop what was discussed during the meeting. (.0 Historic Old Town and Downtown UDC amendments Presentation and discussion regarding Unified Development Code (UDC) criteria for Building Height Modifications -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Nelson continued the presentation with the Building Height Modification Criteria of Approval and staff's recommendation. The commission requested to further review staff's recommendations for the Building Height Modification Criteria of Approval. For recordation purposes, please note that Nelson's presentation concluded with item 1 -R. Adjournment These mi Chair were approved at the meeting of t Attes