HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_11.09.2017Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission Special Called
of the City of Georgetown
Nov ember 9, 2017 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 E 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff P res entation
Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.)
Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
Comments fro m Citizens *
Applic ant Res p o nse
Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s
Commis s ion Ac tion
* Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing
sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the
Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration of the Minutes from the O c to b er 26, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Secretary
C Dis cus s ion and actio n on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C OA) for the demolitio n of
property lo c ated at 1111 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal d es criptio n of 2.629 ac. b eing all that c ertain
tract of land d es cribed in d eed to Daniel Zavala S r. out o f the William Ad d is o n Survey. - Nat Waggo ner,
AICP, Long R ange P lanner
D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
reno vations of a c ommerc ial pro p erty loc ated at 114 E. 7th Street, Suite 115. - Nat Waggoner, AICP,
Lo ng Range Planner
E Dis cus s ion and pos s ible actio n o n a Certificate of Appropriateness for the reno vatio n and expans ion of
Page 1 of 150
a res id ential p ro p erty loc ated at 904 Ash Street, bearing the legal desc riptio n o f 0.248 ac res , lo t 2, 3
(N/PT) blo c k 27 o f the Ad d is o n Survey – Nat Waggo ner, PMP, AICP, Lo ng R ange P lanning Manager
F Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f a conceptual des ign o f a mixed use d evelo p ment at 204 E 8th Street
bearing the legal d es criptio n o f .3306 ac res , Lo t 7-8, Blo ck 9 of the Glas s c oc k Ad d ition– Nat Waggoner,
PMP, AICP , Long Range Planning Manager
G Up d ates of Downto wn P ro jects and up co ming meetings .
Next HARC Demolition Subcommittee, November 15, 2017
Next regular HARC Meeting, December 14, 2017
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 150
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 9, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the October 26, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _HARC_10.26.2017 Backup Material
Page 3 of 150
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: October 26, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood, Vice-Chair; Karl
Meixsell; Catherine Morales (alternate); Scott Revier (alternate) and Lawrence Romero.
Absent: Terri Asendorf-Hyde
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mark
Moore, Acting Chief Building Official; Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:03 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Regular Session
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration of the Minutes from the September 28, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary
Motion by Browner, second by Bohls to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
demolition of property located at 1111 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 2.629 acres
being all that certain tract of land described in deed to Daniel Zavala Sr. out of the William
Addison Survey – Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner
Waggoner presented the staff report to give more information that was gained since the last
meeting. He acknowledged Weston O’Donnell, intern who worked on a very detailed report
regarding I-houses. Examples were given of existing, high priority I-houses that are found in
Georgetown. Waggoner explained that the Demolition Subcommittee recommendation of
approval of the demolition with conditions of salvaging materials and providing an archival
history of the property. Materials found to be salvageable are the transom over the front door, the
staircase, the limestone pier foundations and the foundation cross beams.
Public comments were received and letters received after the posting were placed on the dais.
The two written responses asked the commission to deny the demolition. Staff finds that the loss
of significance is greater and inconsistent with the applicant’s request. The unreasonable
economic hardship is found to be consistent.
Commissioners asked questions. Who enforces any conditions? The HPO. Has this been done
before? Yes. Is this outside the historic district? It is outside the Old Town Overlay District. How
long can the demolition be delayed? 365 days which includes the time that has already been
spent on the review.
Browner commends staff for a fantastic job in putting the report and information together.
Page 4 of 150
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: October 26, 2017
Commissioners asked options for requiring salvage. Nelson discussed that there is nothing in
place to allow citizens to pull salvage materials from a structure that is not safe.
Doug Welch spoke about possible salvage items and likes the idea of trying to save some of the
hand-hewn limestone and will work with staff to see if they can salvage items if people will take
them. This structure is on one lot and the area is being subdivided and is currently under review.
This original parcel will stay part of the overall development.
Bain opened the public hearing.
Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, reported in 2003 the owner received a letter that stated he
should clean up the property or it would be demolished. He showed a picture of the 2014 house
and asked that the owner allow him to fix the house and restore it. He asked for the commission
to deny the demolition request. He asked to save this house.
Amanda Parr, 302 East 15th St, Preservation Georgetown President, (Susan Firth dedicated her
three minutes to Ms. Parr), supports preservation and is an advocate for preserving the history of
Georgetown. She also asks the commission to vote no and to be mindful of the historic structures.
She feels the demolition does not meet three of the four criteria for demolition as listed in the
UDC. She states this is a state of demolition by neglect. She thinks the house is historically
significant and asked the commission to deny approval of demolition. She is for development in
the old town and downtown but stated the city needs to balance that with preserving the older
structures, specifically the high priority structures. If this house is allowed to be demolished then
they ask that a historical archive be done for this property.
The Public Hearing was closed with no other speakers coming forth.
Commissioners asked if they could impose a relocation of the house. Nelson reported she would
have to seek advice from the legal staff.
Motion by Meixsell to wait for the city attorney to determine if the house can be located.
Second by Hood. Romero is not in favor of delaying this anymore. Bohls does not believe it
should be delayed, but also that the house can be rehabilitated based on not meeting the four
UDC criteria. Browner is willing to listen to the subcommittee’s recommendation. Hood states
he regrets the demolition subcommittee’s decision and wants to ask for extra time to consider the
relocation of the house. Bohls would rather wait than vote for demolition. Romero understands
the reason for delay and would change his recommendation to make sure all possibilities are
considered.
Mark Moore, Building Official, suggests getting information from a professional builder as to
whether this building can actually be moved. Nelson says she can ask for the legal opinion but
has no budget to seek a professional opinion from a house moving contractor.
Mr. Welch says he does not believe this building can be moved feasibly and without liability
because of the type of building and the location. Romero states they were told that the building
would need to be cut in half to move. Commissioners debated the relocation. Motion approved
4-3 (Opposed Browner, Bohls, and Revier)
D. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design for the renovation of a residential property
located at 904 Ash Street. Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Waggoner explained that this property is residential, not commercial as posted. This is
Page 5 of 150
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: October 26, 2017
renovation of the existing structure with the replace of wood windows, dilapidated siding and a
new roof. Additions include a new master bedroom and a garage. The applicant, Michael
Worden explained that they have moved from Austin and are wanting to be a part of Georgetown
and will be working from this home. Gary Wang is the architect and explained the proposed
changes. They do not want to tear this structure down even though it is in disrepair.
The Commissioners discussed and felt like the garage was set back enough to differentiate the
new from the old and that the windows will be a good match. The back windows are still being
developed according to Wang, not necessarily as presented since that will not be reviewed by the
commission. The roof will be replaced with Galvalume. The siding will be replaced with the
same width as the existing, using a newer material. Hood appreciates the new style windows in
the kitchen area and over the garage.
E. Presentation and discussion of conceptual design for the renovation of a commercial property
located at 114 E 7th St, Ste 115. Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner
Waggoner introduced the project. The applicant is requesting a preliminary review of this project
which includes a front façade renovation, with a flush mounted sign, an awning, replacement of
the front façade windows with iron work and a patio area. Davin Hoyt explained the intent of the
project. Nelson reports this is a high priority structure. Hoyt says the building is in disrepair but
they want to create a better place.
Hoyt explained that this will be a location for pizza pick-up, with a smaller waiting area. This is
an extension of the 600 Degrees restaurant on 8th Street. They discussed the proposed awning of
four feet beyond the building. The Commissioners asked questions about the iron design. Hood
suggested the applicant bring back more information and details on the front façade iron works.
He suggested looking into the code requirements.
Nelson responded that this is actually a low priority structure built in 1910 with little remaining
historical integrity. Revier suggested that the sign and the iron work compliment each other,
possibly similar materials. Hood likes the iron and the cedar that works with the cedar planters.
He is concerned about the iron looking like a railing and made suggestions. Commissioners
asked for more details for the final application, including a material sample. They liked the
project overall concept but reserved judgement based on the changes made from the podium.
F. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings.
• Next Special Called HARC Meeting, November 9, 2017
• Next regular HARC Meeting, December 14, 2017
Adjournment
Motion by Hood, second by Bohls to adjourn at 8:51 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Justin Bohls
Page 6 of 150
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 9, 2017
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and ac tio n o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolitio n of
p ro p erty loc ated at 1111 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal des c rip tion of 2.629 ac . b eing all that c ertain trac t
o f land d es cribed in deed to Daniel Zavala S r. o ut of the William Addison Survey. - Nat Waggoner, AICP,
Long Range P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
In p revious legis lative s es s io ns and p ublic hearings , HARC has reviewed the applic ant’s reques t to
d emo lis h the high p rio rity residential s tructure. At the Oc tober 26th regular meeting, HARC reques ted that
s taff inves tigate the ab ility of the Co mmis s ion to require reloc ation of the struc ture. The City’s legal staff
have determined that HARC cannot require the reloc ation of the struc ture. The applic ant did res p o nd
p o s itively to HAR Cs interes t in s alvaging materials either through incorporation into a land s cape feature
and/o r through o ffer to interested parties . The applic ant also res p o nded p os itively to HARCs interes t in
req uiring the c reatio n o f a histo rical archive.
Public Comments
As req uired by the Unified Development Cod e, all property o wners within a 200 fo o t rad ius o f the s ubjec t
p ro p erty that are loc ated within City limits were notified of the rezoning app lic atio n (18 no tic es mailed), and
o ne (1) s ign was p o s ted o n-site on Sep tember 12, 2017. To date, s taff has rec eived zero (0) written
comments regard ing demolitio n fro m the interes ted pub lic. S ee Exhib it 5. Find ings
The o p tions b efo re HARC inc lude:
1. Approve (as pres ented b y the applic ant, demolitio n)
2. Deny (as p res ented by the ap p licant, d emo lition)
3. Approve with cond itions (his toric arc hival d o cumentation and /or s alvage)
Staff Recommendation
S taff recommends whatever dec is io n rendered by HARC that p ro vides s p ec ific ity to the ac tion, p artic ularly
if the HARC dec is io n is approval with c o nditions . Sho uld HARC apply c ond itions , HARC sho uld cons ider
spec ifying a timeframe fo r the archiving and/or s alvage, lis ting the items for s alvage and the method o f
salvage.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner, and S o fia Nels o n, CNU-A, Planning Direc tor
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Page 7 of 150
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Additional Report Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - HPO Recommendation Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - Demo Subcommittee Recommendation Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - Chief Bldg Official Recommendation Backup Material
Page 8 of 150
E
L
M
S
T E 7 T H S T
R
OC
K
S
T
A
S
H
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E 1 3 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
P
IN
E
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
E 5 T H S T
E 4 T H S T
E 2 N D ST
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 6 T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
T H O M A S C T
W 9 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 11 T H S T
W 8 T H S T
W 7 TH S T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 TH S T
W 3 RD ST
W 11TH ST
W 1 0T H S T
A
S
H
B
E
R
R
Y
T
R
L
SOUTHW E STERNBLV
D
N
A
U
S
TIN
AVE
E M O R R O WST
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
E VA L L E Y S T
E 8 T H S T
S M I T H C R E E K R D
H
A
V
E
N
L
N
V
IN
E
S
T
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
L O W E R P A R K R D
WE
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
W 5 T H S T
W M O R R O W S T
W 2 N D S T
W U N I V E R S I TY AV E OLI
VE
S
T
P I R A T E D R
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
SO ULE D R
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
E 3 R D S T
S E R V I C E R D
P
I
R
A
T
E
C
V
B R E N D O N L E E L N
J
O
H
N
C
A
R
T
E
R
D
R
B E R G I N C T
C A N D L E R I D G E T R LERUTERSVIL
L
E
D
R
E 9 T H S T
M C K E N Z I E D RE 9 TH 1 /2 ST
E 1 0T H S T
E 3 R D S T
PINE
ST
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
E 8 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 9 T H S T
COA-2017-015Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NA D 83/U S FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes O nly
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Page 9 of 150
2017
I-House Properties
Identified in Georgetown
Historic Resource
Surveys
WESTON O’DONNEL, CITY OF GEORGETOWN UTILITIES
Page 10 of 150
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Plan Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2
History of Design ................................................................................................................................... 2
Georgetown Historical Resources Survey Findings ......................................................................... 2
1111 E. 7th Street – .................................................................................................................................... 5
1702 Olive Street - (National Register Historic District) ................................................................... 6
106 E. 6th Street - ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1222 Main Street – (National Register Historic District) .................................................................. 8
1019 College Street - ............................................................................................................................... 9
602 Myrtle Street - ................................................................................................................................ 10
1208 Westinghouse Road - .................................................................................................................. 11
Unified Development Code (UDC) Requirements ......................................................................... 12
Approval Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 12
Conditions of Approval .................................................................................................................. 12
Page 11 of 150
2 | P a g e
Overview
In 1988 the Georgetown Heritage Society published a work titled “Sentimental
Journey, A Guide to Preserving the Architectural Heritage of Georgetown, TX,” which
provides a wealth of information on construction styles throughout Georgetown’s
history. It describes architecture in Georgetown and Texas as a whole as adaptations or
modifications of prominent styles of the period. Instead of “pure” styles we
predominantly see “vernacular” architecture – a style that is designed based on local
needs, availability of construction materials and reflecting local traditions. The I-house
home type this report details fall within this vernacular style.
Plan Description
I-houses are typically one room deep, two or three rooms wide with flat,
symmetrical facades and gable roofs. The Georgetown Heritage Society credits the
name of the I-house to its wide and shallow floor plan, resembling the letter “I.” The
Oklahoma Historical Society, on the other hand, suggests I-houses were named because
of their prevalence in Indiana, Iowa and Illinois but does not propose the home style
originated in these states. Instead, it suggests the I-house originated in the Middle
Atlantic culture hearth along the Appalachian Mountains, diffused south and then west
as far as the Texas Hill Country and finally moved northward beyond the Ohio River to
intersect with a path from Pennsylvania.
History of Design
The style dates back to as early as the late 17th century and continues to the early
20th century. Construction materials for these homes varied from region to region based
on what was available and cost effective – in Central Texas that meant the use of native
stone and Yellow Pine from the Bastrop area. A much more consistent attribute of the I-
house style of home is its application as a rural dwelling. The two story farmhouses are
almost exclusively associated with economical success in an agricultural society and are
referred to as the “Farmer’s Mansion” at times.
Georgetown Historical Resources Survey Findings
In 1984 and again in 2007, the City of Georgetown commissioned Hardy-Heck-
Moore, Inc. to conduct a Historical Resources Survey which documented resources
inside Georgetown city limits and it’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) built before
1960. In 2016 the city asked Cox-McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. to update
Page 12 of 150
3 | P a g e
information from the previous surveys. Of the 1,574 documented properties, 11 two
story I-house style homes were identified. A “High Priority” designation of a property
indicates 3 attributes: (1) the resource contributes significantly to local history/broader
historical patterns (2) the resource may be a good example of architecture, engineering
or crafted design and (3) the resource retains a high degree of integrity. Seven (7) of
those homes were identified as “High Priority.” The table below shows the history of
assigned priorities for each structure. A general location of each property in relation to
the National Registry and local historic overlays can be seen in Exhibit 1 following the
table.
Table 1 - HRSR Summary I House Property Ratings
1984 Priority 2007 Priority 2016 Priority
1111 E 7th St High High High
101 River Hills Dr High Low Low
501 Windy Hill Rd
N/A (Not
Recorded) Medium Medium
1208 Westinghouse
Rd High High High
1012 West St High High Medium
1702 Olive St High High High
1403 Elm St High Medium Medium
106 E 6th St High High High
1222 S Main St High High High
1019 College St High High High
602 S Myrtle St High High High
Page 13 of 150
4 | P a g e
Page 14 of 150
5 | P a g e
The following is a summary of the Survey’s High Priority I-Houses – it includes more
specific details of the architectural style used, notable features of the property’s
architecture and history (if known), as well as estimated date of construction and
justification of the priority it was assigned.
1111 E. 7th Street –
o Constructed ca 1915
o Two story, wood frame dwelling w/ interior brick chimney, single door entrance w/
two light transom and one-bay porch w/ balcony on second elevation.
o “Primary area of significance: architecture. A good example of vernacular dwelling
w/ an I-house plan.”
Picture unavailable
Page 15 of 150
6 | P a g e
1702 Olive Street - (National Register Historic District)
o Constructed ca 1880
o National Register Historic District
o Purchased by Frank J Perrin in 1904. Perris was a circuit rider for the SWT
Conference of Methodist Churches. Perrin started a dairy on the then larger
property, added a second story porch and stone chimneys w/ corbelled cap on the
east and west facades.
o Other notable features: Gable roof, asbestos siding, single door entrance with
transom, Doric columns, three bay porch w/ shed roof across
o “Primary area of significance: architecture. A rare example of an I-House in
Georgetown” – Texas Historic Sites Inventory Form – Texas Historical Commission
No Picture available
Page 16 of 150
7 | P a g e
106 E. 6th Street -
o Former home of GW Glasscock Jr. (son of Georgetown’s founder)
o Constructed ca. 1880
o Belford Historic District
o National Register of Historic Places
o One of few examples of an I-House with Victorian Italiante details in Georgetown -
Texas Historic Sites Inventory Form – Texas Historical Commission
o Other notable features: gable roof w/ composition shingles, box eaves w/ jog-sawn
brackets, interior brick chimney, double door entrance, one-light transom under
segmental arch, three bay porch w/ shed roof, one-story five-sided bay projection on
E elevation.
Picture unavailable
Page 17 of 150
8 | P a g e
1222 Main Street – (National Register Historic District)
o Constructed ca. 1885/remodeled 1930
o National Register Historic District
o Two story wood frame dwelling w/ I-house plan
o “Primary area of significance: architecture. Some of the original Victorian Italianate
detailing remains, but house was remodeled in 1930” - Texas Historic Sites
Inventory Form – Texas Historical Commission
o Other notable features: Hip roof w/ composition shingles, broad box eaves, single
door entrance, one-story, one-bay porch w/ gable roof, Doric columns, five-bay E.
elev., crown molding on window facings
o Georgetown Historic Buildings Files in our library claim this to be the first house on
Main St.
Page 18 of 150
9 | P a g e
1019 College Street -
o Constructed: ca. 1880
o Two story wood frame dwelling w/ I-house plan
o Located near Old Georgetown Hospital to the South and old Georgetown High
school to the West
o “Primary area of significance: architecture. An outstanding and one of the least
altered examples of a two-story I-house in Georgetown” - Texas Historic Sites
Inventory Form – Texas Historical Commission
o Other notable features: gable roof, exterior stone chimney w/ cap on N elevation.,
molded cornice w/ eave returns, single door entrance w/ transom and sidelights
corbelled cap on N elevation. One and two story additions on rear elevation.
Picture unavailable
Page 19 of 150
10 | P a g e
602 Myrtle Street -
o Construction: ca. 1895
o National Register of Historic Places
o “Primary area of significance: architecture. A good example of late nineteenth-
century vernacular dwelling” - Texas Historic Sites Inventory Form – Texas
Historical Commission
o Other notable features: One story wood frame building, I-house plan w/ rear ell,
gable roof, three interior brick chimney’s w/ corbelled caps, single-door entrance
with transom, five-bay porch, Victorian features stone block foundation w/ rubble
infill
Page 20 of 150
11 | P a g e
1208 Westinghouse Road -
o Construction: ca. 1860
o Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style and/or has significant associations,
retains sufficient integrity
o J. J. Johnson Farm
Page 21 of 150
12 | P a g e
Unified Development Code (UDC) Requirements
The City’s requirements for demolition are outlined in section 3.13.030 of Georgetown’s
Unified Development Code (UDC).
Approval Criteria
The UDC outlines the following criteria for approval of a demolition of a Historic
Landmark or contributing historic structure:
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no
longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, o r is no longer
contributing to the Historic Overlay District; and
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone
significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or
structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or
features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure
were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due
to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the
level of a demolition by neglect; and
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause
significant adverse effect on the Historic Overlay District or the City’s
Historic Resources
Conditions of Approval
As conditions of approval, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may
require historic materials to be salvaged, archival-quality photo-documentation, and/or
architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or
relocated similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be
submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer.
Page 22 of 150
Page 23 of 150
Page 24 of 150
Page 25 of 150
SUMMARY OF INSPECTION
Location: 1111 E 71h St. Georgetown Texas
Date of Inspection: August gth 2017
Mark J. Moore: Chief Building Inspector
I:\\IICIIU \11'\lll
Provided is an inspection report of the structure on the premise located at 1111 E. 71h St. which is an
abandoned residence.
The structure is a two story wood frame structure. Time of construction is unknown by the Chief
Building Inspector. At the time of inspection the Planning Director Sofia Nelson and Long Range Planner
Nat Waggoner along with the property owners were present.
1) The structure at the time of inspection looks to have been abandoned for at least a year and
has several maintenance issues. It appeared to be a livable structure with some repairs needed. To gain
code compliance through a remodel would be very cost prohibitive and not a viable choice.
2) The foundation is pier and beam with the piers being cut limestone, appearing to have the
expected amount of settling and damage for its age. An in depth inspection for rot or termites was not
done. Due to the condition of the flooring it likely has damage from both . Doors and windows were out
of level and not operating properly. This will require leveling the entire structure.
3) The siding on the home gives the appearance of the old style asbestos. However, during
further observation it was more of a modern material no known at the time of inspection. There seem
to be two separate additions to the rear of the building; one of which was a room addition and the other
a porch that was enclosed at a later date. The floor plan was very awkward which was common for
homes of this era.
4) Based on my opinion and experience the only portion of the structure worth saving is the
stairway which is not code compliant by today's standards. However portions of the stairway could be
reused or recycled. The doors, windows and fixtures have no known historical value to my knowledge .
My recommendation is for demolition of the structure based on the 50% rule used for dilapidated or
dangerous structures.
Prepared by~~~~
Mark J Moore, Chief Building Inspector
Date prepared: Sept. 15, 2017
Page 26 of 150
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 9, 2017
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and possible ac tion on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
renovations of a c o mmercial p ro p erty loc ated at 114 E. 7th Street, Suite 115. - Nat Waggoner, AICP,
Long Range P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
At the Octo ber 26th regular meeting of HARC Commis sioners reviewed co nc ep tual rend erings of the
fo llo wing improvements :
1. Installatio n o f a s hallow awning with tin ro o f and turn buckles on the faç ad e.
2. Installatio n o f a halatio n illuminated flus h mo unt s ign on the façade.
3. Installatio n o f planters (with b enc hes attac hed) upon City of Geo rgetown p ro p erty.
4. Replac ement o f faç ad e doors and windows with wo o d trims and iron works , making the front ro om
o f the es tab lis hment an o utd o o r c o urt with s eats .
5. Replac ement o f paint (2 colors) with newer s electio n fro m Vals p ar – National Trust for Histo ric
Preservatio n line.
The Commiss io n p ro vided the following rec ommend ations to the ap p licant:
1. Inves tigate C o d e Co mp lianc e for iro n openings
2. Finalize d es ign of iro n works , p ro vide s ample o f the iro n material. Cons id er us ing solid s toc k iro n.
3. Finalize d es ign of awning includ ing sp ec ific ations of wood und ers ide.
The fo llo wing items will require HARC ap proval:
1. Awning des ign
2. Faç ade imp ro vements
The following items will b e reviewed and approved ad minis tratively by the HP O and will require
coordination fo r lic ens es to enc ro ach:
1. Sign des ign
2. Paint s elec tion
Public Comments
To d ate, Staff has no t received any inquiries o r exp res s ed interest.
Findings
The fo llo wing items will require HARC ap proval:
1. Awning des ign
4. Faç ade imp ro vements
The following items can be reviewed and approved ad ministratively by the HPO and will require
coordination fo r lic ens es to enc ro ach:
2. Sign des ign
3. Paint s elec tion
Staff Recommendation:
Staff rec ommend s approval o f the req uest fo r reno vatio n with the recommendatio n that the current entry
d o o r b e inc o rporated into the recessed c o urtyard lead ing into the new s torefro nt and that the mo d ified
s torefront retain the size, s hape, p o s ition and number of windo ws as s een in the 1984 s torefront. Staff
finds the sign des ign and p aint selec tions in c o nfo rmanc e with the Downtown and Old To wn Des ign
Guidelines .
Page 27 of 150
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3- Updated Plans and Specifications (Iron and Awning)Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - His toric Res ources Survey Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - 1984 Cut Sheet with picture - 19 and 20 Backup Material
Page 28 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-029 (600 Degrees Market) Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: 11/09/2017
File Number: COA-2017-029 (Renovations)
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
renovations of a commercial property located at 114 E. 7th Street, Suite 115. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long
Range Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 600 Degrees Market
Applicant: Davin Hoyt
Property Owner: Kenny Nguyen
Property Address: 114 E. 7th Street, Suite 115, Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: Block 40, Lot 1, 4, .033 acres, in the Addison Survey, City of Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay, Area 2
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1910
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low, 2007 – Low, 2016 - Low
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant has requested approval for the renovation of multiple exterior elements of the commercial
property including the removal of storefront windows and entry doors, the addition of an enclosed and
covered patio and the installation of a shallow awning.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
6.1 For a commercial storefront building, a rehabilitation project shall preserve these
character-defining elements: Display windows:
Does not
comply
6.3 If a storefront is altered, restoring it to the original design is preferred.
• If evidence of the original design is missing, use a simplified interpretation of
similar storefronts. The storefront still should be designed to provide interest to
pedestrians.
Neutral. No
evidence of
original
storefront
Page 29 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-029 (600 Degrees Market) Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
6.4 Alternative designs that are contemporary interpretations of traditional
storefronts may be considered. Where the original is missing and no evidence of its
character exists, a new design that uses the traditional elements may be considered.
Complies
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and
doors in a building wall.
Complies if
entry door is
retained
6.19 Where entries were not recessed historically, maintain them in their original
position.
Neutral. No
evidence of
original
storefront
6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings to solid wall. Complies
7.1 Avoid alterations that damage historic features. Complies
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure
should be preserved and their historic character retained.
Complies
8.10 Outdoor dining and seating areas should be simple in design and compatible
with the approved street furniture as detailed in the Downtown Master Plan.
Complies
10.1 The awning should fit the opening of the building. Complies
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining features. Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
According to the 1984, 2007 and 2016 Historic Resources Survey, this property’s significance lies in its
year of construction. All three surveys note that the property lacks stylistic influences and an
identifiable plan. The primary historical resources available to staff are primarily the Historic
Resources Survey and in particular the 1984 survey. Photos included in the 1984 indicate that the
current storefront configuration existed in 1984; three (3) entry doors each flanked by a set of storefront
windows on both sides. Staff did not discover any older evidence of the storefront configuration. Staff
does not believe the current windows are historic however the entryway doors and hardware appear to
be of significant age and are a good representation of craftsmanship. Double wooden door entries are
common on 7th Street and around the square. Retaining these doors, albeit recessed, preserves historic
building material and also supports the character of surrounding properties including those within the
same lot.
Alterations to the façade of this low priority structure, as proposed will alter the storefront
configuration that existed in 1984. Staff recommends that if the storefront is removed, the applicant can
retain the character of the 1984 storefront by preserving the position, number, size, and
arrangement of historic windows and doors in the building wall with the proposed material
change (iron works). Staff recommends the window openings replaced with iron works carry
the lateral lines created by the storefront windows to the east and west of the property .
Page 30 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-029 (600 Degrees Market) Page 3 of 4
Preserving the lateral lines of the storefront will also support the characteristic of the surrounding
properties.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;
Complies
B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District;
Complies
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Complies
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
historic properties.
Complies
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in
character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay
District in question will not be permitted.
Complies
H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether
to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and
architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and
loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building
or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or
structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other
landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical,
and cultural values.
Complies
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for renovation with the recommendation that the current entry
door be incorporated into the recessed courtyard leading into the new storefront and that the modified
storefront retain the size, shape, position and number of windows and doors from the 1984 storefront.
Staff finds the sign design and paint selections in conformance of the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 31 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2017-029 (600 Degrees Market) Page 4 of 4
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey Information
SUBMITTED BY
Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager
Page 32 of 150
EL
M
ST
R
O
C
K
S
T
A
SH
ST
S
M
A
IN
S
T
E 7 TH ST
E 5 TH ST
E 8 TH ST
E 4 TH ST
WE
S
T
S
T
E 6 TH ST
PI
N
E
ST
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 8T H S T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
SCENIC DR
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
W 9T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 7T H ST
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
W 3RD S T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 1 0T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
E 3 R D S T
MA
R
T
IN
L
U
TH
E
R
K
I
NG JR
S
T
H
OLLY
STW 5T H S T
W U N I V E R SI TY AV E
RAILROAD AVE
E 9 T H S T
E 9 TH 1/2 S T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
E 11T H S T
WE
S
T
S
T
E 9 T H S T
E 1 0T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 3 RD S T
PI
N
E
ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 5 T H S T
E 9 TH ST
COA-2017-029Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 33 of 150
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to enhance the outdoor space in front of my food business located at 114 E.
7th Street, in downtown Georgetown. Our façade width is 22 feet and faces North. We
would like to do the FIVE following things to prepare us for business:
1. Install a shallow awning with tin roof and turn buckles on the façade.
2. Install a halation illuminated flush mount sign on the façade.
3. Install and maintain planters (with benches attached) upon City of Georgetown
property.
4. Replace façade doors and windows with wood trims and iron works, making the façade
wall breathe. The front room of our establishment will be an outdoor court with seats.
5. Replace paint (2 colors) with newer selection from Valspar – National Trust for
Historic Preservation line.
We seek City approval and will participate in binding agreements for such installations to
exist; making our new location a good place to do business.
Thank yo u for your time.
Regards,
Mark Thompson
600 Degrees Pizzeria
Page 34 of 150
Page 35 of 150
Page 36 of 150
Page 37 of 150
Page 38 of 150
Page 39 of 150
Page 40 of 150
Page 41 of 150
Page 42 of 150
Page 43 of 150
Page 44 of 150
Page 45 of 150
Page 46 of 150
Page 47 of 150
Page 48 of 150
Page 49 of 150
Page 50 of 150
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:114 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126342
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R041385Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1910
One-Part Commercial Block
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: ca. 1970 four buildings merged behind one faτade)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:126
ID:806
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:126342 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks integrity
Latitude:30.637095 Longitude -97.676489
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Southwest
Page 51 of 150
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:114 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126342
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 52 of 150
Page 53 of 150
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 9, 2017
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and p o s s ib le ac tion on a Certificate of Appropriateness for the renovation and exp ansion o f
a residential property lo cated at 904 Ash Street , b earing the legal d es cription of 0.248 acres, lot 2, 3
(N/PT) b lo ck 27 of the Addison S urvey – Nat Waggoner, P MP, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
During the HAR C, Oc tober 26th legislative s es s ion, the applic ant provid ed the C o mmis s io n a c o nc ep tual
review of the p ro p o s ed reno vatio ns to a high p rio rity residential s tructure loc ated in the Old Town
Overlay.No formal actio n was taken o n this ap p lic atio n at that meeting. As dis c us s ed the applic ant is
s eeking ap p roval from HARC for the following:
1. Reno vation of the exis ting s tructure inc lud ing replac ement of
a. wo o d windows
b . dilapidated siding
c . new ro o f
2. Additions inc lud e
a. new master bedroom s uite
b . garage
Public Comments
As o f the d ate of this report, s taff has not rec eived any written inq uiries o r c omments .
Findings
The fo llo wing s treet facing façade and ad d itio ns will req uire HARC approval:
1. garage ad d ition
2. wooden wind o ws exc hange
Staff Recommendation
S taff recommends ap p ro val as presented.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner, and S o fia Nels o n, CNU-A, Planning Direc tor
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 and 4 - Plans and Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 5- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 6 - Texas His torical Commis s ion Files Exhibit
Page 54 of 150
Page 55 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2017-028] –. 904 Ash St. Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: 11/9/2017
File Number: COA-2017-028
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Discussion and possible action on a COA for the renovation and expansion of a residential property
located at 904 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of 0.248 acres, lot 2, 3 (N/PT) block 27 of the
Addison Survey – Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Worden House Residential Remodel
Applicant: Gary Wang, Wang Architects
Property Owner: Michael and Kelley Worden
Property Address: 904 Ash St., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.248 acres, lot 2, 3 (N/PT) block 27 of the Addison Survey
Historic Overlay: Old Town
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1880
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
2016 - High
National Register Designation: Yes
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing renovation of the existing structure including replacement of wooden
windows, dilapidated siding and roof. The applicant is also proposing additions to the street facing
façade including a new master bedroom suite and a garage.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing it on
a primary surface.
Complies
6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque materials. Complies
Page 56 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2017-028] –. 904 Ash St. Page 2 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and
doors in a building wall.
Complies
6.13 Preserve the functional and decorative features of an historic window or door. Complies
6.15 Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise
reinforcing the wood.
Complies
6.16 Glass in doors and windows should be retained. Does not
comply
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the
original design as closely as possible.
Complies
6.22 Preserve the original roof form of an historic structure. Complies
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building that coordinates all the façade
elements.
Complies
11.3 A muted color is preferred for the base color of most buildings. Complies
11.5 In general, use bright colors for accents only. Complies
11.7 Wooden structures must be painted. Complies
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies
13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally (Metal and
shingle roofs are preferred)
Complies
13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. Complies
13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof
forms.
Complies
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback. Complies
14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and
respected when additions are proposed.
Complies
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main
building.
Complies
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impacts.
Complies
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and architectural
style with the main building.
Complies
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. Complies
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
Page 57 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2017-028] –. 904 Ash St. Page 3 of 5
STAFF ANALYSIS
The single-story, center passage house located within the Old Town Historic District is a property with
identifiable stylistic influences, historic significance and structural integrity according to the 1984, 2007
and 2016 Historic Resources Surveys. The property is a good example of late nineteenth-century
vernacular dwellings. The 1984 HRSR describes the structure as containing chamfered wooden supports
with molded capitals and stick brackets. Other noteworthy features include symmetrical five-bay façade
and semicircular vent opening in the gable end. The date of construction and first resident, Robert Hyer
are defining characteristics. Robert Hyer was a physics professor at Southwestern University and later
regent of the University. Hyer help lead the fight to have Southwestern relocate to Dallas in 1910. Hyer
is credited with the design of the First Methodist Church in Georgetown.
All alterations and improvements are described within the attached construction drawings, and are
designed to meet the Design Guidelines of the Georgetown UDC including the fence addition, paint
selection and in kind materials for windows and doors.
Windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining features of historic structures.
They give scale to buildings and provide visual interest to the composition of individual façades. Distinct
window and door designs, in fact, help define many historic building styles. Windows and doors often
are inset into relatively deep openings or have surrounding casings and sash components, which have a
substantial dimension that casts shadows that contribute to the character of the historic style.
HARC should consider the following when evaluating proposals to replace historic windows:
1. Historic windows and doors are not necessarily decorative, so their functionality as well as appropriate
design should be considered.
2. Whether the repair of the historic windows and/or doors is technically not feasible.
3. The window and door openings should not be altered to accommodate windows or doors of different
sizes, proportions, views, or configurations.
4. If the windows and doors are visible to the public they should not be removed, enclosed, or obscured.
5. Windows and doors visible to the public view should be retained in the original location.
6. Whether the appearance matches the details such as window or door size, shape, operation, glass
configuration, material, and finish. The appearance of the sash, opening size, and decorative detail
should look like the historic window or door.
7. Whether the operation of the replacement window or door is the same; for example, double-hung or
casement windows that open inward.
8. Whether the muntin style, configuration, detailing, and installation is the same for the replacement
window or door as the historic window or door.
9. Whether the sash and frame materials are the same materials, match the historic detailing, style,
complexity, and profile.
HARC should assess the following when evaluating proposals to replace non-original windows:
1. Whether the proposed replacement windows and/or doors are based on the documented
configuration of the building’s original windows and/or doors.
Page 58 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2017-028] –. 904 Ash St. Page 4 of 5
2. Whether historic window and door openings are proposed to be altered to accommodate
windows or doors of different sizes, proportions, views, or configurations.
3. A historic window or door opening should not be enclosed, altered in its dimensions, or
obscured.
4. Whether the non-original windows and/or doors have taken on historic significance and now
contribute to the history of the building.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;
Complies
B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies, see
Exhibit 3
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District;
Complies, see
Exhibit 2
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. N/A
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
historic properties.
Complies
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in
character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay
District in question will not be permitted.
N/A
H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether
to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and
architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and
loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building
or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or
structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other
landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical,
and cultural values.
1. Complies
2. Complies
3. Complies
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval.
Page 59 of 150
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2017-028] –. 904 Ash St. Page 5 of 5
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey
Exhibit 6 – Texas Historical Commission
SUBMITTED BY
Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 60 of 150
EL
M
ST
A
SH
ST
E 7 TH ST
PI
N
E
ST
E 8 TH ST
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E 6 TH ST
MAPLE S
T
E 1 3T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WAL
NUT
S
T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
W 9 T H S T
W 8T H S T
W 7T H S T
W 6 T H S T
W 11TH ST
W 10T H S T
W U N I V E RSI TY AV E
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
WESLEY
A
N
D
R
E 9 T H S T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
SO U LE D R
E 9 TH 1 /2 S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
M C K E N Z I E D R
E 1 0T H S T
PI
N
E
ST
E 11T H S T
E 9 TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 9 T H S T
H
OL
L
Y
ST
COA-2017-028Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 61 of 150
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC
Architecture + Urban Design
October 26, 2017
Historical and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown
Re: The Residence at 904 Ash St, Georgetown
HARC Conceptual Review
Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission:
On behalf of my client, Michael and Kelley Worden, I am pleased to submit here a
drawing package for an addition proposed for the residence at 904 Ash Street in Georgetown.
The existing structure’s footprint is quite small and in very poor condition. The house is a High
Priority Structure, and we plan to restore/rehabilitate the existing structure and make the addition
towards the back of the existing house and site. Scope will include a renovation of the existing
structure and will include a new master bedroom suite and a garage. The roofline of the new
garage will match the existing roofline at the top. The topography slopes down away from Ash
Street, so by keeping the floor of the garage closer to grade, this allows us to make useful space
at a second floor above the garage. Mr. Worden works out of town a lot and from home when he
is in town, so this second-floor space will be his office/study.
Attached are drawings for your review and consideration:
1) Conceptual Rendering
2) Site Map
3) Existing Plan
4) Site Plan
5) Ground Floor Plan
6) Second Floor + Roof Plan
7-8) Elevations
9) Rendered Elevation
10-13) Model Views
14) Materials + Finish
15-18) Existing Conditions
19) Historic Conditions
We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on October 26.
We will have additional information at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or
need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Yours truly,
Gary Wang, AIA
Principal
Wang Architects LLC
Page 62 of 150
1Conceptual Rendering
Design Concepts for Review by HARC
The Worden Residence
October 26, 2017
Wang Architects
ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING
Page 63 of 150
N
2Site Map
OCT 26, 2017 Page 64 of 150
1/8” = 1’-0”
3Existing Plan
N
OCT 26, 2017 Page 65 of 150
OCT 26, 2017 1/8” = 1’-0”
4Proposed Site Plan
N
Page 66 of 150
1/8” = 1’-0”
5Ground Floor Plan
N
OCT 26, 2017 Page 67 of 150
N
1/8” = 1’-0”
6Second Floor + Roof Plan
OCT 26, 2017 Page 68 of 150
1/8” = 1’-0”
West Elevation - For Information Only
1/8” = 1’-0”
7East Elevation
OCT 26, 2017 Page 69 of 150
1/8” = 1’-0”
South Elevation - For Information Only
1/8” = 1’-0”
8North Elevation - For Information Only
OCT 26, 2017 Page 70 of 150
1/8” = 1’-0”
9Ash Street Elevation - Rendered
OCT 26, 2017 Page 71 of 150
10Model View - For Information Only*NOTE: PURPLE INDICATES NEW
OCT 26, 2017 Page 72 of 150
11Model View - Ash Street*NOTE: PURPLE INDICATES NEW
OCT 26, 2017 Page 73 of 150
12Model View - Aerial*NOTE: PURPLE INDICATES NEW
OCT 26, 2017 Page 74 of 150
*NOTE: PURPLE INDICATES NEW 13Model View - For Information Only
OCT 26, 2017 Page 75 of 150
EXISTING + NEW SIDING:
BENJAMIN MOORE STONINGTON GRAY
SNAP-LOCK METAL ROOF:
GALVALUME FINISH
14Materials + Finish
OCT 26, 2017 Page 76 of 150
15Existing Conditions
OCT 26, 2017 Page 77 of 150
16Existing Conditions
OCT 26, 2017 Page 78 of 150
17Existing Conditions
OCT 26, 2017 Page 79 of 150
18Existing Conditions
OCT 26, 2017 Page 80 of 150
19Historic Conditions
OCT 26, 2017 Page 81 of 150
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:904 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125272
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042535Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1880
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:978
ID:632
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name Dr. Robert Hyer House
ID:125272 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.635415 Longitude -97.673347
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: West
Page 82 of 150
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:904 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125272
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Ancillary
WestPhoto Direction
Page 83 of 150
NPS Form 10-900-* OMB No. 1024-0018
Expires 10-31-87
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Inventory—Nomination Form
Continuation sheet Item number all Page 14
1. County _
City/Rural
2. Name
Address _
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
Williamson
Georgetown"
Dr. Robert Hyer House
GE
3097-313
"ffsF
5. USGS Quad No _
UTM Sectf^r 627-3389
6. Date: Factual
7. Architect/Builder
Site Nn 632, Phntn
Est. 1880
3. Owner .
Address.
Manuel L. Ramon, Rt. 1, Box 3AAfi Style/Type
Jarrell, Texas 76537 9 Original Use
Glasscock/Blk. 27/Lot 2 present Use
Contractor
vernacular
residential
residential 4. Block/Lot _
10 De.'icription One-Story wood-frame dwelling with central-hall plan; exterior walls
with weatherboard siding; gable roof with corrugated metal; front elevation
faces east; wood sash double-hung windows with 2/2 lights; single-door entrance
with two-light transom; one-bay porch with gable roof on east elevation;
fair—rear additions 11. Present Condition
12. Signilicance Primary area of significance: architecture and association with a
prominent individual. A good example of a late nineteenth-century vernacular^
dwelling. Few alterations. According to tax rolls, property owned by
13. Relationshi
eas
lie: Moved Date or Original Site x (aescnhe) residential neighborhood
CBD; mostly turn-of-the-century dwellings nearby; across from grounds
14 Rihiiography, "^^^ rolls, Sanborn Maps, 15 informant #13> of old Georgetown High School
Scarbrough, pg. 238, 248, 388-89^ 16. Recorder D. Moore/HHM Date July 198A
TNRIS No.
NR:
other
• RTHL
• Individual
• Thematic
NR File Name
DESIGNATIONS
Old THC Code
• HABS (no) TEX
PHOTO DATA
B&W 4x5s
• Historic District
• Multiple-Resource
35mm Negs
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME
13 3A to
29 27 to 29
to
CONTINUATION PAGE No 2_ of
1. County
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
Williamson
Georgetown City/Rural
2 Name P^. Robert Hyer House
WM
GE
5. USGS Ouad No 3097-313
UTMPt 14/627160/3389740
Acreage Less than one acre
_632_
#10. Description (cont'd): chamfered wooden supports with molded capitals
and stick brackets. Other noteworthy features include symmetrical five-bay
facade; rear ell addition; semicircular vent opening in gable end.
#12. Significance (cont'd): Robert S. Hyer, physics professor at Southwestern
University. He later served as Regent of the school. Hyer helped lead the
fight to have Southwestern relocate to Dallas in 1910. When decision made for
school to stay in Georgetown, Hyer moved to Dallas and helped establish
Southern Methodist University. Hyer is credited for the design of the First
Methodist Church (Site No. 206) in Georgetown, according to local church
historians.
Page 84 of 150
« MPS Form 10 »00-»
(ma
United States Department of the Interior
National Parle Service
National Register of Historic Places
Inventory—Nomination Form
Continuation sheet Item number all
OMB No. 1024-0018
Expires 10-31-87
Page 15
#14. Bibliography (cont'd): Brown, Ray Hyer. Robert Stewart Hyer, the Man
I Knew. Salado, Texas: Anson Jones Press, 1955.
Page 85 of 150
NPS Form 10-900-* OMB No. 1024-0018
Expires 10-31-87
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register off Historic Places
inventory—Nomination Form
Continuation sheet Item number Page
Multiple Resource Area
Thennatic Group
Name Georgetown MRA
g^gl^g Williamson county, liUtAb
Nomination/Type of Review
21. Hawnen, A. W., House
22. Harper-Chesser House
23. Hyer, Dr. Robert, House
24. Imhoff House
25. IrVine, George, House
25. Johnson, J.J., Farm
27. Lane-Riley House
^>-28. Leake,Will & Mary, House
29. Love, Frank & Mellie,
House
30. Leavell, John, House
Date/Signature
'.•^4-.K H9gi»t«r
?nt«refl fa tfli
°lf^eper r^t-^^^^^^^-^-^^^.^^ f^y7j<i
Attest
E5a*T«a la ^-^eper -^^.^.^^^^ ^M:
T
Attest
SalwtiurtlTe R^vle* Keeper
Attest
^^^^^^c?<!I^^^^^A^^ ^Uk
Attest
^^^.^-;..lo£fl H«^ew Keeper^7^^^ Jh^/^^'^^^^-^'^
Attest
SrtJBtaa-klTa B«Tie* Keeper^
Attest
Keeper
Attest
^A7/M
Page 86 of 150
WASO Form - 177
("R" June 1984)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET
H^er, Dr. Robert^ House (Georgetown MRA)
Williamson County
TEXAS
• resubmission
im nomination by person or local government
LD owner objection
• appeal
Substantive Reviews: I sample • request appeal
DEC X 2 I9a5
.^yy7
Working No.
Fed. Reg. Date;.-^-^^ ^ ^ . -
Date Due: - //^^/^
Action: i--gT!CEPT '/
RETURN.
REJECT.
Federal Agency:
dl NR decision
Reviewer's comments:
Recom./Criteria
Nomination returned for: .technical corrections cited below
.substantive reasons discussed below
1. Name
2. Location
3. Classification
Category Ownership
Public Acquisition
Status
Accessible
Present Use
4. Owner of Property
5. Location of Legal Description
6. Representation in Existing Surveys
Has this property been determined eligible? • yes • no
7. Description
Condition
excellent
dl good
• fair
I I deteriorated
• ruins
I I unexposed
Check one
• unaltered
• altered
Check one
• original site
• moved date.
Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance
• summary paragraph
• completeness
• clarity
• alterations/integrity
• dates
I I boundary selection
Page 87 of 150
8. Significance
Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below
Specific dates Builder/Architect
Statement of Significance (in one paragraph)
• summary paragraph
• completeness
• clarity
• applicable criteria
• justification of areas checked
• relating significance to the resource
• context
• relationship of integrity to significance
• justification of exception
• other
9. Major Bibliographical References
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of nominated property
Quadrangle name
UTM References
Verbal boundary description and justification
11. Form Prepared By
12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification
The evaluated significance of this property within the state is:
national state local
State Historic Preservation Officer signature
title date
13. Other
• Maps
• Photographs
• other
Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to.
Signed Date Phone:
GPO 91 B-450
Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet
Page 88 of 150
Page 89 of 150
Page 90 of 150
Please refer to the map in the
Multiple Property Cover Sheet
for this property
Multiple Property Cover Sheet Reference Number: 64000843
Page 91 of 150
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
November 9, 2017
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of a c o nc ep tual d es ign of a mixed us e development at 204 E 8th Street
b earing the legal des c rip tion of .3306 acres, Lot 7-8, Bloc k 9 o f the Glas s co c k Additio n– Nat Waggoner,
PMP, AICP , Lo ng R ange P lanning Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The review will p ro vide d irectio n o n the projec t regard ing c o mp lianc e with the Do wntown and Old To wn
Design Guidelines . C o nc ep tual review allo ws the o p p o rtunity fo r dialogue with the Commission and staff
to d is cus s the c o mp o nents o f the p ro ject, inc lud ing the p ro p o s ed size, sc ale, mas s ing, and materials for
the projec t. Site develo p ment plan c o mp o nents , s uc h as parking, s ite lighting, lands c ap ing and other
features will b e reviewed b y s taff p rio r to the formal Certificate of Ap p ro priatenes s review.
Spec ifically, the applic ant is s eeking feed b ac k fro m HARC regarding the fo llo wing chap ters and criteria
fro m the Downtown and Old To wn Des ign G uidelines :
Chapter 8 – Design Guidelines for Site Design
Pub lic s treets c ap e
Lighting
Lands c ap e features
Mechanic al Equip ment
Parking
This c hapter p res ents design guid elines fo r s ite d es ign. T he d es ign guidelines are organized into a s eries o f
relevant d es ign topic s . Within eac h category, individ ual p o licies and d es ign guid elines are presented, whic h
the City will us e in d etermining the ap p ro p riatenes s o f the work proposed. Note that other s tand ard s set
fo rth in the Unified Develo p ment Co d e shall als o apply.
Chapter 13 - Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
Building s etb acks
Mas s and s cale
Building materials
Pedes trian-friendly c harac ter
Trans itio nal character
This chap ter pres ents d es ign guidelines that ap p ly to Area 2, the ring o f streets and bloc ks that enc ircle the
Town Square His to ric District. The d es ign guid elines are organized into a s eries o f relevant design topic s .
Within eac h c atego ry, individ ual p o licies and des ign guid elines are presented , which the City will use in
d etermining the appropriateness o f the work p ro p o s ed . T he area sho uld co ntinue to develo p with a mix of
uses and improvements whic h s hould oc cur in a manner that enhanc es the exp erienc e for p ed es trians and
to b uild a sens e o f vis ual relatednes s among properties . Even tho ugh auto mobile circ ulatio n ro utes
s ignificantly affec t the character, it is s till p os s ible to s trengthen pedestrian links and to imp ro ve the edges
o f properties s uc h that a sens e of human s cale is c onveyed .
Page 92 of 150
Those commerc ial s treets in Area 2 s urrounding the Town Square His toric Dis tric t s ho uld d evelop in a
manner that is inviting to p ed es trians while als o ac commodating automobiles. Development s hould include
a mix o f build ing typ es , inc luding older s truc tures and mo re c o ntemporary ones . Each sho uld reflec t the
d es ign trends o f its own time, while als o c o ntribute to a s ens e of vis ual c o ntinuity and strengthen the
p ed es trian exp erienc e. In additio n, a c o mb inatio n of us es is enc o uraged , inc luding residential, offic e, and
retail.
The d es ign goals fo r Area 2 are:
To d efine the sidewalk ed ge with elements that are amenities for p ed es trians .
To es tablish a sens e of sc ale in b uildings and streetsc ap e d es ign that c an be understo o d b y
p ed es trians .
To minimize the vis ual imp acts o f automobiles.
To s trengthen the p ed es trian network of s id ewalks , p lazas , and paths .
Retain native vegetatio n with p rojec t d es ign.
Maintain the feel o f his toric s urroundings, for examp le if the area is p red o minately converted
res id ential s truc tures the res id ential ap p earanc e, s cale, and c harac ter s ho uld remain.
To utilize s imilar b uilding materials , s torefront d es ign, recessed entries , and front s etbac ks.
No fo rmal ac tio n will b e taken on this ap p lication at this meeting. A formal C ertific ate o f Appropriateness
review will oc c ur at a future meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Chapter 8 - Des ign for Guidelines for Site Des ign Backup Material
Chapter 8 - Des ign for Guidelines for Site Des ign Part 1 Backup Material
Chapter 8 - Des ign for Guidelines for Site Des ign Part 2 Backup Material
Chapter 14 - Guidelines for Infill Cons truction Area 2 Backup Material
Conceptual Review Backup Material
Page 93 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 81
Chapter 8
Design guiDelines for site Design
This chapter presents design guidelines for site design. The design guidelines are organized into a series of relevant design topics. Within each category, individual policies and design guidelines are presented, which the City will use in determin-ing the appropriateness of the work proposed. Note that other standards set forth in the Unified Development Code shall also apply.
Public StreetscapeFundamentally, streetscape designs should help to establish a sense of visual continuity in an area and they should be compatible with any historic resources found there.
Building and Street LightingThe character of lighting design and level of inten-sity of the resulting illumination are key consider-ations. Traditionally, lights were simple in character and were used to highlight entrances, walkways, and signs. Most fixtures had incandescent lamps that cast a color similar to daylight, were relatively low in intensity, and were shielded with simple shade devices. Although new lamp types may be considered, the overall effect of modest, focused light should be continued.
Historic Landscape FeaturesIn the commercial core, landscape designs were historically simple, while a variety of site features appeared in the residential parts of downtown. Wood and metal fences often defined property boundaries. Concrete sidewalks were popular and lined many streets. A variety of plantings, including trees, lawns, and shrubbery also occurred. Each of these elements, along with paths, trails, and streams contributed to the historic character of the city. They also added variety in scale, texture, and materials to the street scene, providing interest and shade to pedestrians.
Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, and Other Equipment Utilities that serve properties may include tele-phone and electrical lines, ventilation systems, gas meters, air conditioners, fire protection, telecom-munication, and alarm systems. Adequate space for these utilities should be planned in a project from the outset and they should be designed such that their visual impacts are minimized. Service ar-eas for trash and recycling containers and loading facilities should be carefully planned as an integral part of a site. At the same time, the visual impacts of service areas should be minimized. While solar energy collecting devices might not always be considered as mechanical or service equipment, for the proposes of these Design Guidelines they shall be.
ParkingPublic parking lots and garages were not a part of Georgetown’s early history. However, cars are a fact of life in the downtown today, and the visual impacts associated with their storage should be carefully planned.
In This Chapter:Public streetscape 82 Lighting 89Landscape features 91Mechanical equipment 93Parking 94
See also the Downtown Master Plan, City of Georgetown, TX - Streetscape requirements for furniture, sidewalk and intersection types, street furniture, street lights, etc. Compliance with these standards shall also be considered in determining the appropriateness of specific elements. See the Unified Development Code Chapter 11 related to the impervious cover and stormwater detention requirements for proper-ties located in the Overlay Districts
Page 94 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 82
Policy: The public streetscape in Area 1 should enhance the pedestrian experience without being an obstacle to traffic or commerce.
The sidewalks, lights, landscaping, and street furnishings all contribute to the pedestrian-friendly environment in downtown Georgetown. These elements should be preserved, enhanced, and expanded. Sidewalks vary in construction and quality. While many sidewalks are concrete, some include brick as an accent element, or are com-pletely brick themselves. Curb ramps have also been installed at some corners to facilitate access. Also, while several areas already have amenities in place that enhance the pedestrian experience, additional furnishings should be considered to enhance the area.
8.1 Preserve significant sidewalk features.• The alignment with other original sidewalks, the street and overall town grid is of primary importance.• Replace only those portions that are de-teriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size, and finish.
8.2 When new sidewalks are to be installed, they shall be compatible with the traditional character of the streetscape.• A new sidewalk should align with those that already exist along a block.• Decorative paving should be used through-out the Downtown Overlay as noted in the Downtown Master Plan. Such paving shall be of the same design, character, and instal-lation as that already in use by the City in and around the County Courthouse Historic District.• Sidewalks and crosswalks should be con-sistent with the sidewalk, intersection, and crosswalk designs in the Downtown Master Plan.
Preserve significant sidewalk features. This stepped
curb, for example, may have historic significance.
When new sidewalks are to be installed, they shall be
of the same design, character, and installation as that
already in use by the City.
Page 95 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 83
Benches, bike racks, and trash receptacles are
examples of street furnishings that are appropriate.
Street furnishings and sidewalk displays should not
interfere with pedestrian traffic.
Maintain a clear pathway along the sidewalk.
8.3 Street furniture should be simple in design and match those already established around the square. • Benches, bike racks, planters or pots, stat-ues, trash receptacles and, in the event of a sidewalk sale, merchandise displays are examples of street furnishings that are ap-propriate.• Where utilized, benches should be the same as those already in use in the downtown. See the Downtown Master Plan for the streetscape design and location criteria.• The Area 1 wooden benches are constructed of solid teak wood. See the Planning Depart-ment for the specifics of the bench style. Alternative design and/or materials may be considered by HARC.• In Area 2, the benches and waste recep-tacles should be black metal slat design. Alternative design and/or materials may be considered by HARC. • Advertising promotions on benches is not allowed under any circumstance.• Individual furnishings should be of designs such that they may be combined with other street furniture in a coherent composition.
8.4 Avoid materials that are incompatible with the character of the district.• Concrete, exposed aggregate, plastic, un-finished wood, and polished metal are inap-propriate.
8.5 Street furniture should be located in areas of high pedestrian activity.• Locate furniture at pedestrian route intersec-tions and major building entrances and near outdoor gathering places.
8.6 Street furnishings should be clustered in “groupings,” when feasible.• Street furnishings and sidewalk displays should not interfere with pedestrian traffic.• For example, use planters and covered or enclosed waste receptacles to frame spaces for benches.• Install benches in high pedestrian traffic areas and/or areas of interest.
Page 96 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 84
8.7 Position a bench to provide a sense of comfort.• Buffer the bench from traffic; for example, position a planter between the bench and the curb.• Avoid locating a bench close to the curb.
8.8 Cluster waste receptacles with other fur-nishings. • The design of the receptacles should be compatible with other existing furnishings.
8.9 When feasible, cluster planters with other furnishings. • Install freestanding planters on either side of a store entrance, at seating areas, along edges of parking lots, in pedestrian plazas, and in clustered furnishing areas.• A planter should be large enough to be easily seen, but not so large as to cause an obstruc-tion to pedestrian traffic.• Conventional home-style planters, such as those constructed of redwood or ordinary terracotta pottery, as well as over-sized concrete plant tubs are not appropriate.
8.10 Outdoor dining and seating areas should be simple in design and compatible with the approved street furniture as detailed in the Downtown Master Plan.• Furniture and fixtures must not be secured to trees, lampposts, street signs, hydrants, or any other street infrastructure by means of ropes, chains, or any other such devices, whether during restaurant operating hours or at times when the restaurant is closed.• All furniture and fixtures must be maintained in good visual appearance and in a clean condition at all times.• All furniture and fixtures must be durable and of sufficiently sturdy construction as not to blow over with normal winds.• All furniture and fixtures must contribute to the overall atmosphere of the Overlay District and must be complementary in both appear-ance and quality.
Design site furnishings and waste receptacles to be
compatible with one another.
Page 97 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 85
8.11 Tables and chairs are allowed without approval of a CDC if they meet the follow-ing guidelines; otherwise HARC approval is required based upon the intent of the guide-lines.• Tables and chairs may be colored or of a natural unpainted material (i.e. wood, metal (treated to prevent rust), etc.). Tables and chairs are not permitted to be plastic or of any fluorescent or other strikingly bright or vivid color.• Upholstered chairs suitable for outdoor use are permitted, but the upholstery may not be any fluorescent or other strikingly bright or vivid color.• All chairs used within a particular establish-ment’s outdoor seating area must match each other by being of visually similar design, construction, and color.• Other furniture such as serving stations, bar counters, shelves, racks, sofas, televisions, trash receptacles, heaters, and torches are not permitted, unless HARC determines that these items are sufficiently setback or screened from view of the public.
High quality tables and chairs contribute to the overall
atmosphere of the Overlay District.
Page 98 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 86
8.12 Umbrellas are allowed without approval of a CDC if they meet the following guidelines. Any proposed umbrella that does not meet the guidelines maybe approved by HARC if they determine the intent of the guidelines has been met.• Umbrellas shall be appropriately designed and sized for the location where they will be utilized.• Umbrellas must be free of advertisements and all elements contained within the outdoor dining area, and at the lowest dimension of an extended umbrella must be at least 7 feet above the sidewalk surface and not block the main walking path or create a hazard. Any proposed umbrella signage will need CDC approval and to be included with the overall sign package for the property.• Any part of an umbrella used in an outdoor seating area may not exceed a height of 120” (10 feet) above the level of the sidewalk.• Umbrellas must blend appropriately with the surrounding built environment; therefore, umbrella fabric may not be fluorescent or other strikingly bright or vivid color. In addi-tion, only one fabric color is allowed.• Umbrella fabric must be of a material suitable for outdoor use, and must be canvas-type. No plastic fabrics, plastic/vinyl-laminated fabrics, grass, or rigid materials of any type are permitted for use as umbrellas within an outdoor seating area.• Umbrellas should not block views of build-ing signs or windows, especially those of adjacent properties.• A 4 foot clear area must be maintained on all sidewalks to allow pedestrian traffic. So, smaller tables and chairs are generally pre-ferred to meet this requirement.• No sidewalk coverings or raised platforms are allowed, unless the outdoor seating area is not located on the sidewalk.• No extra or additional signage is permitted solely as a result of an outdoor seating area. If any signage is proposed it should be in-cluded as part of the overall sign package for the property.• Any proposed fence related to an outside eating or sitting area for a nonresidential use is required to have HARC approval.
Umbrellas provide shade and contribute to the
ambiance of outdoor seating and dining areas.
Page 99 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 87
Trees and flowering plants help provide interest to pedestrians, as well as shaded protection from the summer sun. Therefore, the use of street trees and planters is strongly encouraged.
8.13 Use indigenous, native, and drought-tol-erant plant materials when feasible.• Locate street trees along edges of sidewalks, maintaining a clearly defined pedestrian travel zone.• Locate street trees in larger planting areas, such as buffer strips adjacent to parking lots and/or pocket parks.• Provide underground irrigation systems where long-term growth will not impact the irrigation system.• Use flowers to provide seasonal colors.
8.14 Install new street trees to enhance the pedestrian experience.• Install new trees where walkway widths per-mit.• Replace trees that are diseased or have passed their life cycle.• The height of a street tree should be mini-mized, however, to avoid blocking views of storefronts and interesting details.
Policy: Using trees and flowering plants is strongly encouraged.
Trees and flowering plants help provide interest to
pedestrians, as well as shaded protection from the
summer sun.
Page 100 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 88
8.15 In Area 1, provide electrical service for string lights in trees..• Use of string lights should generally be lim-ited to the traditional end of year and new year holidays and other special occasions where there is a multi-business lighting event scheduled that includes the Downtown Overlay District.• String lights in trees shall not be left in the trees year round, to protect the health of the tree.• String lights shall be maintained in appear-ance and installation.• Unless an approved project by the City, prop-erty owners are discouraged from plugging into City owned outlets for personal use of lights.• The use of lights to highlight a building’s architecture, canopies, and windows may be appropriate and effective. • Properties outside of Area 1 are encouraged to provide electrical service for string lights in trees, especially those properties along Austin Avenue, Main Street, and University Avenue.
Highlighting a building’s architecture may be appropriate
and effective.
String lights add a festive touch to the area.
Page 101 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 89
Policy: Site lighting should be used to enhance the pedestrian experience at night by providing a well-lit environment.
Provide lighting for pedestrian routes that is low scaled
for walking.
Streetscape lighting in Area 1 should match that
adopted for use by the City.
Note that sidewalk lighting may be supple-mented with shielded lighting in canopies that project from building fronts. See the section on canopies in Chapter 10.
Lighting on a site is important for aesthetics and safety, and, on commercial properties for customer awareness. Traditionally, lights were simple in character and were used to highlight buildings, signs, entrances, first floor details, walkways, and buildings. Today, the lights are also used to light parking lots. Most fixtures had incandescent lamps that cast a warm color, were relatively low in inten-sity and were shielded with simple shade devices. Site lighting should reinforce the visual continuity of downtown. The light fixtures (luminaires) and poles (standards) should be unifying design elements that promote visual interest and variety.
8.16 Use lighting for the following: • To accent architectural details• To accent building entrances• To accent signs• To illuminate sidewalks and pedestrian routes• To illuminate parking and service areas, for safety concerns• To illuminate a state or national flag
8.17 Provide low-scale lighting for pedestrian routes.• Lighting along the right-of-way should be a combination of pedestrian-scaled street lights and spillover from lights on adjacent buildings. Lighting in this location should be designed to be comfortable to pedestrians.• The position of a lamp in a light fixture on a pedestrian way should not exceed fifteen feet in height.
Page 102 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 90
8.18 Streetscape lighting in the Downtown Overlay District should be the same as that adopted for use by the City.• Note that while these design guidelines en-courage the use of “shielded” light sources, the luminaires in use by the City in Area 1 are not. This is appropriate only in Area 1.• See the Downtown Master Plan for street
lighting requirements.• Note that sidewalk lighting may be supple-mented with shielded lighting in canopies that project from building fronts. See the section on canopies in Chapter 10.
8.19 Lighting for parking areas, service areas, buildings, pedestrian routes, and public ways in Area 2 shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare.• Note that this also applies to parking and service areas in Area 1.• Light sources that use the equivalent of 1,200 lumens per bulb or less shall be housed in fixtures and installed in a manner that will shield the lights from public view and avoid glare and light spill. • The light source shall not emit a significant amount of the fixture’s total output above a vertical cutoff angle of 90 degrees directly visible from neighboring properties. Any structural part of the fixture providing this cutoff angle shall be permanently attached.• Keep parking area lighting at a human scale. The maximum height of parking lot luminaires shall be fifteen feet. This height restriction may be exceeded to twenty-four feet if it is demonstrated that the overall vi-sual impact of lighting is less.
8.20 The light pole, or standard, should be designed to accommodate special decorative accessories.• In Area 1, mounts for hanging planter bas-kets and banners, for example, should be included. • In Area 2, the historic acorn street light de-sign should remain simple without hanging baskets.• Mounts for seasonal lighting schemes also should be considered.
8.21 Minimize the visual impacts of architec-tural lighting.• All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. • Wall-mounted floodlamps shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible off-site. Spotlights without shielding devices are not allowed.• A lamp that conveys the color spectrum similar to daylight is preferred. For example, metal halide and color-corrected sodium are appropriate.• Lighting fixtures should be appropriate to the building and its surroundings in terms of style, scale, and intensity of illumination.• Wall-mounted light fixtures should not extend above the height of the wall to which they are mounted.
8.22 Minimize the use of rope/icicle lighting Downtown.• The use of rope/icicle lighting shall not be used outside of the winter holiday season.• Window/door border lighting inside a building is inappropriate
Page 103 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 91
In areas of the Overlay Districts with traditional res-idential characteristics, site features that may have been seen historically include fences, sidewalks, walkways, and areas of private landscaping.
8.23 Preserve historic landscape features.• Existing historic landscape features, such as fences, sidewalks, and trees, should be preserved and protected during construc-tion. Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair with like design and materials.• Existing native plantings should be preserved in place. This particularly applies to signifi-cant trees and shrubs. • The use of rock and gravel is discouraged, and if used, should only occur as an accent element.• Minimize the amount of hard surface paving for patios, terraces, or drives in front yards.
8.24 In new landscape designs, use materials that are compatible with the historic context.• Landscaping schemes that are simple and subdued in character are encouraged.• Using native trees, shrubs, and wildflowers is encouraged.• Use plant materials in quantities and sizes that will have a meaningful impact in the early years of a project.• Avoid use of landscaping ties or railroad ties.• Extensive areas of exotic plantings, such as cacti and bamboo, and large ornamental rocks are inappropriate.
Policy: Where historic landscape features exist in residential areas, they should be preserved when feasible.
Existing historic landscape features, such as fences,
sidewalks, and trees, should be preserved, and should
be protected during construction.
Note that special provisions in the Unified Development Code for the preservation of Heritage and Protected Trees also apply. See Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Code, which also includes landscape and fence standards.
Page 104 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 92
8.25 A new fence may be considered in tran-sitional areas with a residential context.• A fence that defines a front yard should be low to the ground and “transparent” in na-ture.• A front yard fence should not exceed three feet in height.• Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views into front yards and are inappropriate.• Chain link, concrete block, unfaced con-crete, plastic, solid metal panel, fiberglass, plywood, and mesh construction fences are not appropriate.• A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its front yard counterpart may be considered. See UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards.
8.26 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces.• This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the “public” sidewalk, pro-ceeding along a “semi-public” walkway, to a “semi-private” porch or entry feature and ending in the “private” spaces beyond.• Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.• Use paving materials that are similar to those employed historically.
Maintain the established progression of public-to-
private spaces when considering a rehabilitation or
infill project.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
m
i
-
p
u
b
l
i
c
Se
m
i
-
Pri
v
a
t
e
A new fence may be considered in transitional areas
with a residential context. A fence that defines a front
yard should be low to the ground and “transparent” in
nature, as this one is.
Page 105 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 93
Utility service boxes, telecommunication devices, solar devices, cables, and conduits are among the variety of equipment that may be attached to a building that can affect the character of the area. Trash and recycling storage areas also are concerns. To the greatest extent feasible, these devices should be screened from public view.
8.27 Minimize the visual impact of mechanical equipment as seen from street.• Do not locate window air conditioning units on the building’s primary facade.• Use low-profile mechanical units and eleva-tor shafts on rooftops that are not visible from the public’s view. If this is not possible, setback or appropriately screen rooftop equipment from view.• Locate a satellite dish out of public view, to the extent feasible, and in compliance with other regulations.• Paint mechanical equipment attached to the building fascia the same color as the fascia in order to blend into the building.• When locating mechanical equipment be sensitive to views from the upper floors of neighboring buildings as well as other neigh-boring properties.• Character defining features of existing build-ings (i.e. roofline, chimneys, dormers) must be not be damaged or obscured when add-ing new roof mounted energy conservation systems such as solar devises.• Skylights or solar panels should have low profiles and not be visible from the public right-of-way. These features should be in-stalled in a manner which minimizes damage to historic materials.• Solar shingles may be added to a roof sur-face visible from a public right-of-way if low or non-reflective shingles are used.• Use solar panels and solar devices that are similar in color to roof materials and use non-reflective finishes.• Solar panels should not be mounted to project from walls or other parts of the build-ing.
Policy: Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment and service areas and equipment.
Do not locate window air conditioning units on a
building’s primary facade.
Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and
service boxes. This landscaping helps buffer utility
boxes.
Page 106 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 94
An on-site parking area should be located behind a
building, where its visual impacts will be minimized.
8.28 Minimize the visual impacts of utility con-nections and service boxes.• Locate them on secondary walls, when fea-sible.• Do not locate gas or electric meters on the roof.
8.29 Minimize the visual impacts of trash stor-age and service areas.• Locate service areas away from major pe-destrian routes; typically place them at the rear of a building when feasible.• Dumpsters should be screened from view.• Service areas are not to be used for storage of shipping containers, pallets, extra store fixtures, etc.
Policy: Minimize the visual impacts of a parking lot.
Note that standards for buffering the edges of parking lots are set forth in Section 8.04 of the Unified Development Code and shall also apply.
New parking facilities should be designed to be attractive, compatible additions to the downtown. Using high quality materials, providing a sense of scale in architectural details and providing active uses at the sidewalk edge are methods that can mitigate the potentially negative impacts of new parking facilities. In general, a new parking facility should remain subordinate to the street scene.
8.30 Locate a surface lot such that it will be subordinate to other site features.• An on-site parking area should be located behind a building, where its visual impacts will be minimized.• Minimize the surface area of paving materi-als. • It is not appropriate to demolish a structure on a building’s lot or surrounding lots in or-der to create additional parking. This is also relevant where a detached garage of historic significance exists on a site.
8.31 Locate a parking lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a block.• Where a parking lot shares a site with a building, place the parking at the rear of the site (preferred) or beside the building (if there are no other options).
Page 107 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 95
Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk, provide a
visual buffer. Consider the use of a wall as screen for
the edge of the lot. Materials should be compatible with
those of nearby buildings.
Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk, provide a
visual buffer. (Bellingham, WA)
Use a combination of trees and shrubs to create a
landscape buffer.
Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk, provide
a buffer.
street parking
st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
8.32 Where a parking lot abuts a public side-walk, provide a visual buffer.• This may be a landscaped strip or planter.• Consider the use of a wall as screen for the edge of the lot. • Use a combination of trees and shrubs to create a landscape buffer.• Where a parking lot exists that is presently not screened or landscaped, consider a landscaping program or an infill building that relates to the surrounding historic context.• See also the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code for more guidance on appropriate parking lot landscaping and screening.
Page 108 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 96
The ground level of a parking structure should be
wrapped by retail, office, or some other active use
along the street edge.
Preferred!
retail
parking
Not appropriate
parking
A part of this infill building is a parking structure that
is set back from the front and sides of a retail wrap.
The openings in the parking section reflect window
proportions similar to those seen historically in the
area. (Boulder, CO)
Policy: Minimize the visual impacts of a parking structure by designing it to enhance the activity of the streetscape.
Parking structures should be designed to enhance activity of the street level. At a minimum, a park-ing structure should help to animate the street and be compatible with the surroundings. The visual impact of the cars themselves should be minimized.
8.33 Design a parking structure so that it creates a visually attractive and active street edge.• When feasible, a parking structure in the area should be wrapped with retail, commercial, or another active use along the street edge to shield the cars from the street and to add activity to the street.• Other methods of accomplishing this include, but are not limited to: - Retail/commercial wrap - Murals or public art - Landscaping - Product display cases/show windows
New parking facilities should be designed to be
attractive, compatible additions to a commercial area.
Using high quality materials, providing a sense of scale
in architectural details and providing active uses at
the sidewalk edge are methods that can mitigate the
potentially negative impacts of new parking facilities.
(Lexington, KY)
Page 109 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 97
This parking structure incorporates a wrap of retail
stores along the street edge. The storefronts are
contemporary interpretations of the historic downtown
context. (Boulder, CO)
8.34 In the Downtown Overlay District, a park-ing structure shall be compatible with tradi-tional buildings in the surrounding area.• Respect the regular window pattern and other architectural elements of adjacent buildings.• Maintain the alignments and rhythms of architectural elements, as seen along the street.• Continue the use of similar building materi-als.• Avoid multiple curb cuts. These complicate turning movements and disrupt the side-walk.• Express the traditional widths of buildings in the area.
This single infill building is divided into smaller building
modules that reflect traditional building widths. Upper
floors step back from the front, thus maintaining the
traditional two-story scale of the street.
Page 110 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 98
A parking area should be located to the rear of a site.
Do not use a front yard for parking. Instead, use a long
driveway, or alley access, that leads to parking located
behind a building.
Policy: The visual impacts of parking in areas with residential character should also be minimized.
NO!YES!Existing
Condition
ALLEY
STREET
8.35 Minimize the visual impacts of a parking area.• A parking area should be located to the rear of a site.• Do not use a front yard for parking. Instead, use a long driveway, or alley access, that leads to parking located behind a building.
8.36 A new parking pad, carport, or garage should be located to the side or rear of a lot, and detached from the main structure.• Consider providing only ribbon paving. This will reduce visual impacts—as well as allow more drainage through soils.• Consider sharing a single drive and curb cut where multiple driveways are needed.• A driveway should lead directly from the street to the parking area.• A parking pad located in the front of a resi-dence is inappropriate.
Page 111 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 99
8.37 Preserve an historic garage or outbuild-ing structure when feasible.• Use the garage for parking. It may be ap-propriate to alter an historic garage to ac-commodate contemporary vehicles.• Garage doors visible from the street: - Repair rather than replace original or historic doors that are significant to the character of the garage, if technically feasible. - If repair of historic garage doors is not technically feasible, new replacement doors may be approved if they duplicate the existing size, shape, proportion, pro-files, hardware, details, glazing, panel type and design, and operation, and fit within the existing opening.• New garages or carports must be compat-ible in style, size, material, roof profile, and details with the historic principle building on the lot.• Siding on garages should match the cover material on houses, except that wood siding is acceptable in cases where the house is constructed of masonry.• Avoid demolition. See UDC Section 3.13 for any proposed demolition in the Overlay Districts.• In some cases, it may be appropriate to re-position the historic garage on its original site in order to accommodate other needs.• Also incorporate on-street parking spaces in calculations for parking needs, where allowed by HARC. See UDC Section 9.02.060.
Preserve a garage that may have historic significance,
when feasible.
Page 112 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 100 Page 113 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 81
Chapter 8
Design guiDelines for site Design
This chapter presents design guidelines for site design. The design guidelines are organized into a series of relevant design topics. Within each category, individual policies and design guidelines are presented, which the City will use in determin-ing the appropriateness of the work proposed. Note that other standards set forth in the Unified Development Code shall also apply.
Public StreetscapeFundamentally, streetscape designs should help to establish a sense of visual continuity in an area and they should be compatible with any historic resources found there.
Building and Street LightingThe character of lighting design and level of inten-sity of the resulting illumination are key consider-ations. Traditionally, lights were simple in character and were used to highlight entrances, walkways, and signs. Most fixtures had incandescent lamps that cast a color similar to daylight, were relatively low in intensity, and were shielded with simple shade devices. Although new lamp types may be considered, the overall effect of modest, focused light should be continued.
Historic Landscape FeaturesIn the commercial core, landscape designs were historically simple, while a variety of site features appeared in the residential parts of downtown. Wood and metal fences often defined property boundaries. Concrete sidewalks were popular and lined many streets. A variety of plantings, including trees, lawns, and shrubbery also occurred. Each of these elements, along with paths, trails, and streams contributed to the historic character of the city. They also added variety in scale, texture, and materials to the street scene, providing interest and shade to pedestrians.
Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, and Other Equipment Utilities that serve properties may include tele-phone and electrical lines, ventilation systems, gas meters, air conditioners, fire protection, telecom-munication, and alarm systems. Adequate space for these utilities should be planned in a project from the outset and they should be designed such that their visual impacts are minimized. Service ar-eas for trash and recycling containers and loading facilities should be carefully planned as an integral part of a site. At the same time, the visual impacts of service areas should be minimized. While solar energy collecting devices might not always be considered as mechanical or service equipment, for the proposes of these Design Guidelines they shall be.
ParkingPublic parking lots and garages were not a part of Georgetown’s early history. However, cars are a fact of life in the downtown today, and the visual impacts associated with their storage should be carefully planned.
In This Chapter:Public streetscape 82 Lighting 89Landscape features 91Mechanical equipment 93Parking 94
See also the Downtown Master Plan, City of Georgetown, TX - Streetscape requirements for furniture, sidewalk and intersection types, street furniture, street lights, etc. Compliance with these standards shall also be considered in determining the appropriateness of specific elements. See the Unified Development Code Chapter 11 related to the impervious cover and stormwater detention requirements for proper-ties located in the Overlay Districts
Page 114 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 82
Policy: The public streetscape in Area 1 should enhance the pedestrian experience without being an obstacle to traffic or commerce.
The sidewalks, lights, landscaping, and street furnishings all contribute to the pedestrian-friendly environment in downtown Georgetown. These elements should be preserved, enhanced, and expanded. Sidewalks vary in construction and quality. While many sidewalks are concrete, some include brick as an accent element, or are com-pletely brick themselves. Curb ramps have also been installed at some corners to facilitate access. Also, while several areas already have amenities in place that enhance the pedestrian experience, additional furnishings should be considered to enhance the area.
8.1 Preserve significant sidewalk features.• The alignment with other original sidewalks, the street and overall town grid is of primary importance.• Replace only those portions that are de-teriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size, and finish.
8.2 When new sidewalks are to be installed, they shall be compatible with the traditional character of the streetscape.• A new sidewalk should align with those that already exist along a block.• Decorative paving should be used through-out the Downtown Overlay as noted in the Downtown Master Plan. Such paving shall be of the same design, character, and instal-lation as that already in use by the City in and around the County Courthouse Historic District.• Sidewalks and crosswalks should be con-sistent with the sidewalk, intersection, and crosswalk designs in the Downtown Master Plan.
Preserve significant sidewalk features. This stepped
curb, for example, may have historic significance.
When new sidewalks are to be installed, they shall be
of the same design, character, and installation as that
already in use by the City.
Page 115 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 83
Benches, bike racks, and trash receptacles are
examples of street furnishings that are appropriate.
Street furnishings and sidewalk displays should not
interfere with pedestrian traffic.
Maintain a clear pathway along the sidewalk.
8.3 Street furniture should be simple in design and match those already established around the square. • Benches, bike racks, planters or pots, stat-ues, trash receptacles and, in the event of a sidewalk sale, merchandise displays are examples of street furnishings that are ap-propriate.• Where utilized, benches should be the same as those already in use in the downtown. See the Downtown Master Plan for the streetscape design and location criteria.• The Area 1 wooden benches are constructed of solid teak wood. See the Planning Depart-ment for the specifics of the bench style. Alternative design and/or materials may be considered by HARC.• In Area 2, the benches and waste recep-tacles should be black metal slat design. Alternative design and/or materials may be considered by HARC. • Advertising promotions on benches is not allowed under any circumstance.• Individual furnishings should be of designs such that they may be combined with other street furniture in a coherent composition.
8.4 Avoid materials that are incompatible with the character of the district.• Concrete, exposed aggregate, plastic, un-finished wood, and polished metal are inap-propriate.
8.5 Street furniture should be located in areas of high pedestrian activity.• Locate furniture at pedestrian route intersec-tions and major building entrances and near outdoor gathering places.
8.6 Street furnishings should be clustered in “groupings,” when feasible.• Street furnishings and sidewalk displays should not interfere with pedestrian traffic.• For example, use planters and covered or enclosed waste receptacles to frame spaces for benches.• Install benches in high pedestrian traffic areas and/or areas of interest.
Page 116 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 84
8.7 Position a bench to provide a sense of comfort.• Buffer the bench from traffic; for example, position a planter between the bench and the curb.• Avoid locating a bench close to the curb.
8.8 Cluster waste receptacles with other fur-nishings. • The design of the receptacles should be compatible with other existing furnishings.
8.9 When feasible, cluster planters with other furnishings. • Install freestanding planters on either side of a store entrance, at seating areas, along edges of parking lots, in pedestrian plazas, and in clustered furnishing areas.• A planter should be large enough to be easily seen, but not so large as to cause an obstruc-tion to pedestrian traffic.• Conventional home-style planters, such as those constructed of redwood or ordinary terracotta pottery, as well as over-sized concrete plant tubs are not appropriate.
8.10 Outdoor dining and seating areas should be simple in design and compatible with the approved street furniture as detailed in the Downtown Master Plan.• Furniture and fixtures must not be secured to trees, lampposts, street signs, hydrants, or any other street infrastructure by means of ropes, chains, or any other such devices, whether during restaurant operating hours or at times when the restaurant is closed.• All furniture and fixtures must be maintained in good visual appearance and in a clean condition at all times.• All furniture and fixtures must be durable and of sufficiently sturdy construction as not to blow over with normal winds.• All furniture and fixtures must contribute to the overall atmosphere of the Overlay District and must be complementary in both appear-ance and quality.
Design site furnishings and waste receptacles to be
compatible with one another.
Page 117 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 85
8.11 Tables and chairs are allowed without approval of a CDC if they meet the follow-ing guidelines; otherwise HARC approval is required based upon the intent of the guide-lines.• Tables and chairs may be colored or of a natural unpainted material (i.e. wood, metal (treated to prevent rust), etc.). Tables and chairs are not permitted to be plastic or of any fluorescent or other strikingly bright or vivid color.• Upholstered chairs suitable for outdoor use are permitted, but the upholstery may not be any fluorescent or other strikingly bright or vivid color.• All chairs used within a particular establish-ment’s outdoor seating area must match each other by being of visually similar design, construction, and color.• Other furniture such as serving stations, bar counters, shelves, racks, sofas, televisions, trash receptacles, heaters, and torches are not permitted, unless HARC determines that these items are sufficiently setback or screened from view of the public.
High quality tables and chairs contribute to the overall
atmosphere of the Overlay District.
Page 118 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 86
8.12 Umbrellas are allowed without approval of a CDC if they meet the following guidelines. Any proposed umbrella that does not meet the guidelines maybe approved by HARC if they determine the intent of the guidelines has been met.• Umbrellas shall be appropriately designed and sized for the location where they will be utilized.• Umbrellas must be free of advertisements and all elements contained within the outdoor dining area, and at the lowest dimension of an extended umbrella must be at least 7 feet above the sidewalk surface and not block the main walking path or create a hazard. Any proposed umbrella signage will need CDC approval and to be included with the overall sign package for the property.• Any part of an umbrella used in an outdoor seating area may not exceed a height of 120” (10 feet) above the level of the sidewalk.• Umbrellas must blend appropriately with the surrounding built environment; therefore, umbrella fabric may not be fluorescent or other strikingly bright or vivid color. In addi-tion, only one fabric color is allowed.• Umbrella fabric must be of a material suitable for outdoor use, and must be canvas-type. No plastic fabrics, plastic/vinyl-laminated fabrics, grass, or rigid materials of any type are permitted for use as umbrellas within an outdoor seating area.• Umbrellas should not block views of build-ing signs or windows, especially those of adjacent properties.• A 4 foot clear area must be maintained on all sidewalks to allow pedestrian traffic. So, smaller tables and chairs are generally pre-ferred to meet this requirement.• No sidewalk coverings or raised platforms are allowed, unless the outdoor seating area is not located on the sidewalk.• No extra or additional signage is permitted solely as a result of an outdoor seating area. If any signage is proposed it should be in-cluded as part of the overall sign package for the property.• Any proposed fence related to an outside eating or sitting area for a nonresidential use is required to have HARC approval.
Umbrellas provide shade and contribute to the
ambiance of outdoor seating and dining areas.
Page 119 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 87
Trees and flowering plants help provide interest to pedestrians, as well as shaded protection from the summer sun. Therefore, the use of street trees and planters is strongly encouraged.
8.13 Use indigenous, native, and drought-tol-erant plant materials when feasible.• Locate street trees along edges of sidewalks, maintaining a clearly defined pedestrian travel zone.• Locate street trees in larger planting areas, such as buffer strips adjacent to parking lots and/or pocket parks.• Provide underground irrigation systems where long-term growth will not impact the irrigation system.• Use flowers to provide seasonal colors.
8.14 Install new street trees to enhance the pedestrian experience.• Install new trees where walkway widths per-mit.• Replace trees that are diseased or have passed their life cycle.• The height of a street tree should be mini-mized, however, to avoid blocking views of storefronts and interesting details.
Policy: Using trees and flowering plants is strongly encouraged.
Trees and flowering plants help provide interest to
pedestrians, as well as shaded protection from the
summer sun.
Page 120 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 88
8.15 In Area 1, provide electrical service for string lights in trees..• Use of string lights should generally be lim-ited to the traditional end of year and new year holidays and other special occasions where there is a multi-business lighting event scheduled that includes the Downtown Overlay District.• String lights in trees shall not be left in the trees year round, to protect the health of the tree.• String lights shall be maintained in appear-ance and installation.• Unless an approved project by the City, prop-erty owners are discouraged from plugging into City owned outlets for personal use of lights.• The use of lights to highlight a building’s architecture, canopies, and windows may be appropriate and effective. • Properties outside of Area 1 are encouraged to provide electrical service for string lights in trees, especially those properties along Austin Avenue, Main Street, and University Avenue.
Highlighting a building’s architecture may be appropriate
and effective.
String lights add a festive touch to the area.
Page 121 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 89
Policy: Site lighting should be used to enhance the pedestrian experience at night by providing a well-lit environment.
Provide lighting for pedestrian routes that is low scaled
for walking.
Streetscape lighting in Area 1 should match that
adopted for use by the City.
Note that sidewalk lighting may be supple-mented with shielded lighting in canopies that project from building fronts. See the section on canopies in Chapter 10.
Lighting on a site is important for aesthetics and safety, and, on commercial properties for customer awareness. Traditionally, lights were simple in character and were used to highlight buildings, signs, entrances, first floor details, walkways, and buildings. Today, the lights are also used to light parking lots. Most fixtures had incandescent lamps that cast a warm color, were relatively low in inten-sity and were shielded with simple shade devices. Site lighting should reinforce the visual continuity of downtown. The light fixtures (luminaires) and poles (standards) should be unifying design elements that promote visual interest and variety.
8.16 Use lighting for the following: • To accent architectural details• To accent building entrances• To accent signs• To illuminate sidewalks and pedestrian routes• To illuminate parking and service areas, for safety concerns• To illuminate a state or national flag
8.17 Provide low-scale lighting for pedestrian routes.• Lighting along the right-of-way should be a combination of pedestrian-scaled street lights and spillover from lights on adjacent buildings. Lighting in this location should be designed to be comfortable to pedestrians.• The position of a lamp in a light fixture on a pedestrian way should not exceed fifteen feet in height.
Page 122 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 90
8.18 Streetscape lighting in the Downtown Overlay District should be the same as that adopted for use by the City.• Note that while these design guidelines en-courage the use of “shielded” light sources, the luminaires in use by the City in Area 1 are not. This is appropriate only in Area 1.• See the Downtown Master Plan for street
lighting requirements.• Note that sidewalk lighting may be supple-mented with shielded lighting in canopies that project from building fronts. See the section on canopies in Chapter 10.
8.19 Lighting for parking areas, service areas, buildings, pedestrian routes, and public ways in Area 2 shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare.• Note that this also applies to parking and service areas in Area 1.• Light sources that use the equivalent of 1,200 lumens per bulb or less shall be housed in fixtures and installed in a manner that will shield the lights from public view and avoid glare and light spill. • The light source shall not emit a significant amount of the fixture’s total output above a vertical cutoff angle of 90 degrees directly visible from neighboring properties. Any structural part of the fixture providing this cutoff angle shall be permanently attached.• Keep parking area lighting at a human scale. The maximum height of parking lot luminaires shall be fifteen feet. This height restriction may be exceeded to twenty-four feet if it is demonstrated that the overall vi-sual impact of lighting is less.
8.20 The light pole, or standard, should be designed to accommodate special decorative accessories.• In Area 1, mounts for hanging planter bas-kets and banners, for example, should be included. • In Area 2, the historic acorn street light de-sign should remain simple without hanging baskets.• Mounts for seasonal lighting schemes also should be considered.
8.21 Minimize the visual impacts of architec-tural lighting.• All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. • Wall-mounted floodlamps shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible off-site. Spotlights without shielding devices are not allowed.• A lamp that conveys the color spectrum similar to daylight is preferred. For example, metal halide and color-corrected sodium are appropriate.• Lighting fixtures should be appropriate to the building and its surroundings in terms of style, scale, and intensity of illumination.• Wall-mounted light fixtures should not extend above the height of the wall to which they are mounted.
8.22 Minimize the use of rope/icicle lighting Downtown.• The use of rope/icicle lighting shall not be used outside of the winter holiday season.• Window/door border lighting inside a building is inappropriate
Page 123 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 91
In areas of the Overlay Districts with traditional res-idential characteristics, site features that may have been seen historically include fences, sidewalks, walkways, and areas of private landscaping.
8.23 Preserve historic landscape features.• Existing historic landscape features, such as fences, sidewalks, and trees, should be preserved and protected during construc-tion. Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair with like design and materials.• Existing native plantings should be preserved in place. This particularly applies to signifi-cant trees and shrubs. • The use of rock and gravel is discouraged, and if used, should only occur as an accent element.• Minimize the amount of hard surface paving for patios, terraces, or drives in front yards.
8.24 In new landscape designs, use materials that are compatible with the historic context.• Landscaping schemes that are simple and subdued in character are encouraged.• Using native trees, shrubs, and wildflowers is encouraged.• Use plant materials in quantities and sizes that will have a meaningful impact in the early years of a project.• Avoid use of landscaping ties or railroad ties.• Extensive areas of exotic plantings, such as cacti and bamboo, and large ornamental rocks are inappropriate.
Policy: Where historic landscape features exist in residential areas, they should be preserved when feasible.
Existing historic landscape features, such as fences,
sidewalks, and trees, should be preserved, and should
be protected during construction.
Note that special provisions in the Unified Development Code for the preservation of Heritage and Protected Trees also apply. See Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Code, which also includes landscape and fence standards.
Page 124 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 92
8.25 A new fence may be considered in tran-sitional areas with a residential context.• A fence that defines a front yard should be low to the ground and “transparent” in na-ture.• A front yard fence should not exceed three feet in height.• Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views into front yards and are inappropriate.• Chain link, concrete block, unfaced con-crete, plastic, solid metal panel, fiberglass, plywood, and mesh construction fences are not appropriate.• A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its front yard counterpart may be considered. See UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards.
8.26 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces.• This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the “public” sidewalk, pro-ceeding along a “semi-public” walkway, to a “semi-private” porch or entry feature and ending in the “private” spaces beyond.• Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.• Use paving materials that are similar to those employed historically.
Maintain the established progression of public-to-
private spaces when considering a rehabilitation or
infill project.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
m
i
-
p
u
b
l
i
c
Se
m
i
-
Pri
v
a
t
e
A new fence may be considered in transitional areas
with a residential context. A fence that defines a front
yard should be low to the ground and “transparent” in
nature, as this one is.
Page 125 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 93
Utility service boxes, telecommunication devices, solar devices, cables, and conduits are among the variety of equipment that may be attached to a building that can affect the character of the area. Trash and recycling storage areas also are concerns. To the greatest extent feasible, these devices should be screened from public view.
8.27 Minimize the visual impact of mechanical equipment as seen from street.• Do not locate window air conditioning units on the building’s primary facade.• Use low-profile mechanical units and eleva-tor shafts on rooftops that are not visible from the public’s view. If this is not possible, setback or appropriately screen rooftop equipment from view.• Locate a satellite dish out of public view, to the extent feasible, and in compliance with other regulations.• Paint mechanical equipment attached to the building fascia the same color as the fascia in order to blend into the building.• When locating mechanical equipment be sensitive to views from the upper floors of neighboring buildings as well as other neigh-boring properties.• Character defining features of existing build-ings (i.e. roofline, chimneys, dormers) must be not be damaged or obscured when add-ing new roof mounted energy conservation systems such as solar devises.• Skylights or solar panels should have low profiles and not be visible from the public right-of-way. These features should be in-stalled in a manner which minimizes damage to historic materials.• Solar shingles may be added to a roof sur-face visible from a public right-of-way if low or non-reflective shingles are used.• Use solar panels and solar devices that are similar in color to roof materials and use non-reflective finishes.• Solar panels should not be mounted to project from walls or other parts of the build-ing.
Policy: Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment and service areas and equipment.
Do not locate window air conditioning units on a
building’s primary facade.
Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and
service boxes. This landscaping helps buffer utility
boxes.
Page 126 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 94
An on-site parking area should be located behind a
building, where its visual impacts will be minimized.
8.28 Minimize the visual impacts of utility con-nections and service boxes.• Locate them on secondary walls, when fea-sible.• Do not locate gas or electric meters on the roof.
8.29 Minimize the visual impacts of trash stor-age and service areas.• Locate service areas away from major pe-destrian routes; typically place them at the rear of a building when feasible.• Dumpsters should be screened from view.• Service areas are not to be used for storage of shipping containers, pallets, extra store fixtures, etc.
Policy: Minimize the visual impacts of a parking lot.
Note that standards for buffering the edges of parking lots are set forth in Section 8.04 of the Unified Development Code and shall also apply.
New parking facilities should be designed to be attractive, compatible additions to the downtown. Using high quality materials, providing a sense of scale in architectural details and providing active uses at the sidewalk edge are methods that can mitigate the potentially negative impacts of new parking facilities. In general, a new parking facility should remain subordinate to the street scene.
8.30 Locate a surface lot such that it will be subordinate to other site features.• An on-site parking area should be located behind a building, where its visual impacts will be minimized.• Minimize the surface area of paving materi-als. • It is not appropriate to demolish a structure on a building’s lot or surrounding lots in or-der to create additional parking. This is also relevant where a detached garage of historic significance exists on a site.
8.31 Locate a parking lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a block.• Where a parking lot shares a site with a building, place the parking at the rear of the site (preferred) or beside the building (if there are no other options).
Page 127 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 95
Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk, provide a
visual buffer. Consider the use of a wall as screen for
the edge of the lot. Materials should be compatible with
those of nearby buildings.
Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk, provide a
visual buffer. (Bellingham, WA)
Use a combination of trees and shrubs to create a
landscape buffer.
Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk, provide
a buffer.
street parking
st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
8.32 Where a parking lot abuts a public side-walk, provide a visual buffer.• This may be a landscaped strip or planter.• Consider the use of a wall as screen for the edge of the lot. • Use a combination of trees and shrubs to create a landscape buffer.• Where a parking lot exists that is presently not screened or landscaped, consider a landscaping program or an infill building that relates to the surrounding historic context.• See also the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code for more guidance on appropriate parking lot landscaping and screening.
Page 128 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 96
The ground level of a parking structure should be
wrapped by retail, office, or some other active use
along the street edge.
Preferred!
retail
parking
Not appropriate
parking
A part of this infill building is a parking structure that
is set back from the front and sides of a retail wrap.
The openings in the parking section reflect window
proportions similar to those seen historically in the
area. (Boulder, CO)
Policy: Minimize the visual impacts of a parking structure by designing it to enhance the activity of the streetscape.
Parking structures should be designed to enhance activity of the street level. At a minimum, a park-ing structure should help to animate the street and be compatible with the surroundings. The visual impact of the cars themselves should be minimized.
8.33 Design a parking structure so that it creates a visually attractive and active street edge.• When feasible, a parking structure in the area should be wrapped with retail, commercial, or another active use along the street edge to shield the cars from the street and to add activity to the street.• Other methods of accomplishing this include, but are not limited to: - Retail/commercial wrap - Murals or public art - Landscaping - Product display cases/show windows
New parking facilities should be designed to be
attractive, compatible additions to a commercial area.
Using high quality materials, providing a sense of scale
in architectural details and providing active uses at
the sidewalk edge are methods that can mitigate the
potentially negative impacts of new parking facilities.
(Lexington, KY)
Page 129 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 97
This parking structure incorporates a wrap of retail
stores along the street edge. The storefronts are
contemporary interpretations of the historic downtown
context. (Boulder, CO)
8.34 In the Downtown Overlay District, a park-ing structure shall be compatible with tradi-tional buildings in the surrounding area.• Respect the regular window pattern and other architectural elements of adjacent buildings.• Maintain the alignments and rhythms of architectural elements, as seen along the street.• Continue the use of similar building materi-als.• Avoid multiple curb cuts. These complicate turning movements and disrupt the side-walk.• Express the traditional widths of buildings in the area.
This single infill building is divided into smaller building
modules that reflect traditional building widths. Upper
floors step back from the front, thus maintaining the
traditional two-story scale of the street.
Page 130 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 98
A parking area should be located to the rear of a site.
Do not use a front yard for parking. Instead, use a long
driveway, or alley access, that leads to parking located
behind a building.
Policy: The visual impacts of parking in areas with residential character should also be minimized.
NO!YES!Existing
Condition
ALLEY
STREET
8.35 Minimize the visual impacts of a parking area.• A parking area should be located to the rear of a site.• Do not use a front yard for parking. Instead, use a long driveway, or alley access, that leads to parking located behind a building.
8.36 A new parking pad, carport, or garage should be located to the side or rear of a lot, and detached from the main structure.• Consider providing only ribbon paving. This will reduce visual impacts—as well as allow more drainage through soils.• Consider sharing a single drive and curb cut where multiple driveways are needed.• A driveway should lead directly from the street to the parking area.• A parking pad located in the front of a resi-dence is inappropriate.
Page 131 of 150
Design Guidelines for Site Design
page 99
8.37 Preserve an historic garage or outbuild-ing structure when feasible.• Use the garage for parking. It may be ap-propriate to alter an historic garage to ac-commodate contemporary vehicles.• Garage doors visible from the street: - Repair rather than replace original or historic doors that are significant to the character of the garage, if technically feasible. - If repair of historic garage doors is not technically feasible, new replacement doors may be approved if they duplicate the existing size, shape, proportion, pro-files, hardware, details, glazing, panel type and design, and operation, and fit within the existing opening.• New garages or carports must be compat-ible in style, size, material, roof profile, and details with the historic principle building on the lot.• Siding on garages should match the cover material on houses, except that wood siding is acceptable in cases where the house is constructed of masonry.• Avoid demolition. See UDC Section 3.13 for any proposed demolition in the Overlay Districts.• In some cases, it may be appropriate to re-position the historic garage on its original site in order to accommodate other needs.• Also incorporate on-street parking spaces in calculations for parking needs, where allowed by HARC. See UDC Section 9.02.060.
Preserve a garage that may have historic significance,
when feasible.
Page 132 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 100 Page 133 of 150
Design Guidelines for Infill and Additions in Old Town Overlay District
page 145
Chapter 14
Design guiDelines for
infill construction AnD ADDitions
in the olD town overlAy District
This chapter presents design guidelines that apply to non-residential and multi-family development in the Old Town Overlay District, the area that sur-rounds the Downtown Overlay District, and the construction of additions to and new construction of residential structures that propose to exceed the minimum standards of Unified Development Code Section 4.09.030.B, Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Development Regulations. The design guidelines are organized into a series of relevant design topics. Within each category, individual policies and design guidelines are pre-sented, which the City will use in determining the appropriateness of the work proposed.
This area has a history of residential buildings, with some institutional type uses such as churches and a school, with later development of some small commercial uses such as medical offices and small convenience retail sales. These non-residential uses are developed at a relatively low density, with substantial areas devoted to parking for the use. Most of the office uses are located within former residential structures that have been converted to commercial use. Overall, the District has preserved its residential feel and pedestrian-orientation with sidewalks and generally lower traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. Most of the residential buildings have some historic signifi-cance and these resources should be preserved, protected and when feasible, incorporated into new developments.
In This Chapter:Building setbacks 149Mass and scale 150Building materials 151Architectural character 152Additions 152
The area should remain primarily residential in character with a minimum of non-residential encroachment. Any improvements should occur in a manner that enhances the experience for residents, pedestrians, and to build a sense of visual relatedness between the residential and non-residential properties.
Any new design should relate to the traditional de-sign characteristics of surrounding buildings while also conveying the stylistic trends of today, as well as attempting to incorporate sustainable practices. The sense of human scale must be conveyed and maintained with any new development or conver-sion to a non-residential use.
Page 134 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 146
Summary of Key Characteristics Key design characteristics of this area include:• Buildings have similar setback alignment along the street frontage • One- to two-story, traditional residential buildings, with an occasional third floor for the grander houses• Masonry and wood are the primary construc-tion materials • First floor porches and multiple windows on all façade sides and floors • Pitched roofs• Primary building entrance that faces the street with a walkway connected to a side-walk along the street• Sidewalks and typically on-street parking• Parking accessed via a driveway with park-ing area or garage located to the rear of the main building façade• Traditional landscape features such as large trees, shrubs, and other plantings that are visible from the street
Design GoalsThe dominant character of this area should con-tinue to be that of a quiet, residential environment with a street edge that is oriented toward pedes-trian traffic from the nearby houses.
The design goals for the Old Town Overlay District are:• To rehabilitate existing historic residential buildings rather than construct new build-ings.• To respect the design period or style of residential properties with any additions or alternations.• To respect the residential character of the district.• To continue the use of traditional building materials found in the area.• To maintain traditional residential mass, size, and form of buildings seen along the street (i.e., a building should generally be a rectangular mass that is one- to two-stories in height).
• To design commercial buildings without store-front elements.• To minimize the visual impacts of automo-biles.• To locate parking to the rear of properties screened by buildings and located to limit visibility from residential properties.• To maintain a residential front yard appear-ance related to landscaping, trees, lighting, etc..Building SetbacksNew buildings and additions in Old Town need to respect the residential setbacks established over time. There should be a defined front yard that is not overly encumbered by parking.
Mass and ScaleA variety of building sizes exist in this area. While contemporary design approaches are encouraged, developments should continue to exhibit a variety of sizes, similar to the buildings seen traditionally in the neighborhood.
Building FormOne of the most prominent unifying elements of the Old Town District is the similarity in building form. Generally, residential buildings are simple rectangular solids, either wider than they are deep or deeper than they are wide. Typically, residential roof forms are pitched. These building form charac-teristics are important and should be preserved.
Building MaterialsBuilding materials of structures should contribute to the visual continuity of the area. They should appear similar to those seen traditionally to estab-lish a sense of visual continuity. Brick, stone, and wood siding are the dominant materials and their use in new construction is preferred.
Page 135 of 150
Design Guidelines for Infill and Additions in Old Town Overlay District
page 147
Architectural CharacterThere is a variety of architectural character in the Old Town area. There are simple vernacular farm houses, Sears Roebuck kit houses, and Prairie style architecture as well as more elaborate Vic-torians. Additions to existing buildings should be respectful of a building’s original style or design or in the case of subsequent renovations the period of significance and seek to not alter that significance. New construction should be sensitive to the char-acter of the existing buildings in the area and any design should attempt to maintain a similar mass and scale and be in context to the area.
Properties designated by the City as a High, Medium, or Low Priority Structure shall be given a more in-depth review, so that its architectural character is not lost or damaged by any proposed addition or alteration.
Pedestrian EnvironmentStreets, sidewalks, and landscaping should pres-ent a residential sense of scale rather than a more urban, congested appearance. Projects that have automobile activity associated with them should be designed to provide a safe environment for the pedestrian. Automobile circulation patterns, both internal and external, should be clearly identified and should not interfere with pedestrian circula-tion systems.
New ConstructionNew construction in the historic district is encour-aged if the proposed design and siting are compat-ible with the District’s character. When siting new construction, compatibility with existing setbacks, the spacing of buildings, and the orientation of buildings should be considered. Compatibility of proposed landscaping, lighting, paving, signage, and accessory buildings is also important.
The purpose of guidelines for new construction is not to prevent change in the Old Town Overlay Dis-trict, but to ensure that the District’s architectural and historic character is respected. The height, the proportion, the roof shape, the materials, the texture, the scale, and the details of the proposed building must be compatible with existing historic buildings in the District. However, compatible con-
temporary designs rather then historic duplications are encouraged.
AdditionsAn addition to a structure can radically change its perceived scale and character if inappropriately designed. When planning an addition, the effect the addition will have on the building itself should be considered. When creating an addition, keep the size of addition small in relation to the main structure. If an addition must be larger, it should be set apart from the main structure and be connected with a smaller linking element or placed to the rear, not in prominent view from the street. A design for a new addition that would create an appearance inconsistent with the character of the building, especially an historic one, is discouraged.
One also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of a street or neighbor-hood, as seen from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residential properties. For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear could be a better solution in such a case.
The compatibility of proposed additions with historic buildings will be reviewed in terms of the mass, the scale, the materials, the roof form, and the proportion and the spacing of windows and doors. Additions that echo the style of the original structure and additions that introduce compatible contemporary design are both acceptable.
Adaptive UseThe adaptive use of a residence for a commercial or office use is a distinct possibility in Georgetown. In fact, a large majority of the Downtown Overlay District is zoned Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT), which allows for a variety of uses. However, when such adaptations must occur, they should be designed to have the least impact on the historic character of a neighborhood—some of which is residential in character. Although for commercial use, these adapted properties should not be com-mercial in character. This means that the overall form of a building (with a sloping roof) and the landscaped front lawn should not be altered.
Page 136 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 148
Demolition/RelocationDemolition is forever, and once a building is gone it takes away another piece of the City’s character. Demolition of a historic building or resource that has most of its original design and features should only be an action of last resort. HARC can delay or deny requests for demolition while it seeks solu-tions for preservation and rehabilitation.
HARC should not allow the demolition or reloca-tion of any resource which has historical and/or architectural significance unless one or more of the following conditions exist and if, by a finding of HARC, the proposed demolition or relocation will materially improve or correct these conditions:
1. The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or the occupants, as determined by the Building Official.2. The resource is a deterrent to a major im-provement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all neces-sary planning and zoning approvals, financ-ing, and environmental clearances.3. Retention of the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a gov-ernmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.4. Retention of the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.
HARC should consider the following when evalu-ating proposals to demolish or relocate historic resources:
1. Does the resource proposed for demolition or relocation have architectural and/or historical significance?2. What would be the effect on surrounding buildings of demolition or relocation of the resource?3. What would be the effect on the Overlay District as a whole of demolition or relocation of the resource?4. What would be the effect on safeguarding the heritage of the City of the demolition or relocation?5. What has been the impact of any previous inappropriate alterations?6. Is the demolition solely a matter of conve-nience?7. Has the owner offered the property for sale?8. Has the owner asked a fair price?9. Has the property been marketed for a rea-sonable time?10. Has the property been advertised broadly in a reasonable manner?11. Has the owner sought the advice of a profes-sional experienced in historic preservation work?12. What would be the effect of open space in that location if the lot is to be left open?13. What would the effect of any proposed re-placement structure to the community?14. What is the appropriateness of design of any proposed replacement structure to the Overlay District?
Page 137 of 150
Design Guidelines for Infill and Additions in Old Town Overlay District
page 149
Policy: A new building should maintain the wall of the building at a residential setback.
Continuity of design within the Old Town Overlay District is a goal of the City, both in terms of con-necting individual project, houses and town blocks. Not only should a new building in Old Town be set back from the sidewalk edge, but it should be designed to provide visual interest.
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback.• Align the new non-residential building front at a setback that is in context with the area properties.• New residential buildings should meet the minimum front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased setback if the block has historically developed with an extended setback.• Generally, additions should not be added to the front facing façades.• Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
14.2 In the front yard, acknowledge the resi-dential character of the area with residential type landscape treatments.• Landscaping elements should be compat-ible with the character of the area in size, scale, and type. Free-form, suburban type landscaping is inappropriate in this setting.• Consider using landscaped beds, trees, low level lighting, sidewalks, etc. to reflect a more residential appearance of the property.• Limit front yard pavement to driveways rather than parking lots, or if parking lots are deemed necessary make them heavily screened by low level shrubs, vines, and decorative walls. Consider pavers or other less impactive materials.
Locate a new building using a residential type
setback.
Page 138 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 150
Buildings in the Old Town Overlay District should appear similar in height and width to residential structures seen traditionally in the area.
14.3 Consider dividing a larger non-residen-tial building into “modules” that are similar in scale to buildings seen traditionally.• If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimension-ally throughout the entire building.
14.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.• A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller sur-rounding structures.• A larger house should step down in height towards all setbacks, especially near smaller surrounding houses.
14.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure.• This will help reduce the perceived size of the project.• Large residential projects might utilize a detached garage to reduce the size of the main structure.
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the tra-ditional size of residential buildings.• A typical building module should not exceed 20 feet in width. The building module should be expressed with at least one of the follow-ing: - A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet - A change in primary façade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical architectural element or trim piece.• Variations in façade treatments should be continued through the structure, including its roofline and front and rear façades.
Policy: The overall mass of a new building or addition should convey a sense of human scale.
14.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.• In certain circumstances views to the court-house shall be taken into consideration when designing a new building or addition.• A new building shall not be so tall as to block views of the courthouse.
Note: See UDC Section 4.12 Courthouse View Protection Overlay District.
It is appropriate to use changes in materials as an
accent in building design. This can help to express
individual modules or units. (Boulder, CO)
Variations in façade treatments should be continued
through the structure, including its roofline and front
and rear façades.
Page 139 of 150
Design Guidelines for Infill and Additions in Old Town Overlay District
page 151
New materials should relate to the scale, durability, color, and texture of the predominate materials of old town and in the case of building additions, to the existing structure. Additions to existing historic buildings should use the same materials as the primary building.
14.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred for new non-residential buildings.• Brick and stone are preferred for new con-struction.• New materials should appear similar in character to those used traditionally. For example, wooden siding, brick, and stone should be detailed to provide a human scale.• New materials should have a demonstrated durability in the Central Texas climate. For example, some façade materials used in new construction are more susceptible to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed.• See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining and protecting historic building materials.
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.• Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate.• Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.• Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate..
Policy: Building materials for new construction should be visually compatible with the predominate materials of this area. Materials for additions should be the same materials as the predominate materials of the existing building.
Building materials that appear similar in scale, color,
texture and finish to those seen historically in the
context are preferred. (Arvada, CO)
Page 140 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 152
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.• Avoid alterations that would hinder the abil-ity to interpret the design character of the original building or period of significance.• Alterations that seek to imply an earlier pe-riod than that of the building are inappropri-ate.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main build-ing.• An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and form. It should be de-signed to remain subordinate to the main structure.• An addition to the front of a building is usually inappropriate.
Policy: Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition.
Policy: Design an addition to a residential structure to be compatible with the primary building.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen.• In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building.• An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted.• Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition.• Even applying new trim board at the con-nection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addi-tion.• See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exte-
rior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service.
An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials,
character, and character with the main building.
Page 141 of 150
Design Guidelines for Infill and Additions in Old Town Overlay District
page 153
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a build-ing or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts.• This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.• Locating an addition at the front of a structure is usually inappropriate.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and ma-terials of the primary structure.• When preserving original details and materi-als, follow the guidelines presented in this document.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and architectural style with the main building.• An addition shall relate to the historic build-ing in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.• While a smaller addition is visually prefer-able, if a residential addition would be sig-nificantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure.• An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade.• Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade.• An addition should be to the rear of the build-ing, when feasible.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building.• Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are ap-propriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings.• Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.• If the roof of the primary building is symmetri-cally proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
Page 142 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 154
Architectural details play several roles in defining the character of an historic structure and area. A building’s features are often associated with particular styles, and therefore their preservation is important.
14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be protected when additions are proposed.• See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting architectural features.
14.20 An addition shall not damage or ob-scure architecturally important features.• For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided.• Addition of a porch may be inappropriate.
14.21 An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does the following:• An addition should be set back from the pri-mary, character-defining façade, to preserve the perception of the historic scale of the building.• Its design should be modest in character, so it will not attract attention from the historic façade.• The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a subtle way.
Policy: Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include architectural features of existing building.
This two-story rear and rooftop addition is compatible
with, yet remains subordinate to, the original one-story
structure.
Page 143 of 150
Design Guidelines for Infill and Additions in Old Town Overlay District
page 155
Individual building elements give structures their sense of style and character and taken with other structures set the character for a particular area.
14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when additions are proposed.• See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving individual building elements.
Policy: Additions should maintain and where appropriate include compatible building elements.
Policy: When adapting a residence to a commercial use, respect the residential character of the building and neighborhood.
Converting a building to a new use that is different from that which its design reflects is considered to be “adaptive use”. When residential use ceases to be viable, the first preference is to choose new uses that minimize any negative changes in build-ing features. Often there are new uses that are inherently less disruptive to residential structures such as a bed and breakfast, professional offices, small specialty restaurants, and personal service businesses.
14.23 Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building and neighbor-hood.• The primary goal should be preserving the original residential character, appearance, and scale of the structure.• Building uses that are closely related to the original use are preferred. Avoid radical alterations to either the interior or exterior of the structure.• Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors.
When adapting a residence to a commercial use,
respect the residential character of the building and
neighborhood.
Page 144 of 150
City of Georgetown
page 156
14.24 When use changes demand that struc-tures be altered such that little or no use can be made of the original structure, consider mov-ing the structure to a compatible location.• This move can be made to another location on the same site or to a vacant site in the neighborhood or another neighborhood.• Historic structures should be relocated within Georgetown whenever possible.
14.25 Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition.• Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to demoli-tion. This shall include photographs and architectural drawings.• A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience.• See UDC Section 3.13 for provisions related to proposed demolition and/or relocation of historic structures.
This house was moved to a new, compatible
location.
Page 145 of 150
UP
1
8' - 0"
DUMPSTER
8' - 0"
15'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
9' -
0
"
8' -
0
"
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
COMMERCIAL
SPACE
3,630 SF
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
COVERED
AREA
COVERED
AREA
OPEN
ABOVE
MECH.
OU
T
D
O
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
AR
E
A
120' - 0"
12
0
'
-
0
"
8' - 0"8' - 0"
STAIROPEN ABOVE
18'
-
0
"
ELEV.
CORRIDOR
STAIR
15'
-
0
"
120' - 0"
12
0
'
-
0
"
CH
U
R
C
H
S
T
.
8TH STREET
EXISTING STREET PARKING HC
STALL
SIDEWALK
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
OH AWNING
OH AWNING
DUMPSTER TRUCK
DRIVE AISLE
TRANS.
BOX
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
C
K
W
A
L
L
-
O
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
EXISTING
GARAGE
STRUCTURE
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
120' - 0"
12
0
'
-
0
"
CH
U
R
C
H
S
T
.
8TH STREET
EXISTING STREET PARKING HC
STALL
120' - 0"
SIDEWALK
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
C
K
W
A
L
L
-
O
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
UNDEVELOPED
SITE
12
0
'
-
0
"
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
1" = 10'-0"
A7
SITE PLANS
WS-DE
20
4
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
A
S
T
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
10-27-17
1" = 10'-0"1 ARCH SITE PLAN
25 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY
9 EXISTING PARKING SPACES @ 8TH ST.
34 TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES
1" = 10'-0"2 EXISTING SITE PLAN
N
LOT AREA
ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING & PROPOSED USE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA
EXISTING FAR
PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA
PROPOSED FAR
14,400 sf
C-1
MIX-USE
COMMERECIAL
528 sf
3.7%
4,109 sf
28.5%
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOCATION REFERENCE
MAP
PROJECT
SITE
COURTHOUSE
Page 146 of 150
1st FLOOR
0' - 0"
2nd FLOOR
12' - 0"
1st FLOOR PH
10' - 0"
2nd FLOOR PH
21' - 0"
(9' - 0")
3rd FLOOR PH
31' - 6"
4th FLOOR PH
42' - 0"
PARTY RM. PH
52' - 6"
3rd FLOOR
22' - 6"
4th FLOOR
33' - 0"
ROOF DECK
44' - 0"
ELEV. PH
54' - 6"
147147 147
PARTY RM. FLR.
HT.
44' - 6"
AVERAGE ROOF HT.
56' - 6"
1'
-
6
"
PARAPET WALL HT. 45' - 6"
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(8' - 0")
(F.F.E. = 751' - 3")
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE42" H. RAIL
5' - 0"2' - 0"
4
12
2
12
CAST STONE PARAPET CAP
RED BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - BRONZE
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
METAL AWNING
BRONZE
BRONZE WINDOW
& DOOR TRIM
9' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
12' - 8"
8'
-
0
"
13' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
7' - 6 1/2"
8'
-
0
"
9' - 0"6'
-
0
"
ANTIQUE
RED BRICK
10' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
BEIGE STUCCO
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
OPEN TO
PARKING AREA
BEIGE STUCCO
RED BRICK
2' - 0"14' - 10 3/4"2' - 0"13' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 0"60' - 1 1/4"11' - 0"2' - 0"
111' - 0"
18' - 7 1/4"13' - 0"6' - 3 1/2"4' - 5 1/4"9' - 0"4' - 5"11' - 6 1/2"30' - 3 1/4"8' - 5 1/2"5' - 0"
LIGHT
BRICK
A3
3
8' - 0"
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHURCH ST.
ELEVATION
CHURCH ST.
ELEVATION
SIDEWALK
PARAPET WALL HT. 45' - 6"
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
42" H. RAIL
CAST STONE PARAPET CAP RED BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
METAL AWNING
BRONZE
BRONZE WINDOW
& DOOR TRIM
OPEN TO
PARKING AREA
RED BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
BEIGE STUCCO
BEIGE STUCCO
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
RED BRICK
4
12
2
12
2' - 0"27' - 5 1/2"5' - 0"
3' - 0"
13' - 7 1/2"25' - 1 3/4"12' - 0"12' - 1 1/4"12' - 0"11' - 9 1/4"24' - 10 3/4"7' - 5 1/2"
6'
-
0
"
6' - 0"8'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
2' - 0"11' - 7 1/2"2' - 0"21' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"11' - 0"9' - 5 3/4"2' - 0"22' - 8"2' - 0"23' - 3 1/2"2' - 0"7' - 5 1/2"
119' - 0"
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
WHITE BACK LIT
LETTERS @ 30" H.
2'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2' - 0 1/2"
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
As indicated
A3
8TH & EAST
ELEVATIONS
WS-DE
20
4
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
A
S
T
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
10-27-17
3/16" = 1'-0"2 8th St. ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES
NAME
RED BRICK
LIGHT BRICK
STONE
STUCCO
BANDING
TRIM/ROOFING
DESCRIPTION
ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494
ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER" ELP-430, 810998
BORAL BRICK - FOUNDATION HEWN LIMESTONE
"DESERT BEIGE" MERLEX P-174
AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232
REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM
1/4" = 1'-0"3 CALLOUT of SIGNAGE
ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE IS BEING APPLIED
AND APPROVED SEPARATELY
Page 147 of 150
1st FLOOR
0' - 0"
2nd FLOOR
12' - 0"
1st FLOOR PH
10' - 0"
2nd FLOOR PH
21' - 0"
3rd FLOOR PH
31' - 6"
4th FLOOR PH
42' - 0"
PARTY RM. PH
52' - 6"
3rd FLOOR
22' - 6"
4th FLOOR
33' - 0"
ROOF DECK
44' - 0"
ELEV. PH
54' - 6"
PARTY RM. FLR.
HT.
44' - 6"
(9' - 0")
AVERAGE ROOF HT.
56' - 6"
PARAPET WALL HT. 45' - 6"
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(8' - 0")
(F.F.E. = 751' - 3")
PARAPET WALL HT. 45' - 6"
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZESTANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
42" H. RAIL
CAST STONE PARAPET CAP
RED BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
METAL AWNING
BRONZE
BRONZE WINDOW
& DOOR TRIM
OPEN TO
PARKING AREA
RED BRICK
RED BRICK
BEIGE STUCCO
BEIGE STUCCO
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - BRONZE
2' - 0"83' - 6"2' - 0"13' - 6"2' - 0"14' - 0"2' - 0"
119' - 0"
5' - 0"8' - 5 1/2"41' - 9 1/2"12' - 0"26' - 8 1/2"12' - 0"13' - 0 1/2"
8'
-
0
"
10' - 0"6'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
7' - 7"
8'
-
0
"
13' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
12' - 8"
8'
-
0
"
12' - 3 1/2"
8'
-
0
"
5' - 0"27' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"
3' - 0"
1' - 0"
4' - 0"4'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
2
12
4
12
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
PARAPET WALL HT. 45' - 6"
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF - BROZE
42" H. RAIL
CAST STONE PARAPET CAP
RED BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONECHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONECHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
LIGHT
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
LIMESTONE
METAL AWNING
BRONZE
BRONZE WINDOW
& DOOR TRIM
OPEN TO
PARKING AREA
RED BRICK
LIGHT
BRICK LIGHT
BRICK
BEIGE STUCCO
6' - 0"6'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
2
12
BEIGE STUCCO
2' - 0"28' - 3 3/4"2' - 0"36' - 1 3/4"2' - 0"6' - 7 1/2"2' - 0"13' - 0"2' - 0"14' - 10 3/4"2' - 0"
111' - 0"
31' - 1 1/2"12' - 9 1/2"12' - 0"14' - 6 3/4"13' - 7 1/2"12' - 0"14' - 10 3/4"
5' - 0"35' - 7 1/4"2' - 0"
8' - 0"
9'
-
6
1
/
4
"
LIGHT
BRICK
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
As indicated
A4
CHURCH &
SOUTH
ELEVATIONS
WS-DE
20
4
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
A
S
T
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
10-27-17
3/16" = 1'-0"1 CHURCH St. ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES
NAME
RED BRICK
LIGHT BRICK
STONE
STUCCO
BANDING
TRIM/ROOFING
DESCRIPTION
ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494
ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER" ELP-430, 810998
BORAL BRICK - FOUNDATION HEWN LIMESTONE
"DESERT BEIGE" MERLEX P-174
AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232
REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM
Page 148 of 150
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
A9
PRESENTATION
SHEET
WS-DE
20
4
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
A
S
T
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
10-27-17
8th STREET NORTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE
8th STREET NORTHEAST CORNER PERSPECTIVE
ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER"
ELP-430, 810998
ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS"
OKP-515, 820494
BORAL BRICK - FOUNDATION HEWN LIMESTONE
METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM
REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM
STUCCO - "DESERT BEIGE"
MERLEX P-174
BANDING - AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
Page 149 of 150
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
A10
PRESENTATION
SHEET
WS-DE
20
4
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
A
S
T
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
10-27-17
AERIAL FROM COURTHOUSE
AERIAL TO COURTHOUSE
ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER"
ELP-430, 810998
ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS"
OKP-515, 820494
BORAL BRICK - FOUNDATION HEWN LIMESTONE
METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM
REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM
STUCCO - "DESERT BEIGE"
MERLEX P-174
BANDING - AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
Page 150 of 150