HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_02.11.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
F ebruary 11, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at Virtual
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities 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, reasonable
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 contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egul ar me e ting wi ll conve ne at 6:00pm on F ebruary 11, 2021 via
te le confe r e nce . To par tic ipate , pl e ase c opy and paste the webli nk into your
browse r :
Weblink: http://bit.l y/3b9 P B hl
Webinar I D : 940-6542-8654
P asswor d: 742129
To partic ipate by phone :
C all in number s: (346)248-7799 or Tol l-F r ee : 888-475-4499
P asswor d: 742129
C itizen c omments ar e ac ce pte d in thr ee di ffer ent for mats:
1. S ubmit written c omme nts to planning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the R e cor ding Se cr etar y will re ad your comme nts
into the r e c or di ng dur ing the i te m that i s being discusse d.
2. L og onto the me eting at the li nk above and "rai se your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home/mobile phone to cal l the toll-fre e number
To join a Zoom mee ting, clic k on the l ink provided and joi n as an atte nde e .
You wil l be aske d to e nte r your name and e mail addr e ss (thi s is so we c an
ide ntify you when you are cal le d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c lick on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng we bpage onc e
that ite m has opened. Whe n you ar e c alle d upon by the R ec ording S ec re tar y,
your devic e will be r emotely un-mute d by the A dministr ator and you may
spe ak for thr ee minute s. P le ase state your name cle ar l y, and whe n your time
is over, your devic e will be mute d again.
U se of pr ofani ty, thr eate ni ng language , sl ande r ous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 52
harm ar e not allowe d and wi ll r e sul t in you bei ng imme di atel y r e move d fr om
the mee ti ng.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c o nvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purp o s e
authorized b y the O pen Meetings Ac t, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.)
A D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
B T he His to ric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n, appointed b y the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertificates of Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity C o uncil ad o p ted Downto wn Design G uid elines and Unified Develo p ment C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P rocedures:
· S taff P res entation
· Applic ant P resentatio n (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the C o mmis s io n.)
· Q ues tions from C o mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
· C o mments from C itizens *
· Applic ant R espons e
· C o mmis s io n Delib erative P roc es s
· C o mmis s io n Ac tion
* O nc e staff and the applic ant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns fro m the C o mmis s ioners , the C hair of the
C ommissio n will o p en the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will as k if anyone would like to speak. To s p eak, c lic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zo om meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and yo u may speak for three minutes . P leas e state your name and ad d res s c learly. A
speaker may allo t their time to another speaker fo r a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er o f the
pub lic wis hes to allo t their time to another speaker, they may d o s o when their name is c alled by the C hair.
P lease rememb er that all c omments and ques tio ns mus t b e addressed to the C ommission, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers during the pub lic hearing p o rtio n. W hen your time is over, yo ur
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s peak has s p o ken, the C hair will c lo s e the pub lic hearing and provid e a
few minutes o f rebuttal time to the ap p lic ant if they s o c hoose.
P ublic Wishing to Address the Board
O n a s ubjec t that is p o s ted o n this agenda: P leas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Board meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which you wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
S taff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. Yo u will b e c alled fo rward to s p eak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
O n a s ubjec t no t p o s ted o n the agenda: P ers ons may add an item to a future Board agend a by filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than o ne week prior to the Bo ard meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
Page 2 of 52
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . F o r Board Liais o n contac t information, p leas e logo n to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
C At the time of p o s ting, no persons had signed up to address the Bo ard.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the January 28, 2021 regular meeting of
the His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
E P resentation and Dis c ussion of three c omponents of the Design G uid elines Update projec t:
1. 2020 C ertific ate of Appropriateness rep o rt, sharing the number o f applic ations and most freq uent
pro jec t types as well as a selec tion o f HAR C -approved finis hed projec ts .
2. T he results of the s urvey that was c o llected as part o f the Design G uidelines Update O pen Ho us e
in Dec ember 2020.
3. T he S W O T analys is o f the c urrent Design G uidelines provid ed b y the p ro ject cons ultant, P o s t
O ak P res ervation S olutions .
F Updates , C ommis s ioner ques tions , and c o mments . - S ofia Nels o n, P lanning Direc tor
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 3 of 52
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 11, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the January 28, 2021 regular meeting of the
His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommiss io n. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 52
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: January 28, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
January 28, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/3a2FjiL
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on January 28, 2021 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/3a2FjiL
To participate by phone: Call in number: (312)626-6799 or Toll Free: 833-548-0282 Webinar ID#:
963-0498-5179 Password: 541609
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Faustine
Curry; Terry Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Sofia Nelson,
Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
Page 5 of 52
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: January 28, 2021
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (7-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the demolition of a low priority residential structure at the property located at 1304 E.
15th Street, bearing the legal description 0.36 acres, being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41,
Block 6, University Park. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the demolition of a
Low Priority structure under the criteria of loss of significance found in UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a .
The house at 1304 E. 15th Street, which was built near the end of 1947, is an example of the post -
WWII Minimal Traditional houses that were constructed in newer subdivisions surrounding the
older residential areas of Georgetown. Minimal Traditional housing styles were popular in the
US from the early 1930s through the 1950s, when the popular style transitioned to Ranch sty le
homes. Although located on the same block as a house within the Olive Street National Register
Historic District, which has structures primarily constructed between the 1890s and 1940s, the
University Park Addition and its surroundings to the north, east and south has houses
Page 6 of 52
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: January 28, 2021
constructed primarily during the two decades following WWII, according to the 2016 Historic
Resources Survey of Georgetown. Most of these structures were not old enough at the time of
the 1984 Historic Resource Survey to be considered historic and recorded, and the 1964 and
1974 aerial maps of Georgetown help to show what had been developed in those decades. There
are a handful of non-historic homes in the area surrounding the subject property, but most of
the mid-century structures, both inside and outside of the Old Town Overlay District, are still
contributing to the neighborhood character, with minimal infill construction.
Per a site visit and photos provided by the applicant, the current structure has had some
original features such as windows replaced, but the wood siding, porch and overall design and
character of the house are still intact. Some structural concerns would need to be addressed for
the successful longevity of the house, including additional support or replacemen t of the roof
ridge beam in the original portion of the house, and leveling and maintenance of the foundation
of the original portion of the house and the east addition, which appear to have unlevel floors
and some cracking in the underpinning or skirting – the cement-covered metal mesh that
surrounds the pier and beam foundation – which would need to be repaired or replaced. The
west addition appears to have been constructed atop a concrete driveway, which was not
constructed to provide adequate foundational support to the addition, and which may either
need to be removed (the addition does not contribute to the architectural character of the
structure or the surrounding neighborhood), or to have the foundation reconstructed and the
driveway removed. Although in need of maintenance and possibly additional support, the
foundation of the original portion and east addition do not show signs of deterioration
sufficient to require reconstruction or replacement. The wood beams are in good condition and
do not show signs or termite or moisture damage, and the concrete piers appear to be in good
repair. The soils in this part of the Old Town Overlay District are known to be expansive,
meaning that as the moisture content of the soil changes, foundations can and do move and
shift, causing floors to become less level and doors and windows to stick. However, remedies
are available that do not require demolition of the structure or replacement of the foundation,
and some repair and maintenance could reasonably be expected to resolve many of the
concerns expressed by the applicant.
The current owner applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the structure at
1304 E. 15th Street on August 1, 2019. The HARC Demolition Subcommittee met on -site on
August 22, 2019 and recommended disapproval of the request based on: “Concern for
deterioration of the structure without evidence of efforts to maintain and preserve the structure.
The Subcommittee expressed concern that the removal of the structure would have an impact to
the character of the District. The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide additional
information on the efforts taken to rehabilitate/restore or realize a reasonable rate of return of
the structure and demonstrate that they cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to
adaptively use the structure.” The HPO Report for the application recommended disapproval of
the request, based on the finding that the information provided by the applicant was “…not
enough to determine that the applicant meets the criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030”,
and provided the criteria for approval of a demolition request as well as the following
comments: • The applicant has not provided information that the building or structure is no
longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the
Page 7 of 52
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: January 28, 2021
historic overlay district. • The applicant has not established that the building or structure has
undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to
lost the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the
building or structure for such designation. • Many of the items listed for repair are items homes
of this age require improvement of if regular maintenance had not been occurring. • At this
point the applicant has not provided documentation that the structure cannot be reasonably
adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or that
there is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the
structure. HARC’s decision in the meeting on October 10, 2019 was approval of a partial
demolition of the existing structure, not to include the original central section. The demolition
scope was to be limited to the additions on the east and west ends of the original structure only,
including the carport, but not including the central portion of the structure. The property owner
had submitted demolition permit application 2019-52979 on July 17, 2019, after which they were
informed a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be approved before the demolition
permit could be issued. The demolition permit was issued on January 17, 2020 and expired on
November 12, 2020 as the demolition work had not been completed by the expiration date of
the permit.
There was discussion between the Commission and staff regarding how this project style relates
to the style of houses in the area.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
John Lawton, the applicant, addressed the Commission and further elaborated on the project.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to deny approval of the demolition by Commissioner Browner. Second by
Commissioner Morales. The motion carries with a (5-2) vote, with Commissioner Nunn,
Commissioner Johnston opposed.
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for: a new residential construction (infill development); a 3’-0” setback encroachment into the
required 15’-0” front setback, to allow an architectural feature 12’-0” from the front (north)
property line; a 3’-0” setback encroachment into the required 6’-0” side street setback to allow
an architectural feature 3’-0” from the side street (east) property line; a 7’-4” building height
modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the front setback, to allow a
building height of 22’-4” at the front (north) setback; and a 5’-4” building height modification to
the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side street setback, to allow a building
height of 20’-4” at the side street (east) setback at the property located at 406 E. 4th Street,
bearing the legal description 0.166 acres, being the east half of Lots 1 and 2, Block 32, Glasscock
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new two-story house
with rear garage. HARC previously approved two setback modifications for the property, a 5’-
0” modification to the 20’-0” front (north) setback as the property has a 15’-0” wide Public
Utility Easement (PUE) along the rear (south) property line, and a 9’-0” modification to the 15’-
Page 8 of 52
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: January 28, 2021
0” side street setback, as the Ash Street right-of-way (ROW) has not been improved adjacent to
the property and does not function as a public street. With this request for approval of a new
residential structure, the applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a setback modification
to allow an architectural feature – a bay window with roof – to encroach 3’-0” into the approved
15’-0” front (north) setback). According to UDC Sec. 6.04.020.C.10., features that may be located
within a required setback include “Sills, belt courses, cornices, buttresses, chimneys, flues,
eaves and other architectural features provided that such features do not extend further than
18 in ches into any required setback.” As the bay window feature is proposed to encroach a
total of 3’-0” including the roof, the feature requires approval of a setback modification. The
applicant is requesting an additional 3’-0” setback encroachment for an awning feature
proposed to be located over the garage doors, which face the unimproved Ash Street ROW.
The applicant is also requesting two building height modifications, both for gabled roofs.
Building height is measured as the average of the eave and roof heights and is limited to 15’-
0” at the setbacks in the Old Town Overlay District per UDC Sec. 4.08.080.C. The first
proposed building height modification is for a gable roof on the front façade of the house
facing E. 4th Street. The gable roof is propose d to be 22’-4” at the front setback, requiring
approval of a 7’-4” building height modification. The second proposed building height
modification is for a gable roof and two-story height for the attached garage at the rear of the
property. That gable roof is proposed to be 20’-4” and requires approval of a 5’-4” building
height modification.
The new residential structure is proposed to be constructed with fiber composite lapped siding
and fiber composite trim, a standing seam metal roof, Fibrex single-hung 1/1 windows, treated
wood porch railings and stucco skirting around the foundation. The design of the structure
includes traditional features such as gable roofs, porches and stairs with railings, brackets to
support awnings, a front bay window, an exterior chimney, exposed rafter tails and trimmed
architectural features, dormers and a pier and beam foundation.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-71-COA) by Commissioner Johnston. Second by
Commissioner Nunn. Approved (7-0).
G. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Meeting adjourned at 7:42pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 9 of 52
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 11, 2021
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and Dis cus s io n o f three compo nents o f the Des ign G uidelines Up d ate p ro ject:
1. 2020 C ertific ate of Ap p ropriatenes s report, s haring the numb er o f ap p licatio ns and mo s t frequent
p ro ject typ es as well as a s electio n o f HAR C -ap p ro ved finished pro jec ts .
2. T he res ults o f the s urvey that was c ollec ted as part o f the Des ign G uid elines Update O pen Ho us e in
Decemb er 2020.
3. T he S W O T analys is o f the c urrent Des ign G uidelines p ro vid ed b y the p ro ject c o nsultant, P ost O ak
P res ervation S olutions .
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he P lanning Department produces an annual report, which includ es a s ection reporting on projec t activity
and ap p lications for the Downto wn and for the His toric O verlay Districts . T he 2020 report reflec ts the
numb er of C ertific ate of Appropriateness (C O A) applic ations rec eived, as well as the most frequent
p ro ject types requiring approval of a C O A. S taff will be s haring that rep ort s ec tion with the C o mmis s io n.
O n December 16, 2020 the P lanning Department hosted a virtual open hous e to s hare projec t info rmatio n
and s eek pub lic input o n the Des ign G uidelines Upd ate. T he o p en ho us e inc luded a survey that as ked for
p referenc es on what it lo o ks like to p rotec t o ur his to ric c harac ter. More than 100 people gave feedbac k via
the s urvey, whic h was open from December 16-30, 2020. S taff will pres ent the results o f the s urvey and
req uest the following feedbac k fro m the C ommis s ioners :
Did any of the res pons es surp ris e or s tand o ut to yo u?
Are there any ins ights from the survey that need to b e c o nsidered as the projec t mo ves fo rward?
As part o f the Design G uid elines Up d ate the p ro ject c o nsultant has c o mp leted a review of the current
Des ign G uidelines and p ro vided an analys is of the G uid elines in a S trengths, Weaknes s es , O p p o rtunities
and T hreats (S W O T ) format, foc using o n the s trengths and weaknes s es o f the c urrent d o cument. S taff
will p res ent this analys is and req uest the fo llowing feedbac k fro m the C o mmis s ioners :
Are there any s ectio ns o f the analys is that need clarific ation?
Are there any weaknes s es or opportunities id entified in the analys is that the C o mmis s io ners have
res ervations about inc o rp o rating into the doc ument update?
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
Page 10 of 52
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Des ign Guidelines Survey Res ults Pres entation Pres entation
SWOT Analys is 2.5.21 Exhibit
Page 11 of 52
Design Guidelines Update
December 2020 Survey Results
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
February 11, 2021
1Page 12 of 52
Design Guidelines Update Project
What Has Happened So Far
•Post Oak Preservation Solutions hired as the project consultant (September 2020)
•Design Guidelines Update presented to HARC (October 2020)
•Design Guidelines Update presented in the November Tuesday Talks webinar
•Design Guidelines Update presented to the Main Street Advisory Board (November 2020)
•Design Guidelines Update presented in the December 8, 2020 City Council Workshop
•Design Guidelines Update Open House on December 16, 2020
•Design Guidelines Update Survey conducted December 16-December 30, 2020
2Page 13 of 52
Design Guidelines Update Project
December Survey Results
•Open House on December 16, 2020 included a live survey
•Open house was recorded and posted with the same survey, open December 16-30, 2020
•104 total survey responses
•Open House YouTube video has had 105 views
3Page 14 of 52
The Survey Results Are…
4Page 15 of 52
Q. 1 Residential Infill
5
95.2%
4.8%
Page 16 of 52
Q. 2 Residential Infill
6
21.2%
78.8%
Page 17 of 52
Q. 3 Residential Infill
7
42.3%
57.7%
Page 18 of 52
Q. 4 Residential Infill
8
13.5%
86.5%
Page 19 of 52
Q. 5 Residential Infill
9
31.7%
68.3%
Page 20 of 52
Q. 6 Residential Infill
10
32.7%
67.3%
Page 21 of 52
Q. 7 Residential Addition
11
22.1%
77.9%
Page 22 of 52
Q. 8 Residential Addition
12
79.8%
20.2%
Page 23 of 52
Q. 9 Residential Addition
13
96.2%
3.8%
Page 24 of 52
The Survey Results Are…
14Page 25 of 52
Q. 1 Commercial Infill
15
66.3%
33.7%
Page 26 of 52
Q. 2 Commercial Infill
16
27.9%
72.1%
Page 27 of 52
Q. 3 Commercial Infill
17
8.7%
91.3%
Page 28 of 52
Q. 4 Commercial Infill
18
2.9%97.1%
Page 29 of 52
Q. 5 Commercial Addition
19
27.9%
72.1%
Page 30 of 52
Q. 6 Commercial Addition
20
86.5%
13.5%
Page 31 of 52
Q. 7 Commercial Addition
21
39.4%
60.6%
Page 32 of 52
Q. 8 Commercial Addition
22
90.4%
9.6%
Page 33 of 52
The Survey Results Are…
23Page 34 of 52
Q. 1 Signage
24
32.7%
67.3%
Page 35 of 52
Q. 2 Signage
25
93.3%
6.7%
Page 36 of 52
Q. 3 Signage
26
89.4%
10.6%
Page 37 of 52
Q. 4 Signage
27
30.8%
69.2%
Page 38 of 52
Q. 5 Signage
28
65.4%
34.6%
Page 39 of 52
Q. 6 Signage
29
95.2%
4.8%
Page 40 of 52
Q. 1 Signage
30
66.3%
33.7%
Page 41 of 52
Q. 2 Signage
31
10.6%
89.4%
Page 42 of 52
Q. 3 Signage
32
72.1%
27.9%
Page 43 of 52
Q. 4 Signage
33
88.5%
11.5%
Page 44 of 52
Q. 5 Signage
34
62.5%
37.5%
Page 45 of 52
Q. 6 Signage
35
86.5%
13.5%
Page 46 of 52
Design Guidelines Update Project
Next Steps
•Draft of Updated Design Guidelines ready for review and comment
•Comments returned to consultant for final edits
•HARC makes a recommendation on the updated Design Guidelines to City Council
•Council makes a decision on adopting the updated Design Guidelines
36Page 47 of 52
SWOT ANALYSIS
Georgetown Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STRENGTH - The current guidelines are well written and carefully lay out preservation
principles and theory. The reader is guided through the “why” of preservation. At the beginning of each
Chapter is a long description of best practices which provide insight into a particular policy. This is
followed by a policy statement meant to provide a broad purpose in which to judge a particular design.
There is an obvious attempt to educate the user of the guidelines.
WEAKNESS - The guidelines are written with the assumption that the user is willing to read
through the entire document, and come away with a basic understanding of preservation principles.
Once educated, it is assumed they therefore will make good preservation decisions. In reality users
want to know the rules, what they can and can’t do, and they want to know the answers quickly. The
organization of the guidelines makes this difficult.
OPPORTUNITIES - There is an opportunity to provide a “How to Use” dashboard for the user,
so that if they only want to know more about adding on to their house, they can quickly navigate
through the guidelines to read that specific information. Or quickly understand the regulations through
well placed and well designed graphics. While preservation principles are important, the “why” of the
regulations should be additional information that adds context to the decision. Guiding policies can be
succinct. There is an opportunity for more specificity, which can provide guidance to both the user and
reviewer.
CHAPTER ANALYSIS
Chapter 1 Purpose
STRENGTH
●There is lots of good information
WEAKNESS
●There is too much information. Too many words. We need the words but we need
shorthand clues, because most people will skim.
●Need to clearly describe the three area of Town Square, Transition and Old Town.
OPPORTUNITY
●Need to more clearly define the characters of the Transition area and what we are trying
to accomplish.
1 of 5
Page 48 of 52
Chapter 2 Architectural Resources
STRENGTHS
●Good history related mostly to downtown.
WEAKNESS
●Title for this section is confusing and misleading.
●Does not relate history of style to development of neighborhood patterns.
●Does not elevate modest structures.
OPPORTUNITY
●Opportunity to educate the public on the importance of the various styles of architecture.
Chapter 3 Principles of Historic Preservation
STRENGTH
●Educating users on preservation principles is useful and helps people understand the
“why” of the regulations.
WEAKNESS
●Too academic and theoretical. We understand the importance but giving users a
training in Historic Preservation 101 seems quite dry.
OPPORTUNITY
● How can we make this more engaging, readable and understandable?
● This brings up the whole question of who is our audience? And what do they need to
know. Can we make it possible for users to skip whole sections? Can we lay it out
clearer? Can some of this be an appendix for more information?
Chapter 4 Design Guidelines for Architectural Features
STRENGTH
●The guidelines are good guidelines for saving architectural features. Glad there is a
specific numbering system, as this is the first time in the document.
WEAKNESS
●This chapter jumps into the weeds. Need to deal with broad issues first and move to
specifics. This is a huge change to the order of the Design Guidelines.
●This chapter combines commercial and residential features.
OPPORTUNITY
●Residential and Commercial should be separated. A commercial owner does not need to
be sifting through residential details.
Chapter 5 Design Guidelines for Building HIstoric Materials
STRENGTH
●There is a lot of good information about materials.
WEAKNESS
●This organization of education/policy/guideline discourages a quick understanding.
●There is no consistent “do this- not this.” Not a logical way to follow materials. The
education portion seems very repetitive. “Didn’t I just read this?”
OPPORTUNITY
●By condensing the education page we can make it more understandable.
●Suggest we break this up from the regulations to the how to maintain different types of
materials.
2 of 5
Page 49 of 52
Chapter 6 - Design Guidelines for Individual Building Elements
STRENGTH
●The information is good information.
WEAKNESS
●The intermingling of commercial and residential is not good.
●The illustrations are examples from all over and I think it is hard to translate the photos
into what specifically applies to Georgetown.
●The discussion of windows in commercial buildings that were once houses is weak and
difficult to follow.
OPPORTUNITY
●To separate Residential and Commercial.
Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Adaptive Re-use, Alterations and Additions
STRENGTH
●The commercial examples and the illustrations work fairly well.
WEAKNESS
●Too much emphasis on commercial
●No accounting for style
●No discussion of characteristics of original structure
OPPORTUNITY
●To address the appropriateness of additions to various residential styles.
Chapter 8 - Guidelines for Site Design
STRENGTH
●This is a good comprehensive section. Lots of good information.
●Parking illustrations are good.
WEAKNESS
●Poorly organized.
●Need to divide commercial and residential.
●Title needs to change
●Seems odd to find street furniture in site design.
●Parking garages get lost in this chapter
OPPORTUNITY
●Need more on building lighting. That is becoming an issue in HD with all the new LED
technology.
●Need to add music/noise section to outdoors space
3 of 5
Page 50 of 52
Chapter 9 - Signs
STRENGTH
●A wide range of signage issues are covered in this section.
WEAKNESS
●Needs more information regarding specific materials.
●Illumination of signs needs to be addressed
●Does not discuss corner buildings, and multi tenants in a single building, and second
floor tenants.
OPPORTUNITY
●Use more specific numbers to calculator square footage, lumens, color of light.
●Incorporate more sign manufacturer’s language in the descriptions.
●To help define multi-tenant signage and corner buildings
Chapter 10- Awnings
STRENGTH
●Different types of awnings are mentioned
WEAKNESS
●This does not need to be its own chapter
●Missing information on underside of awnings, lighting, materials and fascias.
●attachments to building (suspension tie-rods/cable) need to be addressed.
OPPORTUNITY
●Underside of awnings needs to be addressed including lighting
●Materials could be further regulated
●Fascias need to be discussed
Chapter 11 - Colors
STRENGTH
●Interesting that DG’s regulate color. Language of color is good.
WEAKNESS
●Be aware that color is very personal. People like certain colors that appeal to their
psyche. So regulating color can be difficult to defend.
OPPORTUNITY
●Consider using an established color palette from an established manufacturer such as
Sherwin Williams, etc that any of the colors in their historic color palette are acceptable.
You would not regulate using Sherwin Williams but matching their colors as a guide.
Chapter 12 - Infill construction in Area 1 TownSquare
STRENGTH
●This is a well written chapter. The most comprehensive.
WEAKNESS
●Does not address adding stories except to set back. Need to address rooftop outdoor
spaces,
●Section on materials is vague. Need more specificity.
OPPORTUNITY
●Make guidelines unique to Georgetown so not to end up with central Texas standard,
oft-repeated design.
4 of 5
Page 51 of 52
Chapter 13 - Infill construction in the Transitional Area.
STRENGTH
●This is well written as far as it goes.
●Good information about the breaking down of the scale of a new building.
WEAKNESS
●There are a lot of generalities that don’t address the specific area situations such as
being on an arterial or adjacent to residential.
●Still vague on site design. It needs more specific guidance.
●Too much repetition. One idea is repeated and repeated.
OPPORTUNITY
●Westside of downtown could be broken out and have a specific set of guidelines.
●Development on arterial streets where suburban development exists be another set of
guidelines.
●The areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods could be another set.
●Those properties right off the nine square area could be a 4th set.
Chapter 14 - Infill in Old Town
STRENGTH
●This is good information and all of it should be incorporated.
WEAKNESS
●Illustrations reference mostly commercial buildings.
OPPORTUNITY
●This should be a section on residential.
●Describe additions based on style. Discuss placement, materials, windows, roofs etc by
style.
Appendix A & Appendix B
STRENGTH
●This section is very thorough.
WEAKNESS
●Better definition of Buildings to correspond with National Register.
●Some of the definitions of specific architectural features, signage terms need to be
checked.
5 of 5
Page 52 of 52