HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_03.23.2017Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 23, 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.
Co mmis s ion may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene an Executive S es s io n at the reques t
of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any p urp o s e autho rized by the Op en
Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code C hapter 551.
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 February 23, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Secretary
C Review and d is cus s HARC p urpose and approve rec ently ad o p ted b ylaws . Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Secretary
D Review of the City Counc il's Boards and C o mmis s io ns Attendance Polic y. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Secretary
E Electio n of Vic e-c hair and Sec retary for the 2017-2018 His toric and Arc hitec tural Review Co mmis s ion.
Page 1 of 72
West Short, C o mmis s io n Chair
F Dis cus s ion and pos s ible actio n to ap p oint two members to the HARC Demo lition S ubc o mmittee. Wes t
Short, Co mmis s io n Chair
G Co nsideration and ac tion to appoint the HARC His toric Res o urc e Survey S ubc o mmittee. West Short,
Co mmis s ion C hair
H Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
exterior alteratio ns fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 1226 South Church S treet bearing the legal des c rip tion of
Morrow Ad d ition, Blo ck D-E (PTS), 0.466 ac res (COA-2017-005)
I Co nc ep tual Review fo r a p ro p o s ed Infill Projec t lo cated at 810 Ro ck Street (Downto wn, Area 2) - Matt
Synatsc hk
J Up d ate on P res ervatio n Mo nth activities - Matt Synats chk, His toric Planner
K Up d ate and review o f His toric Res o urc e Survey s c hedule, inc luding p ub lic hearings and notificatio ns.
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 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the February 23, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _HARC_02.23.2017 Backup Material
Page 3 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2
Meeting: February 23, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood,
Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero.
Commissioners in Training present: Lynn Williams
Commissioners absent: CIT Jan Daum and Michael Friends
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Regular Session
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the January 26,2017 regular meeting.
Motion by Knight to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Eason. Approved 7 - 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
exterior alterations for the property located at 1251 South Main Street, bearing the legal
description of Morrow Addition, Block D (NW/COR), 0.40 acres. Matt Synatschk, Historic
Planner
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the following items: removal of an existing front porch and construction of a new porch,
removal of the carport and construction of a new garage, construction of a new master bath
addition along the south façade. Staff supports the garage and master bath additions, but is
unable to recommend approval of the porch without simplifying the design by removing the
turret.
Lisa Whitehurst, the applicant/owner, read a letter to the commission from the architect who was
not able to attend. The letter stated he did not agree with the staff’s recommendation to remove
the turret, citing it would give the house intent and character and add to the look on Main Street.
He also stated he had conducted extensive research to show that the turret/ round portion of the
porch is compatible with the area.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with not speakers coming forth, closed it.
Motion by Knight to approve the application for exterior alterations to 1251 South Main Street
as submitted by the applicant. Second by Romero.
The Commissioners discussed the impact of approving the turret outside of parameters of the
Design Guidelines. They all agreed that based on the fact that this is not a high priority structure
that the changes will not affect the priority rating or set a precedent. Motion approved 7 – 0.
Page 4 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2
Meeting: February 23, 2017
D. Comments or Questions by Commissioner-in-Training. No comments.
E. Staff update and reminder of future meetings.
• The Historic Resource Survey will be discussed in April at a City Council Workshop. The
draft survey is still under review and the schedule is being reevaluated. Notifications of
the survey will be posted on the website, and an explanation of the survey will be going to
all property owners per the Cox-McClain contract agreements. A full document will be
available at the library and in the Planning Department office.
• The Austin Avenue Bridges were discussed at a third public meeting and staff is looking
at options. More information will be coming at a later date.
• The Fixed Bus Route has been approved with the main stop at the Public Library. See the
website for the routes. The system starts in late summer. Staff is currently working on
naming the system and will be seeking more public input.
• Downtown West drawings will be available for public viewing in May, with construction
starting in fall 2017. Changes are still being made on the inside of the buildings.
• Street signs printing for the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts will be put out to
bid soon. There are 247 intersections that will receive new signs. Old (currently existing)
signs will be offered for sale at the Visitor’s Center.
• Sidewalk work in Downtown begins soon. Work will be done on Church Street between
9th and 11th Streets, on 8th Street between Rock St and MLK, and on 8th Street between
Church and Myrtle Streets.
• The next HARC meeting will be March 23, 2017.
• A big thank you to Nancy Knight, Richard Mee and Lynn Williams for their years of
service to the community by serving on the Commission.
Adjournment
Motion by Mee, second by Knight to adjourn at 6:22 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
___________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 5 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Review and dis c us s HARC purp o s e and app ro ve recently adopted bylaws. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Bylaws _HARC_CC approved 02.14.2017 Backup Material
Page 6 of 72
Page 7 of 72
Page 8 of 72
Page 9 of 72
Page 10 of 72
Page 11 of 72
Page 12 of 72
Page 13 of 72
Page 14 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Review o f the C ity C o uncil's Bo ard s and Commis s ions Attend anc e Po licy. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attendance Policy Backup Material
Page 15 of 72
SEC 2.36.010 DUTIES OF COMMISSION, COMMITTEE & BOARD MEMBERS
Attendance by Members is integral to success of the commission, committee or board. It is
Council policy to require a minimum of 75 percent attendance of each Member at each
regularly scheduled meeting including subcommittee meetings. A Member shall be allowed
two excused absences for the Member's personal medical care, required medical care of a
Member's immediate family member (as defined by City Ordinance), or Member's military
Service that shall not count against the 75 percent attendance requirement. Written notice
shall be sent to a Member and the Member's City Council representative when it appears the
Member may violate the attendance policy by being absent from more than 25 percent of
regularly scheduled meetings, including subcommittee meetings. Excessive absenteeism may
result in the Member being replaced by the Council. If a Member is removed from a committee,
commission or board, that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be
appointed to the Board in accordance with Section 2.36.040
Page 16 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Elec tion of Vic e-c hair and S ecretary fo r the 2017-2018 Histo ric and Architec tural Review Commission.
Wes t Sho rt, Commis s ion Chair
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 17 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and p o s s ib le ac tion to appoint two memb ers to the HARC Demolitio n Sub committee. West
Sho rt, Co mmis s ion C hair
ITEM SUMMARY:
The HARC Demolitio n Sub committee reviews Certificate Of Ap p ro p riatenes s ap p licatio ns fo r demolitio n
and makes rec o mmendatio ns o f ac tion to the full c o mmis s io n. The Demo litio n Sub committee is c o mp ris ed
o f the City of Geo rgeto wn's Chief Building Offic ial, a member o f the HARC, and an arc hitect, if possible.
If an arc hitect is no t available a sec o nd Commis s io ner can be ap p o inted .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk
Page 18 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and actio n to ap p o int the HAR C His to ric Resource Survey Sub c ommittee. Wes t Sho rt,
Commission Chair
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is updating the exis ting 1984 and 2007 histo ric res ourc e s urveys. The survey is a
key to o l for the his to ric p res ervatio n p ro gram and s erves as the basis fo r many dec is io ns. The survey
p ro ject is evaluating the current resources on the 1984 and 2007 s urveys, plus c ond uc t an intensive survey
o f the Downtown and Old To wn Overlay Dis tric ts , to c o mp ile a complete lis t o f the p ro p erties. The results
will b e utilized by s taff, the His toric and Arc hitec tural Review Co mmis s io n, and interes ted memb ers of the
community to provid e researc h o n the his toric p ro p erties. The survey will inc lude completed Texas
Histo rical Commis s io n Survey forms, eliminating the need to req uire the c ompletio n o f the fo rms by the
p ro p erty owner.
The s urvey will c atego rize properties as contrib uting and no nc o ntrib uting p ro p erties , as o utlined in the
recently adop ted Unified Development Code amend ments . In ad d ition, the s urvey will id entify p o tential
p ro p erties eligib le for the new Histo ric Landmark des ignatio n.
In ad d ition, the s urvey will s erve as the initial review c riteria fo r any future pres ervation incentives , currently
b eing reviewed by s taff.
Article VI o f the His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n b ylaws authorizes the Co mmis s io n to
create sub committees for s p ecific projec ts related to Co mmis s io n matters . S ubc o mmittees with no n-
memb ers require City Counc il approval prior to their fo rmation.
The Survey Sub c ommittee will b e c o mp ris ed o f the fo llo wing p eo p le:
1. His toric and Arc hitec tural Review Co mmis s ion C hair o r designee
2. City of Georgetown Planning Direc tor o r d es ignee
3. Chief Build ing Offic ial or d es ignee
4. Citizen at Large with an interest in his toric p res ervatio n
5. Georgetown Heritage S o ciety President or d es ignee
Eac h memb er o f the Sub committee p lays a key role in the implementatio n of the c o mp leted s urvey. The
memb ers may b e as ked to review d raft s urvey data and provid e feedbac k to the cons ultants . Staff
anticipates a monthly meeting until the c o mpletio n o f the s urvey p ro ject, antic ip ated fo r this s ummer. The
initial review is mo s tly c o mp lete at this time.
New appointments for all sub committee members are required following the appointment o f new HARC
Memb ers .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
Page 19 of 72
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
Page 20 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
exterio r alteratio ns fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 1226 South Church Street b earing the legal d es criptio n of
Mo rro w Ad ditio n, Bloc k D-E (P TS), 0.466 ac res (COA-2017-005)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for exterio r alteratio ns and ad d ition to a
histo ric res idential s tructure. Ac cording to the s ubmitted letter of intent, the ap p licant wishes to enclose a
s mall porc h to exp and the interior living s p ac e and c o nstruc t a new p o rch o n the front o f the hous e.
Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the meets the ap p ro val criteria of
Sec tion 3.13.030 of the Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC), as o utlined in the attached S taff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
COA-2017-005 Staff Report Backup Material
COA-2017-005 Exhibit 1 Backup Material
Page 21 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2017‐005 1226 South Church Street Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: March 23, 2017
File Number: COA‐2017‐005
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior
alterations for the property located at 1226 South Church Street bearing the legal description of Morrow
Addition, Block D‐E (PTS), 0.466 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Curry Residential Remodel
Applicant: Jack Johnson
Property Owner: Faustine Curry and Clint Chitsey
Property Address: 1226 South Church Street
Legal Description: Morrow Addition, Block D‐E (PTS), 0.466 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first review of this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca 1940
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded
2007 – Low Priority
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to enclose a small porch to expand the
interior living space and construct a new porch on the front of the house.
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
6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing Does not comply
6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque materials. Does not comply
7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impacts.
Does not comply
Page 22 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2017‐005 1226 South Church Street Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or re‐ move original architectural details and
materials of the primary structure.
Complies
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to enclose an existing porch, which
necessitates relocating one of two front doors, and constructing a new porch on the front of the house. In
reviewing the current structure, staff believes that the current primary entrance was added at a later date,
relegating the original door to the secondary entrance. This determination is based upon the current
configuration of the porch and secondary entrance, along with the lack of architectural detail of the
current primary entrance.
The porch enclosure and removal of the door allows for an expansion of the master suite, by creating
space for a closet. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines discourage enclosing a porch with
opaque materials and removing or relocating doors or windows. However, the location of the current
secondary door is not a significant architectural element of the structure, nor is the location a defining
element of the architectural style. Staff is supportive of relocating the door to create the new interior
space. Enclosing the porch with opaque materials impacts the historic significance of the structure, but
the Low Priority assigned to the structure in 2007 indicates that it’s not a significant structure, and is
identified as a Low Priority primarily due to its date of construction and the context of the surrounding
neighborhood. Therefore, enclosing the porch does not significantly impact the structure.
Staff requests that the porch enclosure be completed with materials that differentiate the addition from
the existing structure, and build within the existing framework to not completely obscure the existing
porch. This action will mitigate the impact of enclosing the porch.
The proposed new porch is appropriate for the structure based upon its simplified design. The porch
will extend 28 feet across the primary façade, with a depth of 10 feet from the structure and partially
obscure the view of the existing bay window. The Design Guidelines indicate that a new porch should
be simple in design to prevent the creation of a false sense of history for the structure. In addition, it
reflects the simple design of the existing porch. The bay window is most likely not an original
architectural feature of the structure and obscuring it from view will not significantly impact the historic
integrity of the structure.
Overall, due to the priority status of the structure the project appears to be in compliance with the intent
of the Design Guidelines.
Page 23 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2017‐005 1226 South Church Street Page 3 of 4
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;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards for the Residential Single
Family (RS) zoning district.
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,
specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay
District;
The project complies with the intent of the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project is designed to mitigate
the impacts upon the integrity of the
structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The proposed addition is compatible with
surrounding properties due to the scale of
the addition and the relation to the existing
structure. Properties in the immediate area
have similar architectural features, with
similar periods of significance, so the
addition does not create a property that
conflicts with the district
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse impact upon the neighborhood.
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.
No signage is proposed with this project.
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
The proposed project does not create an
adverse effect for the Old Town District. The
structure lacks a clearly defined architectural
style, which limits the impact of the
proposed project on the historic integrity of
the structure. No significant architectural
details will be removed or obscured, and the
proposed porch is simple in design, relating
Page 24 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA‐2017‐005 1226 South Church Street Page 4 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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.
back to the simple design of the overall
structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request as submitted.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent and supporting documents
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 25 of 72
Page 26 of 72
Page 27 of 72
Page 28 of 72
Page 29 of 72
Page 30 of 72
Page 31 of 72
Page 32 of 72
Page 33 of 72
Page 34 of 72
Page 35 of 72
Page 36 of 72
Page 37 of 72
Page 38 of 72
Page 39 of 72
Page 40 of 72
Page 41 of 72
Page 42 of 72
Page 43 of 72
Page 44 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Conceptual R eview for a proposed Infill Pro jec t loc ated at 810 Roc k Street (Do wntown, Area 2) - Matt
Synats chk
ITEM SUMMARY:
The HARC will review the conceptual p ro pos al fo r an infill projec t lo cated at 810 Roc k Street. The review
will p ro vide direc tion on the p ro ject regard ing c ompliance with the Do wnto wn and Old Town Design
Guidelines . C o nc ep tual review allo ws the op p o rtunity fo r dialogue with the Commis s ion and staff to
d is cus s the co 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
p ro ject. Site d evelopment p lan components , s uc h as p arking, site lighting, land s c aping and o ther features
will b e reviewed by s taff prior to the formal C ertific ate o f Appropriateness review.
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:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
810 Rock Street Conceptual Review Report Backup Material
810 Rock Street Conceptual Review Backup Material
810 Rock Street Location Map Backup Material
Downtown and Old Town Des ign Guidelines - Infill Cons truction in
Area 2
Backup Material
Page 45 of 72
Planning Department Conceptual Review Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Page 1 of 2
Meeting Date: March 23, 2017
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW REQUEST
The City of Georgetown Unified Development Code allows property owners to request a Conceptual
Review for proposed projects within the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts. The review
provides direction on the project regarding compliance with the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
Conceptual review allows the opportunity for dialogue with the Commission and staff to discuss the
components of the project, including the proposed size, scale, massing, and materials for the project. Site
development plan components, such as parking, site lighting, landscaping and other features will be
reviewed by staff prior to the formal Certificate of Appropriateness review.
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a conceptual review for a proposed multi-story infill project located at 810
Rock Street. The project includes demolition of a historic commercial building and construction of a new
project consisting of a mixed use structure, with commercial and residential uses.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Chapter 13 of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines outline the requirements for Infill
construction in Area 2 of the Downton Overlay District.
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;
Not applicable at this time.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development
Code;
Does not meet
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may
be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or
Overlay District;
Does not meet
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Does not meet
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with
surrounding historic properties.
Meets
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is
protected.
Meets
Page 46 of 72
Planning Department Conceptual Review Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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.
The proposed project does
not have a final sign plan
for review
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.
Meets
STAFF COMMENTS
1. The HARC will review the following items for the project:
a. Building massing as it relates to surrounding properties
b. Building materials as they relate to the surrounding district
c. Building height as it relates to the surrounding structures
d. Demolition of the historic structure
2. Staff review will include the following items:
a. Required parking for compliance with the Unified Development Code
b. Landscaping, site lighting, appropriate uses and other site based components
c. Compliance with 2012 International Building Code
d. Utilities, drainage and other site development requirements
QUESTIONS FOR HARC REVIEW
1. The west wall includes small windows that appear to be out of scale with the masonry wall.
2. The first floor of the south wall lacks material differentiation.
3. The height of the building exceeds the allowable height for the zoning district.
4. The project requires demolition of the Low Priority historic structure
Page 47 of 72
DN
BUILDING
FOOTPRINT
43' X 77'
15 PARKING SPOTS
TOTAL ON-SITE
ROCK STREET
LIBRARY
PARKING
ONE-
WAY
DRIVE
DUMPSTER
43' - 0"10' - 0"7' - 2"
77
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
18
'
-
0
"
COVERED PARKING
UNDER STRUCTURE
(6) COMPACT
PARKING STALLS
8' X 15'
(5) COMPACT
PARKING STALLS
8' X 15'
(4) PARALLEL
PARKING STALLS
7' X 21'
ADJACENT
STRUCTURE
ADJACENT
STRUCTURE
EXISTING
PRIVACY
FENCE
EXISTING
PRIVACY
FENCE
LANDSCAPING
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
REAR PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SI
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
60' - 0"
12
0
'
-
0
"
12
0
'
-
0
"
ADJACENT
STRUCTURE
ADJACENT
STRUCTURE
EXISTING
PRIVACY
FENCESI
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
EXISTING
PRIVACY
FENCE
REAR PROPERTY LINE
ROCK STREET
LIBRARY
PARKING
FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SI
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
12
0
'
-
0
"
60' - 0"
60' - 0"
12
0
'
-
0
"
EXISTING
AUTO REPAIR SHOP
"PERRY'S GARAGE"
TO BE REMOVED
1' - 0"20' - 0"
70
'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
CONCRETE
PAD
TO BE REMOVED
15' - 0"
25
'
-
0
"
UNDEVELOPED
SITE
Scale:
Date:
Bob Thomas,
NCARB
btncarb@yahoo.com
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
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 "
1/8" = 1'-0"
A01
SITE PLANS
_
81
0
R
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
81
0
R
O
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
2/19/17
1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOT AREA
ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING & PROPOSED USE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA
EXISTING FAR
PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA
PROPOSDED FAR
7,200 sf
C-1
MIX-USE
COMMERCIAL
1,400 sf
19%
3,311 sf
46%
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
N
Page 48 of 72
Scale:
Date:
Bob Thomas,
NCARB
btncarb@yahoo.com
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
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 "
A02
RENDERING &
MATERIALS
_
81
0
R
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
81
0
R
O
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
2/19/17
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE
BANDING
AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
BRICK
ACME - "GAMSTON"
MGP026, JDE 782156
STUCCO
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
METAL ROOFING & FACIA
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
RENDERING @ NORTHEAST CORNER
Page 49 of 72
1st FLOOR PLAN
0' - 0"
3rd LEVEL P.H.
31' - 0"
2nd LEVEL
11' - 6"
STUCCO - BEIGE
1st LEVEL P.H.
10' - 0"
2nd LEVEL P.H.
20' - 6"
3rd LEVEL
22' - 0"
(9' - 0")
4th LEVEL
32' - 6"
4th LEVEL P.H.
41' - 6"
ROOF DECK
43' - 0"
ROOF DECK P.H.
51' - 0"
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(8' - 0")
8'
-
0
"
7' - 0"13' - 9 1/2"
5'
-
6
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
7' - 0"
4'
-
0
"
4' - 0"
3' - 10"
3'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
2
12 2
12MAX. BLDG. HT.
54' - 0"
3'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
43' - 0"
14' - 3"16' - 2 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"
3' - 10"
8' - 0"
2' - 0"31' - 9 1/2"6' - 0"
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
METAL RAILING
CHARCOAL
STOREFRONT
WALL SYSTEM
CHARCOAL
STOREFRONT
WINDOW SYSTEM
CHARCOALSTOREFRONT
WALL SYSTEM
CHARCOAL
CAST STONE
BANDS
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
30' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"
A03
3
STUCCO - BEIGE
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
METAL RAILING
CHARCOAL
STOREFRONT
WINDOW SYSTEM
CHARCOALSTOREFRONT
WALL SYSTEM
CHARCOAL
CAST STONE
BANDS
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF2
12
2
12
6' - 0"21' - 2"2' - 0"
9' - 0"6'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
4' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
5' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
4' - 0"4'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
10' - 6"
5'
-
6
"
3' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
77' - 0"
12' - 5 1/2"34' - 7 1/4"14' - 0"13' - 11 1/4"2' - 0"
9'
-
6
"
14' - 9 1/4"
1'
-
0
"
2'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
16' - 4 1/2"
YELLOW ENAMEL ALUMINUM LETTERING
Scale:
Date:
Bob Thomas,
NCARB
btncarb@yahoo.com
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
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 "
As indicated
A03
ELEVATIONS
FRONT & RIGHT
_
81
0
R
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
81
0
R
O
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
2/19/17
3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES
STONE
LIMESTONE
BRICK
BANDS
STUCCO
AWNINGS
NAME DESCRIPTION
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE
ACME - "GAMSTON", MGP026, JDE 782156
AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
3/16" = 1'-0"1 RIGHT ELEVATION
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE BANDING
AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
BRICK
ACME - "GAMSTON"
MGP026, JDE 782156
STUCCO
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
METAL ROOFING & FACIA
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
1/2" = 1'-0"3 CALLOUT OF PROPOSED SIGNAGE
Page 50 of 72
2' - 0"13' - 11 1/4"61' - 0 3/4"
77' - 0"
9' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
13' - 6 1/2"12' - 8 1/4"25' - 6"11' - 8 3/4"13' - 6 1/2"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
2' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
2' - 0"21' - 2"6' - 0"
2
12
2
12
STUCCO - BEIGE
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
METAL RAILING
CHARCOAL
CAST STONE
BANDS
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
1' - 0"
9'
-
6
"
3rd LEVEL P.H.
31' - 0"
2nd LEVEL
11' - 6"1st LEVEL P.H.
10' - 0"
2nd LEVEL P.H.
20' - 6"
3rd LEVEL
22' - 0"
4th LEVEL
32' - 6"
4th LEVEL P.H.
41' - 6"
ROOF DECK
43' - 0"
ROOF DECK P.H.
51' - 0"
MAX. BLDG. HT.
54' - 0"
43' - 0"
3' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
2' - 0"12' - 0"27' - 0"2' - 0"
9' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
2' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
STUCCO - BEIGE
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
METAL RAILING
CHARCOAL
CAST STONE
BANDS
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
2
12
2
12
BRICK
Scale:
Date:
Bob Thomas,
NCARB
btncarb@yahoo.com
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
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 "
3/16" = 1'-0"
A04
ELEVATIONS
SIDES
_
81
0
R
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
81
0
R
O
C
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
2/19/17
3/16" = 1'-0"1 LEFT ELEVATION
(8' - 0"
3/16" = 1'-0"2 REAR ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES
STONE
LIMESTONE
BRICK
BANDS
STUCCO
AWNINGS
NAME DESCRIPTION
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE
ACME - "GAMSTON", MGP026, JDE 782156
AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE BANDING
AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
BRICK
ACME - "GAMSTON"
MGP026, JDE 782156
STUCCO
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
METAL ROOFING & FACIA
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
Page 51 of 72
MART
I
N L
U
THE
R
KI
N
G
J
R ST
S A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
FOREST ST
W 9 TH ST
W 8TH ST
FORE
ST S
T
ROC
K ST
W 7TH ST
T
I
N B
A
R
N
ALY
W 10 TH ST
S
MAIN
ST
/
Page 52 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 129
This chapter presents design guidelines that apply to Area 2, the ring of streets and blocks that en-circle the Town Square Historic District. The design guidelines are organized into a series of relevant design topics. Within each category, individual poli-cies and design guidelines are presented, which the City will use in determining the appropriateness of the work proposed.
However, if your property is located within the boundaries of the Town Square Historic District (Area 1) and you are considering a new construc-tion project, then please consult Chapter 12 for the relevant design guidelines, instead of this chapter. If your project is in the Old Town Overlay District please consult Chapter 14 for the relevant design guidelines, instead of this chapter.
This area has emerged from a heritage of residen-tial buildings and then later structures that were commercial in nature, but developed at a relatively low density, with substantial portions of land given over to automobiles. In more recent years, the area has developed with a mix of uses, including offices, retail, and some residential. While many of the buildings are relatively new, some older struc-tures survive, which contribute to a pedestrian-orientation and may in some cases have historic significance. Preserving these resources should be encouraged and, when feasible, they should be incorporated in new developments.
Chapter 13
Design guiDelines for
infill construction in AreA 2 -
Downtown overlAy historic
District
In This Chapter:Building setbacks 132Mass and scale 133Building materials 135Pedestrian-friendly character 136Transitional character 137Applying the guidelines 140
See the Downtown Master Plan for specific design information related to infill development in the downtown.
Page 53 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 130
The area should continue to develop with a mix of uses and improvements should occur in a manner that enhances the experience for pedestrians and to build a sense of visual relatedness among prop-erties. Even though automobile circulation routes significantly affect the character, it is still possible to strengthen pedestrian links and to improve the edges of properties such that a sense of human scale is conveyed.
In those portions of Area 2 that developed as residential blocks a “transitional” character—a blend between commercial and residential struc-tures—should be seen. Rather than constructing a storefront type building in these blocks with predominantly residential characteristics, a new design should relate to the traditional design characteristics of surrounding buildings while also conveying the stylistic trends of today.
Design GoalsThose commercial streets in Area 2 surrounding the Town Square Historic District should develop in a manner that is inviting to pedestrians while also accommodating automobiles. Development should include a mix of building types, including older structures and more contemporary ones. Each should reflect the design trends of its own time, while also contributing to a sense of visual continu-ity and strengthening the pedestrian experience. In addition, a combination of uses is encouraged, including residential, office, and retail.
The design goals for Area 2 are:• To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians. • To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscape design that can be understood by pedestrians.• To minimize the visual impacts of automo-biles.• To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths.• Retain native vegetation with project de-sign.• Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately con-verted residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain.• To utilize similar building materials, store-front design, recessed entries, and front setbacks.
Building SetbacksA wide variety of building setbacks can be seen throughout Area 2. Much of this variety is due to the influence of the automobile and the need to provide on-site parking. This parking typically has been provided in front of the building for consumer convenience. However, this trend erodes the view of the edge of buildings located along a sidewalk as was seen historically. Therefore, it is strongly encouraged that new developments in Area 2 should build on this tradition and locate buildings at the front lot line.
Page 54 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 131
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 in sizes, similar to the buildings seen historically and traditionally.
Building MaterialsBuilding materials of structures should contribute to the visual continuity of the area. They should ap-pear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity.
Architectural CharacterCommercial buildings throughout the Downtown Overlay District should relate to one another through the consistent use of similar building materials, storefronts, recessed entries, and the alignment of these different elements along a block. This tradition is strongly encouraged for new developments in Area 2.
One of the concerns in building design is that when national chain companies or their franchises construct buildings in Area 2 that they do so in a way that reinforces the design traditions of George-town. Some typical issues and negative impacts often associated with national chain or commercial franchise designs include:• Bright logo colors are used over large ex-panses of a building.• Large blank walls on “big box” buildings are bland and out of scale, and discourage pe-destrian activity.• Buildings are surrounded by parking lots and cars. Primary entrances are typically oriented to these parking lots, rather than to the street.• Metal panels and large areas of featureless stucco are often used and these are out of character and not of human scale.
Instead, these building types shall comply with the design guidelines that follow.
Pedestrian EnvironmentArea 2 should provide a controlled, organized automobile system which provides a safe pedes-trian environment. Streets, sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping should define the road edge and encourage walking, sitting, and other pedestrian activities.
Projects that can occur in the area also may have automobile activity associated with them. This should not, however, make it an unsafe environ-ment for the pedestrian or cyclist. Automobile circu-lation patterns, both internal and external, should be clearly identified and should not interfere with pedestrian or cyclist circulation systems.
Page 55 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 132
Policy: A new building should maintain the wall of buildings at the sidewalk edge.
Continuity of design within the Downtown Overlay District is a goal of the city, both in terms of con-necting individual projects and town blocks. Not only should a new building in Area 2 be located at the sidewalk edge, but it should be designed to provide visual interest.
13.1 Locate a new building at the front prop-erty line.• Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.• A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property shall have a building wall at the sidewalk edge.• Where no sidewalk exists one should be installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back, define the edge of the property with landscape elements.• For example, define the edges of a lot with landscaping, such as low-scale urban street trees or shrubs.• 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.• Also consider using a fence, or other struc-tural element, that reflects the position of typical storefront elements. These elements should align with nearby traditional commer-cial building types.
Also consider using fence, or other structural element,
that reflects typical storefront elements.
Define the edges of a lot with landscaping, such as
low-scale urban street trees or shrubs. (Georgetown,
Washington, DC)
A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property
shall have a building wall at the sidewalk edge.
Building
Parking
A new building should contribute to a pedestrian
friendly environment by providing an active street
edge. (2008)
Page 56 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 133
Policy: The overall mass of a new building should convey a sense of human scale.
Buildings in the downtown should appear similar in height and width to commercial structures seen traditionally in Area 1.
13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by the following:• Variation in height at internal lot lines.• Variation in the plane of the front façade.• Variation in architectural detailing and materi-als to emphasize the building module.• Variation in the façade height to reflect tra-ditional lot width.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. • A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller, sur-rounding structures.• Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width.• Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building.• Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
Divide a larger building into “modules” that are similar
in scale to buildings seen traditionally.
Consider dividing a larger building into “modules” that
are similar in scale to buildings seen traditionally.
Page 57 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 134
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure.• This will help reduce the perceived size of the project.• The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the tra-ditional size of buildings.• A typical building module should not exceed 30 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 facade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical architectural element or trim piece• Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its roofline and front and rear facades.• If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimension-ally throughout the entire building. Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.• In certain circumstances views to the court-house shall be taken into consideration when designing a new building.• A new building shall not be so tall as to block views of the courthouse.
A method of achieving height variation within a single
building is to step the building along the primary
façade.
Note: See UDC Section 4.12 Courthouse View Protection Overlay District.
Subdividing a larger building mass into smaller
“modules” that are similar in size to buildings seen
traditionally is encouraged. (Danville, CA)
Page 58 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 135
Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are
preferred. (Boulder, CO)
New materials should appear similar in character to
those used traditionally. For example, stucco, cast
stone, and concrete should be detailed to provide a
human scale.
New materials should relate to the scale, durability, color and texture of the predominate materials of downtown.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred.• Brick and stone are preferred for new con-struction. • New materials should appear similar in char-acter to those used traditionally. For example, stucco, cast stone, and concrete should be detailed to provide a human scale.• New materials should have a demonstrated durability for the Central Texas climate. For example, some facade materials used in new construction are more susceptible to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane.• A matte, or non-reflective, finish is pre -ferred. • Polished stone and mirrored glass, for example, are inappropriate and should be avoided as primary materials.
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged.• Horizontal lap siding of traditional dimensions is appropriate in most applications. • Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions are encouraged.• Brick or stone, similar to that used tradition-ally, is also appropriate.• Highly reflective materials are inappropri-ate.• New materials that are similar in character to traditional ones may be considered. Alterna-tive materials should have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate.
Policy: Building materials for new construction should be visually compatible with the predominate materials of this area.
Page 59 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 136
Policy: A new building should contribute to a pedestrian-friendly environment by providing an active street edge.
13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally.• Metal and shingle roofs are preferred. • Clay tile is discouraged.
Consider using display cases on the ground floor where
an active storefront is not a possibility. (Boulder, CO)
A new building—such as this gas station in downtown
Boulder, CO—that draws upon the fundamental
characteristics of building in Georgetown is
encouraged.
The downtown should continue to develop as a pedestrian-oriented environment. Streets and sidewalks should encourage walking, sitting, and other outdoor activities. Buildings also should be visually interesting to invite exploration by pe-destrians. Existing pedestrian routes should be enhanced. These are important concepts because buildings are experienced at close proximity by pedestrians.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a proj-ect to encourage pedestrian activity. • Provide at least one of the following along primary pedestrian ways: - A storefront - Display cases - Landscaping - A courtyard or plaza• Include traditional elements such as display windows, kickplates, and transoms on com-mercial storefronts.• Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appear-ance.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street.• A building should have a clearly-defined primary entrance. • The building entrance should be recessed. • A primary building entrance also should be at or near street level.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians.• Use landscaping and lighting accents to identify entrances.
Page 60 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 137
Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. Provide
a one-story entry element that is similar in size to those
seen traditionally. (Boulder, CO)
Policy: In those portions of Area 2 that developed as residential blocks a “transitional” character—a blend between commercial and residential structures—should be seen.
A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions
seen in the block. (Boulder, CO)
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge.• Sharing ingress and egress points with neighboring projects is strongly encouraged with consideration to safety.
13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site.• See also the design guidelines for Parking found in Chapter 8.
Several blocks of Area 2 were originally part of a single-family neighborhood. It is now, in essence, a place of transition between the true commercial core of the Downtown Overlay District and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Although commercial uses are expected throughout Area 2, residential-type structures still establish the architectural tone for many of the blocks. There-fore, new developments should sensitively relate to these traditions while also building upon com-mercial characteristics seen elsewhere in the downtown.
Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building.
13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block.• The front yard setback of a new building should match the established range of ad-jacent buildings. • Where the setbacks are uniform, the new building should be placed in general align-ment with its neighbors. • In those areas where setbacks vary slightly, but generally fall within an established range, the new building should be within 10 feet of the typical setback in the block.
Page 61 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 138
13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of hu-man scale. • Use building materials that are of traditional dimensions.• Provide a one-story entry element that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.• Use a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.• Use elements that provide a sense of scale.
13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. • A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller, surround-ing structures.
Height varied between two and three stories.
Buildings on sites larger than two traditional lot widths
should be designed to reflect the traditional scale of
development.
Page 62 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 139
13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.• A blending of sloping roof forms and flat roofs may be appropriate for larger projects.
13.21 A porch on a converted residential structure should remain in place. • Retain the original residential integrity of the building.
13.22 New interpretations of traditional build-ing styles are encouraged.• A new design that draws upon the fun -damental similarities among commercial and residential buildings in the community without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of their own time yet compatible with their historic neighbors.
New interpretations of traditional building styles are
encouraged. (Boulder, CO)
Develop the ground-floor level of a project to encourage
pedestrian activity. Consider providing a courtyard or
plaza where a building’s entrance must be setback.
(Boulder, CO)
Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and
stone are encouraged (2008).
Page 63 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 140
The first case study, in Danville, California, includes the redevelopment of two blocks along a major arterial, which parallels the historic Main Street. Design standards required that new buildings be constructed at the sidewalk edge.
This row of new, double-fronted buildings defines the
sidewalk edge of a major arterial street in Danville,
California. The building is also divided into modules
that reflect the traditional building characteristics.
Seen from the interior parking lot, the “second”
storefront facade is apparent.
The edge of the infill site in Danville reveals the parking area, which is located in the interior of the lot and
accessed between the two rows of buildings.
Applying the Design Guidelines: How may the infill guidelines be applied in real situations?
The design guidelines for new commercial construction in Area 2 presented in this chapter can be combined to develop a comprehensive program of development of a property. The images on the following pages depict two infill examples from other communities and a potential infill development scenario for Georgetown. These examples all address situations where auto-oriented areas have re-developed to appeal more to pedestrians.
Page 64 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 141
Application of guidelines for a new development in Area 2In this example, the guidelines for new development in Area 2 are applied to an entire block. The as-sumption is that the entire block is developed as a single project, although similar results could occur with cooperative development among individual property owners.
The focus of the project is providing a mix of uses, including retail at the street level, and offices and residences above. The structure is divided into a series of “modules” that reflect the traditional widths of buildings constructed in the downtown.
Canopies and awnings align along the first floor level, providing a sense of visual continuity while also sheltering the sidewalk. Building heights vary among one and two story segments. This creates variety in massing and also creates some upper level balconies and decks. A corner plaza contributes to the open space; this could be outdoor seating for a café. While “notches” such as this are provided along the street, the majority of the street wall is defined with storefronts, to define the pedestrian zone.
A limited amount of parking is provided in the interior of the
lot, in an auto court. The remainder of the parking would be
provided off-site, preferably in a civic parking structure.
corner plaza
canopies & awnings buildin
g
m
o
d
u
l
e
s
Canopies and awnings align along the first floor
level, providing a sense of visual continuity while
also sheltering the sidewalk.
interior of block
parking
shared
loading
facility
building
entrances
building
entrances
Page 65 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 142
Application of guidelines for a new development in Area 2In this example, the guidelines for new development in Area 2 are applied to an entire block. The assumption is that the entire block is developed as individual projects that adhere to one overall de-velopment plan.
Compared with the development scenario on the opposite page, this particular infill scheme includes a lower density of buildings with a landscaped street edge. The key to this scenario is the use of “anchor” buildings at the corner of all lots. Such a development could include commercial uses (such as retail) on the ground levels of buildings and office space or residential units on upper floors.
primary auto
access from
alley
landscaping buffers
parking lots
buildings anchor
corners
outdoor activity
space
commercial buildings
align at sidewalk
edge
Page 66 of 72
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 143
Application of guidelines for a new “transitional character” developmentIn this example, the guidelines for a new “transitional” development in Area 2 are applied to an entire block. The assumption is that the entire block is developed as a single project, although similar results could occur with cooperative development among individual property owners.
This mixed-use project would provide neighborhood-oriented commercial and residential units. This building complex complements the nearby single-family residential neighborhood in that it steps down in height on the block face nearest the residences and incorporates sloping roof forms. The residential units also incorporate one-story porches and small front yards. The parking is located to the interior of the lot and would be buffered along the street edge. Commercial uses - which include office and retail space - are mostly located on the ground floor and several residential units are located on the second floor.
residential units
front porches
interior parking lot
commercial ground
floor uses
sloping roof forms
residential and
office uses on upper
floors
mixed-use buildings
residential units
interior parking lot
Page 67 of 72
City of Georgetown
page 144 Page 68 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Update on Pres ervation Month ac tivities - Matt S ynats c hk, Histo ric Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
May is Pres ervation Month! P res ervatio n p rojec ts p lay a key ro le in the s uc c es s of o ur community, and
Preservation Mo nth p ro vides an o p p o rtunity to c eleb rate o ur acc o mp lis hments . T he City o f Georgetown is
p artnering with the Williams o n Museum, Pres ervatio n Geo rgeto wn and the Williams o n County Histo rical
Commission fo r a s eries of events celebrating his to ric p res ervatio n in Georgetown.
The events inc lud e:
Pioneer Days (Williams o n Museum) - S aturd ay, May 6th
Paint Out o n Main Street (Preservation Geo rgeto wn) – Saturday, May 6th
Williams o n County Proc lamation (Williams on Mus eum) – Tuesday, May 9th
City Co unc il Proc lamation (City of Georgetown) – Tuesday, May 9th
Market Days P res ervatio n Bo o th (City o f Georgetown, P res ervatio n Georgetown, Williams o n
Museum, Williams o n County Histo rical C o mmis s io n) – S aturd ay, May 13th
Paint Out o n Main Street Exhibit (Pres ervation Georgetown) – May 14 – 20, with receptio n o n May
20th
Marking His tory (Williams o n Museum) – S aturd ay, May 21st
Artis an Wood Resto ration Works hop (P res ervatio n Geo rgeto wn) - TBD
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
Page 69 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
Update and review of Histo ric Resource Survey s ched ule, includ ing pub lic hearings and no tific ations .
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will provide an update on the p ro cess and review the attac hed memo.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
His toric Res ource Survey Update 03.16.2017 Backup Material
Page 70 of 72
Overview:
The City of Georgetown is updating the existing 1984 and 2007 historic resource surveys. The
survey is a key tool for the historic preservation program and serves as the basis for the
redevelopment and demolition decisions regarding historic properties, as outlined in the City’s
Unified Development Code. The survey project is evaluating the current resources on the 1984
and 2007 surveys, and conduct an intensive survey of the Downtown and Old Town Overlay
Districts, to compile a complete list of the properties built prior to 1974.
Process Update:
The draft results for the survey were submitted to staff on October 31, 2016 for review. At that
time, it was determined that the results omitted properties outside of the proposed survey area
that had been surveyed in 1984 and 2007. The revised draft was submitted for staff review on
January 30, 2017. Staff is currently reviewing the draft to provide comment to the consultant.
Initial findings:
The draft report identifies 1,690 historic structures within the survey area and individual
properties recorded in 1984 and 2007. The 2007 Survey documented 1,574 properties.
However, the draft survey identifies 123 properties that were either demolished or unable to be
located during the update, so the new survey represents an overall net loss of 7 structures.
To: Historic and Architectural Review Commission
From: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Date: March 23, 2017
Re: Historic Resource Survey Update
Page 71 of 72
2
Overall, the survey identified 194 High Priority structures, 549 Medium Priority Structures, and
938 Low Priority Structures. These findings highlight the need to continue to preserve our
Medium and Low Priority structures throughout the City.
In addition, 163 properties changed priority from 2007 to 2016, with 127 properties changing
from Medium to Low Priority.
Next Steps:
The draft results will be published for public review and notification will be sent to each of the
property owners identified on the survey. The notification will include information about the
survey, and requirements for building permits.
A City Council Workshop is scheduled for April 25, 2017 to discuss the project and a public
meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 4, 2017 to discuss the results with the consultant and
city staff. Prior to setting a date staff would like to conduct a meeting with the HRS
subcommittee, submit comments to the consultants on survey form information and
recommendations, and finalize a project calendar for the remainder of the project.
The HARC will receive a presentation regarding the draft survey results at the April 27, 2017
meeting. The presentation will include an overview of the process and highlights of the findings.
Page 72 of 72