HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_12.04.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission Demolition Subcommittee
of the City of Georgetown
December 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM
at Planning Department, located at 406 W. 8th 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 Th e Demolition Subcommittee will meet first on site a t 1 3 1 3 Williams to review th e stru cture(s). If
additiona l d iscu ssion and meetin g is needed, th e grou p will recess a nd recon ven e at th e Pla n n ing
Departmen t's office loca ted a t 4 0 6 W. 8 th S treet.
B Dis cus s ion and pos s ible recommend ation fo r the d emo lition of a medium p rio rity struc ture loc ated at
1313 Williams Drive – Madison Tho mas , AIC P, His toric and Do wntown P lanner
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 __________________, 2018, 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 1 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 4, 2018
SUBJECT:
The Demolition S u b committee will meet first on site at 1313 Willia ms to review the structu re(s). If
a d d ition a l discussion a n d meeting is needed , the g roup will recess and reconvene a t the Plannin g
Dep a rtmen t's office located at 406 W. 8 th Street.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 2 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 4, 2018
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and p o s s ib le rec o mmendatio n for the demolitio n o f a med ium priority s tructure lo cated at 1313
Williams Drive – Madis on Tho mas , AICP, His toric and Do wntown Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The ap p licant is req ues ting demolitio n o f the medium priority s tructure citing c ompelling p ublic interest and
lo s s of s ignific anc e. T he ap p licant has p lans to demolish the existing struc ture.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 2-Supporting Documents Exhibit
Exhibit 3- His toric Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Demolition Proces s Exhibit
Exhibit-5 HARC Demolition Approval Criteria Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Demolition Subcommittee Report & Recommendation Exhibit
Page 3 of 27
P a g e 1 | 4
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION - Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in
the total square footage of the existing structure
Georgetown Independent School District – Applicant
The Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the demolition of the “Old” McCoy Elementary School site located on approximately 16.1 acres of land
at 1313 Williams Drive in the City of Georgetown (“City”). The property is outside of the Historic Overlay
District and is bordered by Park Lane, Shannon Street and Williams Drive. The site includes all of Lot 1,
McCoy School Subdivision.
The demolition is necessary for the following reasons:
1. Removes an obsolete, non-marketable structure that is subject to further deterioration and
vandalism.
2. Deteriorating structures are a public health and safety risk.
3. Clears the site to increase its economic value by restoring the land to a productive taxable use.
4. Restoring the land to a taxable use benefits the City of Georgetown with added tax base and the
addition of a new thoroughfare, while GISD benefits with a substantial increase in its taxable base in
support of needed school facilities.
The existing school buildings are structurally obsolete for use as a modern school site. Built in 1963 to
accommodate a much smaller attendance base and different minimum standards, GISD is no longer able
to use this structure in its current condition. The structure no longer meets modern day health, safety,
accessibility requirements, adequate classroom sizes and other requirements mandated by TEA
Standards. The buildings have been altered several times and now have many structural issues that
require extensive repairs and/or replacement for full-time use. For these and other reasons, GISD
abandoned this structure for classroom use in 2012. A new McCoy elementary school has already been
built in a safer and more appropriate location suited to meet the needs of the community and TEA
requirements.
The demolition is being requested under two criteria:
1. Loss of Significance combined with;
2. A Compelling Public Interest
1. LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Alterations to Original Structure.
As the needs and demands of the school changed, the building was altered several times with changes
to the original structure. In 1979, a wing was added to the south side of the building to house additional
classrooms. In the 1970’s, central air-conditioning was installed that required alterations to roof and
ceilings throughout the building. In 1986, a new and larger cafeteria was added. Alterations were made
to the original gymnasium over time, and the gym’s roof support beams are currently failing causing a
safety concern. Many windows throughout the school have been replaced. These changes/additions to
the original building have significantly impacted the historic significance of the original building and
architecture.
Page 4 of 27
P a g e 2 | 4
Contribution to the neighborhood.
When the original school was built, it was located on the “outskirts” of the town in an area thought to
become primarily residential. As time evolved and IH-35 was built adjacent to the site, the City’s
commercial base has grown to become the dominant presence in this vicinity. The school is no longer
integral to the surrounding neighborhood and, as mentioned earlier, has been relocated to a more
appropriate site.
Adapting the building for other uses.
Renovating the campus buildings to modern day use is cost prohibitive to both private developers and
GISD taxpayers. Neither the district nor developers can take reasonable, practical or viable measures to
use, rehabilitate or restore the campus buildings without a complete demolition. With modern day
security requirements and changing area demographics, the site is no longer geographically appropriate
for its location as a school.
As seen in the attached financial report prepared by HR&A Advisors (a real estate and economic
development consultant) commissioned by the City in June 2017, potential private developers are
unlikely to obtain a reasonable rate of return on their investment if undertaking a renovation or re-
development of the existing campus. The costs for bringing building and fire codes up to current
standards, modern parking requirements, environmental mitigation including asbestos, HVAC
requirements, American Disability Act (ADA) requirements, utility demands and structural components
quickly exceed any efforts to ensure a reasonable rate of return on investment for
renovation/restoration by a private entity. Therefore, its current configuration, size and condition
prevents buyers from proposing reasonable offers for purchasing this site as is.
2. COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST
The compelling public interest for demolishing this structure is more clearly detailed in this same report
from HR&A Advisors.
In addition to cleaning up a potential “eyesore” and possible health and safety issues, the public will
benefit by restoring substantial property to the tax base. In order to reach the full economic potential
for the site, thus benefitting the public at large, the report recommends that it is necessary to demolish
the existing structure. The site is functionally obsolete and has structural deficiencies that are, or could
rapidly become, a health and safety hazard compelling the need for a timely demolition.
Page 5 of 27
P a g e 3 | 4
Specifically, the general public benefits from the ultimate sale and development of the entire school site
through:
1. Improved Mobility. A bisecting portion of this tract has already been purchased by the City for
the extension of Rivery Boulevard to Northwest Boulevard for much needed traffic relief from
Williams Drive. Construction is currently under way on this street.
2. Rezoning. Once cleared, the property will be properly zoned to accommodate future
development.
3. Increase Property and Sales Tax base. The City, County, and GISD (and thereby the citizens)
benefit by restoring a large-scale non-tax producing site to a productive, tax contributing site.
4. School Funding - Immediate needs. GISD benefits through the sale of the property at
commercial prices that will go towards funding much needed school facilities while lessening the
need for added public debt financing.
5. School Funding – Future needs. GISD benefits from placing viable commercial property tax base
into service which will go towards perpetual funding of future needs as the district’s demands
increase.
Compiled from the HR&A Advisors report:
Build Out Analysis –
HR&A estimates that “full build-out of the potential 1.1 million square feet of development shown in the
plans for Williams Boulevard would result in increased annual tax revenues for the City of Georgetown
of $610,000, and an annual increase of revenues of $1,970,000 for the Georgetown Independent School
District. The development would increase assessed improvement and land values by $140 million, of
which most of the increase in value, $130 million, would be the result of improvement due to new
construction of denser and more valuable uses. The remaining $10 million in increased values would be
due to higher assessed real estate value. Of that $10 million in increased land value, the majority would
result from the transition of the GISD site from public ownership to private ownership.”
Pro-forma-
Per the HR&A feasibility analysis: “While the feasibility analysis evaluates current market conditions, the
conceptual development is anticipated to occur in phases with the second and third phases in years 6
and 11 respectively. As a result, this feasibility analysis reveals the degree to which the market must
evolve before the projected construction year to make phase III in particular attractive to private
developers. It should be noted that the first phase of the conceptual development which offers more
urban style townhouses and apartments may help catalyze this market transformation by introducing
products that align with the ultimate corridor vision. Success of this initial phase may help increase the
achievable rents for subsequent phases, beginning the desired market transformation.”
“In the interim, the City of Georgetown could take low-cost steps to facilitate the transformation of the
Center Study Area market and increase achievable rents in order to make higher density projects like the
conceptual development feasible. Sample actions include:
▪ Partnering with GISD to release a Request-for-Expressions-of-Interest for the project site to
invite private developers to submit development ideas, helping reveal and generate market
interest.
▪ Preparing the site for development by demolishing and clearing the existing school building.
Page 6 of 27
P a g e 4 | 4
▪ Activating the site through interim uses such as farmers markets, food truck stalls, and by
holding public events on the property.”
ATTACHMENTS
In support of this application, attached is an economic impact report from HR&A Advisors, an existing
survey/site plan of the structures, and supporting photos.
P:\22000-22999\22600-McCoy Elem\COA-Demo McCoy Site\CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION-GISD McCoy-Revised 1.docx
Page 7 of 27
Page 8 of 27
Appendix E
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Page 9 of 27
Williams Drive – Build Out Financial Analysis. June 16, 2017 1
Williams Drive Build-Out Financial Analysis
Results of the Build-Out Financial Analysis
HR&A estimates that full build-out of the potential 1.1 million square feet of development shown in the plans
for Williams Boulevard would result in increased annual tax revenues for the City of Georgetown of $610,000,
and an annual increase of revenues of $1,970,000 for the Georgetown Independent School District.1 The
development would increase assessed improvement and land values by $140 million, of which most of the
increase in value, $130 million, would be the result of improvement due to new construction of denser and
more valuable uses. The remaining $10 million in increased values would be due to higher assessed real
estate value. Of that $10 million in increased land value, the majority would result from the transition of the
GISD site from public ownership to private ownership.
As a portion of the development sites shown in the plans are in the Williams Gateway TIRZ and a portion
are not, some of the increased municipal taxes would increase the TIRZ revenues and a portion would
increase the general fund. HR&A estimates that the TIRZ would gain approximately $450,000 in revenue
annually as a result of the development and that the general fund would increase by approximately
$150,000 annually. Approximately $250,000 of the increase in revenue to the TIRZ would come from the
first three phases of the GISD site build-out anticipated begin construction in years 1, 6 and 11 respectively.
The remaining $200,000 in increased annual revenue to the TIRZ would be the result of the fourth phase
consisting mostly of development of the land across Williams Drive, for which there is no estimated start date
at this time.
While this analysis calculated the impacts to real estate values and taxes from the developed properties,
the City of Georgetown may also benefit from increased property values in nearby properties that were
not in the plan area, as well as from sales tax associated with the increase in retail space. The increase in
retail space may spur an increase in retail sales, increasing revenues through the City of Georgetown’s 2%
sales tax.2 The specific amount that sales taxes would increase depend upon the type and volume of the
retail stores that occupy the available spaces, and are unforeseeable at this time. In addition, it is likely that
development of the scale and scope anticipated would affect the value of surrounding properties, further
increasing the annual property taxes to an unknown degree.
Methodology
HR&A conducted a high-level estimate of the anticipated increase to the City of Georgetown’s annual
property tax revenues resulting from the build-out of the Georgetown Independent School District (GISD)
1 Analysis uses consistent 2016 tax rates and assessment values.
2 Total sales taxes in Georgetown are 8.25%.
Page 10 of 27
Williams Drive – Build Out Financial Analysis. June 16, 2017 2
site with the development shown in the Williams Drive Study Area conceptual build-out plan. This analysis
applied the 2015/2016 City of Georgetown tax rate, $0.434 per $100 of value, to the net increase in
assessed value of improvements (constructed buildings) and land. HR&A applied the 2016 GISD property
tax rate of 1.409 per $100 of valuation to estimate the increased tax revenues for the Georgetown
Independent School District as a result of full build-out.
To estimate the net increase in assessed value of the improvements to the GISD site and subject parcels,
HR&A took the following steps:
Reviewed the assessed value per square feet of improvements on comparable, recently constructed
properties in Georgetown
Applied the resulting estimated improvement value per square foot to the total anticipated
development of the GISD site and surrounding parcels
Subtracted the value of the current improvements on the privately owned parcels
To identify all multi-story office or multi-family developments in Georgetown constructed between 2010 and
2016, HR&A first used the CoStar real estate database, yielding seven comparable properties. HR&A then
looked up the assessed improvement value of these seven comparable properties using the Williamson
County Tax Assessor Collector website property search function. The assessed value of improvements on
these seven properties ranged from $80 to $215 per square foot of improvement area, with a mean value
of $128 and a median of approximately $120 per square foot. HR&A applied the median estimate of
$120 per square foot to calculate the value of the single-use improvements anticipated under plan build-
out, such as townhouses, apartments, and retail. HR&A assumes that these single-use buildings will be wood-
frame construction, and therefore similar to the median assessed improvement value of the comparable
properties. For mixed-use buildings anticipated in the plan, HR&A assumes they will combine a concrete
retail podium with a wood frame residential component above. To account for the higher cost of this form of
construction, HR&A used a value 25% higher than the median ($150 per square foot) to estimate the
improvement value of these mixed-use buildings.
HR&A then applied these two assessment values to the total square footage of development anticipated for
full build-out in the plan, depending on the type of construction of each building. HR&A converted the listed
rentable square feet shown on the plan build-out graphics to total building square footage by increasing
the size of the mixed-use buildings by a factor of 1.25, consistent with the assumption that 80% of the
building space is rentable. No similar adjustment was made to the size of single-use buildings such as
townhomes and retail as these buildings do not typically have common areas and thus rentable area is equal
to the total building size.
Page 11 of 27
Williams Drive – Build Out Financial Analysis. June 16, 2017 3
To estimate the net value of future improvements, HR&A reduced the total assessed improvement estimate
by the value of the current improvements on the subject properties as reported on the Williamson County
Tax Assessor Collector website.3
To estimate the increase in land values, HR&A first calculated the current assessed value per square foot of
property for each parcel in the plan area, finding that the assessed land values ranged from a low of $3
to a high of $13 per square foot. In contrast, the assessed value of land for the seven recently constructed
comparable office and multi-family properties was generally between $7 and $8.5 per square foot. Based
on the assessed land value of these comparable properties and the properties within the plan area valued
at $13 per square foot, HR&A assumed that under full build-out assessed land value in the plan area would
average to $10 per square foot. From this resulting total future estimate, HR&A subtracted the current
assessed land values as reported by the Williamson County Tax Assessor Collector website to arrive at the
potential net increase. The exception to this approach is the GISD site which is currently owned by a public
agency. Under public ownership this property produces no property tax revenues, but HR&A assumes that
development of this site will involve ownership changing through some manner from the public to the private
sector, enabling the City to collect taxes on the future assessed land value.
3 HR&A did not include the current assessed value of improvements on the GISD site itself when calculating the net
improvement as public agencies are not subject to local property taxes.
Page 12 of 27
Williams Drive – Build Out Financial Analysis. June 16, 2017 4
Table 1: Estimated Increase in City of Georgetown Property Tax Revenues following Build-Out of the Conceptual Plan
Phase Total SF of Development
Increase in
Improvement
Valuation
Increase in Land
Valuation
Estimated Increase
in Annual Taxes
GISD Site Phase I 139,200 $ 16,700,000 $ 2,610,000 $ 80,000
GISD Site Phase II 33,225 $ 3,990,000 $ 620,000 $ 20,000
GISD Site Phase III 203,500 $ 30,530,000 $ 3,810,000 $ 150,000
Non-School Build-Out TIRZ Area 510,378 $ 43,990,000 $ 1,580,000 $ 200,000
Total TIRZ Area 886,303 $ 95,200,000 $ 8,620,000 $ 450,000
GISD Site Phase IV (Acquisition) 72,000 $ 9,650,000 $ 90,000 $ 40,000
Non-School build-Out Non-TIRZ Area 177,444 $ 24,790,000 $ 1,260,000 $ 110,000
Total 1,135,746 $ 129,650,000 $ 9,970,000 $ 610,000
Note: All calculations assume 2016 tax rates. May not sum to total due to rounding.
Table 2: Estimated Increase in Georgetown Independent School District Property Tax Revenues following Build-Out of the Conceptual Plan4
Phase
Total SF of
Development
Increase in Improvement
Valuation
Increase in Land
Valuation
Estimated Increase in
Annual Taxes
ISD Site Phase I 139,200 $16,700,000 $2,610,000 $270,000
ISD Site Phase II 33,225 $3,990,000 $620,000 $60,000
ISD Site Phase III 203,500 $30,530,000 $3,810,000 $480,000
ISD Site Phase IV 72,000 $9,650,000 $90,000 $140,000
Non-School Area Build-Out 687,822 68,780,000 2,840,000 1,010,000
Total 1,135,746 $129,650,000 $9,970,000 $1,970,000
4 Numbers may not add up due to rounding
Page 13 of 27
Appendix F
PROFORMA
Page 14 of 27
MEMORANDUM
To: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
From: HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Date: March 29, 2017; Revised May 16, 2017
Re: Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) Site Financial Analysis
CAMPO requested that HR&A Advisors evaluate the feasibility of the conceptual development proposed for
the GISD Site in the Center Study Area of the overall Williams Drive Study Area. HR&A analyzed the
financial returns of the conceptual site development to assess overall project feasibility and to calculate the
residual land value, the amount developers might be willing to pay for the underlying property.
Summary of Findings
The feasibility analysis finds that none of the three phases creates residual value under current market
conditions. However, this finding is expected as the conceptual development is an attempt to change market
perception of the area and catalyze investment, and thus is more ambitious than the existing low-density
automobile-dependent development style that current market conditions support. Additionally, phase I and
II are very close to being feasible and generating some level of residual value. HR&A beli eves that a
developer with deep local knowledge may be able to creatively close the gap and make the proposed
development style viable.
While the feasibility analysis evaluates current market conditions, the conceptual development is anticipated
to occur in phases with the second and third phases in years 6 and 11 respectively. As a result, this feasibility
analysis reveals the degree to which the market must evolve before the projected construction year to make
phase III in particular attractive to private developers. It should be noted that the first phase of the conceptual
development which offers more urban style townhouses and apartments may help catalyze this market
transformation by introducing products that align with the ultimate corridor vision. Success of this initial phase
may help increase the achievable rents for subsequent phases, beginning the desired market transformation.
In the interim, the City of Georgetown could take low-cost steps to facilitate the transformation of the Center
Study Area market and increase achievable rents in order to make higher density projects like the conceptual
development feasible. Sample actions include:
▪ Partnering with GISD to release a Request-for-Expressions-of-Interest for the project site to invite
private developers to submit development ideas, helping reveal and generate market interest.
Page 15 of 27
HR&A Advisors, Inc. Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) Site Financial Analysis | 2
▪ Preparing the site for development by demolishing and clearing the existing school building.
▪ Activating the site through interim uses such as farmers markets, food truck stalls, and by holding
public events on the property.
Findings Details
HR&A developed a financial pro forma model to assess overall project viability. This analysis assumes that
demand is sufficient to warrant the levels of density proposed in phases II and III which will occur beyond
the time horizon a market analysis can forecast. The key assumptions are detailed in the following section.
This model is predicated on a developer requiring returns from the project of 15%. The table below
summarizes the findings of the analysis for each phase of development.
Figure 1: GISD Site Development Returns by Phase
Phase Retail (SF)
Multi-Family
(Units/SF)
Townhouses
(units/SF) Developer Returns1
Residual
Land Value2
Phase 1 0 SF
119 units/
101,160 SF
15 units/
12,000 SF 13% ($770,000)
Phase 2 33,225 SF 0 SF 0 8% ($760,000)
Phase 3 47,760 SF
140 units
(approximately)/
115,040 SF 0 -5% ($9,630,000)
Based on the current levels of rents and construction costs, Phase I appears close to feasible but does not yet
generate residual value that could be captured through sale/transfer of the property . At current market
rents, Phases II and III would require subsidies or improvements in market conditions before they attract
developer interest. However, it should be noted that market conditions are likely to evolve before Phase II
is anticipated to start in year 6 and Phase III starts in year 11.
Details of the feasibility for each phase are as follows:
▪ Phase I, anticipated to include lower cost wood-frame construction for townhouses and apartments
is close to market feasible with returns of 13% and -$770,000 residual land value in 2017.
However, within Phase I the townhouse product produces an approximately $250,000 return on
investment of $1,000,000 and may potentially attract developer interest. The rental apartment units
do not generate positive returns at the current $1.50 per SF per month rents and likely require
1 Developer returns are calculated without incorporating the cost of the land as the model is designed to solve for or
reveal the amount private sector partners might be willing to pay for the property to construct this project.
2 Residual land value is reported for the year construction starts (Phase I = year 1, Phase II = year 6, Phase III = year
11) and is not discounted to 2017 values.
Page 16 of 27
HR&A Advisors, Inc. Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) Site Financial Analysis | 3
market conditions improve before developers pursue this product typology. HR&A estimates that the
required increase in general market rents within the corridor to make this multi-family feasible is
low, around 10 cents per square foot per month (see Figure 2).
▪ Phase II achieves an 8% return, and would require commercial rents to increase to $16.00 per
leasable square foot per year from the current $13.00 (measured in 2017 values) to deliver a 15%
return with zero residual land value to become feasible. The construction of this phase is assumed to
be concrete-block with costs per SF similar to wood-frame construction.
▪ Phase III performs less well despite a slight rent premium, due to the higher cost of wood frame
construction on a concrete podium necessary to achieve higher-density mixed-use. Phase III achieves
a -5% return and would require a subsidy of $9.6 million provided in the year construction starts to
generate a 15% return and attract developer interest. Importantly, to ensure that the cash flow
generated covers the annual debt coverage the model assumes that the equity investment will be
50% of the project costs. As explained more fully in the key assumption section below, this level of
equity investment would not be attractive to developers. To make this phase feasible, rent levels
would need to rise considerably to generate a larger cash flow enabling the developer to secure a
loan for a greater percentage of the project costs.
The analysis indicates that at current construction costs, attainable rents for multi -family products will need
to increase before new construction on the GISD site becomes attractive to private sector partners and to
create residual value that could be captured through sale of the land. This analysis assumes that all units will
be market-rate. Adding affordable housing to this mix reduces revenues, reducing the developer returns
and in this scenario might require additional subsidy to make the project attractive.
The key challenge to feasibility in 2017 is the ratio of attainable rents to construction costs. Figure 2 below
illustrates this critical link between construction costs per gross SF of building, current rental levels, the
feasibility of each phase, and the levels required to achieve a 15% return on investment. Rents would need
to increase beyond the levels shown below to then produce residual value that GISD and the City of
Georgetown could capture through sale of the land.
Figure 2: Relationship between Feasibility and Construction Costs & Rent Levels
Phase
Construction
costs per
Gross SF
Percent of
Multi-family SF
that is
Leasable
Current Multi-
Family Rents Developer Returns
Required
Multi-Family
Rents to
Achieve
15% Returns
Phase 1 $140 80% $1.50 13% $1.61
Phase 3 $165 80% $1.60 -5% $2.45
Page 17 of 27
HR&A Advisors, Inc. Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) Site Financial Analysis | 4
Key Assumptions
This pro forma was developed based on a series of assumptions, summarized here.
Rents & Sales -- HR&A set rent levels for the multi-family units based on the previously completed market
study and the rents of comparable products within Georgetown, notably the nearby Rivery Park apartment
complex. Other items of note affecting rent and sales levels include:
▪ For the sale price of the townhouse products in Phase I, HR&A assumed a final sale of $240,000
per unit for each of the fifteen 1,200-SF units, again based on the price per SF of comparable
nearby developments such as the Brownstones at the Summit.
▪ Commercial rents for Phase II were assumed to be $13.00 per net SF per year, a discount from the
$15.00 per net SF forecasted for Phase III. This discount was applied due to the presence of an
anchor grocery store in Phase II which would likely demand discounted rent in exchange for
committing to a long-term lease. The $15.00 per SF commercial rent levels was based on the findings
from the market study regarding the rents for commercial space along Williams Drive.
▪ Rents and sales levels are listed here in 2017 terms, and are assumed to increase at the 2% general
rate of inflation.
▪ Per the notation by the architect on the site designs, 80% of the space within the buildings with
residential rental apartments is leasable.
Vacancy: Vacancy for the multi-family residential rental component is assumed to be 8% once a building
stabilizes (See the Timing & Disposition note below for this lease-up period). The vacancy of the commercial
component of Phase II is projected to be 0%, assuming a long-term lease for the grocery anchor. The vacancy
of the commercial space in Phase III is assumed to be 5% upon stabilization. HR&A estimated the vacancy
rates for the commercial and residential space based on the recent vacancy trends from the market study.
Building Construction Costs -- HR&A used 2016 data from Marshall & Swift to estimate the cost per square
foot of the buildings shown on the GISD site design. HR&A made assumptions about the type of construction
materials used based on the size and density of each building. Wood frame construction, suitable for town-
houses and multi-family residential is assumed to cost $140 per gross square foot including associated
horizontal infrastructure. Concrete-block construction, used for single story retail stores and the grocery store
was also assumed to cost $140 per gross square foot, including horizontal infrastructure. The mixed-use
buildings are assumed to be wood frame apartments on a retail concrete podium, and is estimated to cost
$165 per gross square foot including the horizontal infrastructure. Construction costs are listed in 2017 terms,
and are assumed to increase at the 2% annual general rate of inflation.
Other Infrastructure Costs -- The pro forma assumes that the existing school building will be demolished at a
cost of $500,000 during the construction of Phase II.
Operating Costs -- HR&A assumed that the operating costs for both the rental residential products and the
commercial components is 10% of the gross revenues generated.
Timeline and Disposition -- HR&A modelled the project with Phase I starting construction in year 1, Phase II
starting construction in year 6, and Phase III starting construction in year 11. All phases are disposed of
together in year 15, with the sale price based on the year 16 anticipated revenues divided by a blended
capitalization rate of 7% for the entire project. The construction period for phases I and II is 1 year. The
Page 18 of 27
HR&A Advisors, Inc. Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) Site Financial Analysis | 5
lease-up period for the residential element of Phase I is two years with average occupancy of 60% during
this period. The sale of all 15 townhomes from Phase I is assumed to occur in the two years after construction
completes, with 50% of the units sold in each year. The construction period for Phase III is assumed to be 2
years, while lease-up of both the residential and commercial components takes another 2 years with average
occupancy at 60%.
Project Financing -- The debt-to-cost ratio is set at 70% of project costs for phases I and II, and 50% of
project cost for Phase III. The industry standard debt ratio is generally 70%, but the lower ratio assumed for
Phase III is required to ensure that annual project revenues are sufficient to cover the annual debt payments.
The remaining project costs are financed through equity. The actual debt-to-cost ratio used when financing
the project will likely vary depending on market conditions and the financial standing of the developer.
Page 19 of 27
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:1313 Williams Dr 2016 Survey ID:600004
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R389424Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 11/17/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 SurveyConstruction Date:1955
Elementary school
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:1280
ID:Not Recorded
*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 Georgetown ISD Administrative Annex/McCoy Elementary School
ID:600004 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.652444 Longitude -97.681314
None Selected
None Selected
Entry; Photo direction: Northwest
Page 20 of 27
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:1313 Williams Dr 2016 Survey ID:600004
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
Entry
NorthPhoto Direction
Façade
NortheastPhoto Direction
Barrel-roof gymnasium
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 21 of 27
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:1313 Williams Dr 2016 Survey ID:600004
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Covered walkway between buildings
NorthPhoto Direction
Portable buildings at rear of school
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 22 of 27
Page 23 of 27
Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval.
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Historic Structure.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are
unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when
reviewing the application.
2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when
considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure:
a. Loss of Significance.
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer
historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or 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; or
b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable,
practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or
structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return
on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or
relocated; and
ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any
other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or
c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the
structure.
Page 24 of 27
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER:
MEETING DATE:
MEETING LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
COMMENTS
Applicant:
Subcommittee:
What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that
should be made to the structure for re‐occupancy?
Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to
the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the
structure to its original design?
Page 25 of 27
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 2
May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style,
architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme?
Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones?
Other comments
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Based on:
Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date
Page 26 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 4, 2018
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 27 of 27