HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.27.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
of the City of Georgetown
August 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 East 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A Review and possible approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2015 regular meeting.
B Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of
Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres
C Discussion and possible action regarding the demolition delay period for the unapproved
demolition of a historic structure located at 1700 Leander Street, bearing the legal description of
Outlot Division A, Block 13, Lot 1, 0.332 acres.
D Consideration and action to appoint Commissioner Richard Mee to the HARC Historic Resource
Survey Subcommittee
E Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
F Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Page 1 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2015 regular meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC Minutes 07.23.2015 Backup Material
Page 2 of 36
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: July 23, 2015
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, July 23, 2015 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; Jennifer Brown; Richard Mee
and Mary Jo Winder.
Commissioners in Training present: Lawrence Romero; Jan Daum; Patty Eason
Commissioners absent: Shawn Hood
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager; Jordan Maddox, Interim Planning Director and Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary.
A. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the order of business to be conducted.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2015 meeting.
Review and possible approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2015 Sign Subcommittee meeting.
Motion by Knight to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Mee. Approved 6 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for a
residential addition and setback modification for the property located at 711 East 8th Street bearing
the legal description of Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block E (E/PT) 0.1744 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant wishes to construct a two story addition,
including a garage and additional living space. The applicant’s request includes approval to use the
underlying Residential Single Family (RS) zoning district setbacks. Staff recommends approval with
conditions of the request based on the findings that the request will meet the approval criteria of
Section s 3.13.030 and 4.09.020B of the UDC, with the modifications outlined in the staff report. The
modifications include altering the design of the upper story.
Mr. Groves, the applicant, was present for questions.
The Public Hearing was opened and with no speakers coming forth was closed.
Bain expressed concern over the shape of the roof not being consistent with anything else in the
neighborhood. Mee expressed concern over the visual impact of the addition and Knight expressed
concern that there were no samples presented.
Motion by Knight to deny the COA based on not meeting Guidelines 4.16 and 4.18 for the mass
and scale and not being compatible to the neighborhood. Second by Winder. Motion failed 1 – 5.
(Bain, Bohls, Brown, Mee and Winder opposed.)
Motion by Brown to approve the application for the CoA as presented by the applicant and based
upon COA approval for the construction of the upper story utilizing the Residential Single
family zoning district setback requirements; COA approval for the setback modification,
Page 3 of 36
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: July 23, 2015
allowing the proposed project to be built within the setbacks; and CDC approval for the
construction of a residential addition to a street facing façade. Second by Bohls. Motion
passes 5 – 1. (Knight opposed).
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design compliance (CDC) for
demolition of the property located at 605 East University Avenue, bearing the legal description of
Dimmitt Addition, Block 84 – 85 (PT), 0.631 acres; Dimmitt Addition , Block 84-85 (PT), 0.3939 acres;
and Dimmitt Addition, Block 84, SE Corner.
Synatschk presented the staff report. The property owner wishes to demolish the Medium Priority
structure located at 605 East University Avenue. The current structure was built in 1922 as the first
hospital in Georgetown and significantly altered in the 1960s. The alterations included the demolition
of approximately 33% of the building, including the primary façade, and the construction of a brick
addition, creating a new primary façade. The structure continued to serve as the primary hospital in
Georgetown until the 1970s and was converted to offices and other medical uses following the
opening of a new hospital.
The HARC Demolition Subcommittee, comprised of Commissioner Nancy Knight, Commissioner
Shawn Hood and City of Georgetown Chief Building Official Dave Hall, met on July 13th to discuss
the application. The meeting included a site inspection and follow up discussion regarding the
application. Following their deliberations, the Demolition Subcommittee voted to recommend
approval of the demolition request with the condition that the applicant salvage the usable materials
from the structure. The condition included using the exterior brick as accent details on the future
project and offering any other salvageable materials for re-use in other projects.
Chair Bain opened the public hearing.
Peter Dana, 1101 Walnut, offered to help with the history of the structure. He questioned the lack of
posting of notices and signs to notify of this meeting.
Sherry Dana, 1101 Walnut, appreciates the process but also questioned the lack of mailed notices
about this property. She has concerns about the future of the town if historic buildings are being
demolished.
Ann Mitchell, 1701 S. College, stated she opposed the removal of the old hospital and suggested
saving the structure for a similar use, repurposing it. She asked the commissioners to delay the
decision to demolish it.
With no more speakers coming forth, Bain closed the public hearing.
Matt explained that this case came to the city prior to the new rules of notification that went into
effect on July 1. He also explained that the commission could not table the item without the consent
of the applicant.
Motion by Mee to approve of CDC-2015-019 for demolition of the structure based upon the
findings that the structure is no longer considered to be historically significant due to the
condition of the structure and significant alterations. All salvageable materials must be
saved for use in the future project and other projects. And a professional architectural
historian must be hired to document the history of the structure for future use. Second by
Page 4 of 36
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: July 23, 2015
Knight. Knight amended to include the exterior brick should be included in the design of
the new structure to the extent possible. Second by Mee.
The vote of the amendment passed 6 – 0. The vote of the original motion passed 6 – 0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) for exterior alterations
for the property located at 1610 East 15th Street bearing the legal description of University Park, Block
6, Lot 1 – 5.
Knight recused herself for this item. Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed project is for
the medium priority historic structure located at 1610 East 15th Street. The property was built circa
1960, reflecting architectural elements of the ranch style house, a prevalent design for the period. The
project includes the removal of an existing addition, with a new addition built in its place. The
applicant also proposes the construction of a new porch tying the original structure and new addition
in to one cohesive structure. Overall, the proposed project fails to comply with the Unified
Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines due to the significant
alterations of the historic form of the structure and the placement of the addition and staff
recommends denial.
Chair Bain opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing.
Motion by Mee to approve the application as submitted. Second by Winder.
Mee expressed that he thinks the house looks good despite not meeting the guidelines and that it
does fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Winder would like to see more differentiation in
the roofline.
The vote on the motion passes, 5 – 0. (Knight recused)
Bain called for a five minute break.
F. Discussion and possible direction on infill construction project at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing
the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1 – 8, 1.3104 acres.
Francisco Choi presented his concept for infill construction. He presented different styles of the
building and asked for comments. Commissioners expressed concerns about the mass and scale of
the proposed buildings, stating that it would overshadow all other buildings in that area except for
the existing Tamiro Plaza. And they had questions about parking, both on-site and street parking.
G. Questions and Comments from Commissioners in Training. There were no questions.
H. Updates from Staff and reminder of future meetings
Synatschk reported that a consultant has been chosen to conduct the Historic Resource Survey.
The next HARC meeting will be August 27. There will not be a demolition subcommittee in August.
Adjournment. Motion by Bain to adjourn, second by Knight. The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
________________________________ _______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Richard Mee
Page 5 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of
Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for infill construction at 501 South
Austin Avenue. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to remove an
existing non-historic structure and construct a multi-use development, with retail space on the first
floor and residential units on the upper floors. Staff recommends approval of the request based on
the findings that the request complies with the approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-025 Staff Report Backup Material
CDC-2015-025 Letter of Intent Exhibit
CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 1 - Renderings Exhibit
CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 2 - Material List Exhibit
CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 3 - Site Plan Exhibit
Page 6 of 36
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: August 27, 2015
File Number: CDC‐2015‐025
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill
construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block
27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Tamiro Plaza Phase II
Applicant: Francisco Choi, FTC Architects
Property Owner: Francisco Choi
Property Address: 501 South Austin Avenue
Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres
Historic Overlay: Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District,
Case History: This project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 HARC
meeting. This is the first public hearing for the project.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: None
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: None
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed infill construction project
known as Tamiro Plaza, Phase II. The project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure and
the construction of a four story structure with commercial space on the first floor and residential units
on the upper floors.
Page 7 of 36
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 6
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
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies
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 materials to emphasize the building
module.
• Variation in the façade height to reflect traditional lot width.
Complies
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a
single structure.
Complies
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect
the traditional size of buildings.
Complies
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse. Complies
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Complies
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. Complies
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. Complies
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and
pedestrians.
Complies
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. Complies
13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the
site.
Complies
13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. Complies
13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing the construction of a four story mixed use structure in Area 2 of the
Downtown Overlay District. The subject property is located north of the historic core of Area 1 of the
Downtown Overlay District and is primarily surrounded by new construction.
Page 8 of 36
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 3 of 6
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines identify the following design goals for Area 2 of the
Downtown Overlay District:
• 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 automobiles.
• To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths.
• Retain native vegetation with project design.
• Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately converted
residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain.
• To utilize similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks.
The proposed infill construction project complies with the design goals by establishing a pedestrian
character with the first floor storefronts, and new sidewalks and other amenities. The building utilizes
a modular design to break up the scale of the structure, providing a human scale and eliminating large
expanses of blank walls. The parking area is primarily shielded with the exterior of the building,
enhancing the pedestrian flow and experience.
The block contains the existing Tamiro Plaza building, a mixed use office and restaurant development.
Guideline 13.1 and UDC Section 4.08.070.A.1 specify that new construction shall be placed at the
property line to preserve the building edge of the overall district. The proposed design incorporates
upper floor setbacks at different levels to create a variation in the front plane of the façade and utilizes
a mix of complimentary materials to reflect the traditional building width, as outlined in Guideline
13.3. The materials for the proposed project are stone and stucco, styled to provide a human scale and
create a textural difference for the individual bays. The stucco colors reflect the color palate found
throughout the building materials in the Downtown Overlay District.
Secretary of the Interior Standard #9 states “New additions, exterior alterations and related new
construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the
property. New work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and
its environment.” The proposed new construction utilizes materials and form found within the district,
specifically masonry materials and 30 foot bays to blend with the historic architecture. The Downtown
Overlay District has a wide historic context, allowing for the construction of contemporary designs
within its boundaries. The use of the contemporary design complies with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
The overall design of the structure incorporates first level commercial space, detailed with different
materials and recessed storefronts, similar to those seen historically. The design expands the
walkability of the Downtown district by creating more usable sidewalks and eliminating the parking
lot along the edge of the current property. The proposed sidewalks and pedestrian amenities will
Page 9 of 36
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 4 of 6
clearly identify the street edge and provide access to the first floor commercial space. The building’s
design wraps around the exterior of the lot, enclosing the parking within the space. Only a small
portion of the parking area will be visible on the north side, between the existing building and the
proposed structure.
The overall building composition includes three separate buildings, breaking the combined project in
to smaller structures, as outlined in Guideline 13.5. The articulation and setbacks of the upper floors
further enhances the creation of individual modules, similar to those seen around the Courthouse
Square.
The proposed project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure, which does not require
review by the HARC.
The project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 meeting and the Commission
provided feedback regarding the materials and the verticality of the structure. These comments were
addressed through the new design, by utilizing different materials and textures on the proposed
structure.
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 was deemed to be complete
by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and the UDC provisions outlined
in Chapter 4 and 6.
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 Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines as
outlined in the staff analysis.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
Not applicable.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The proposed project is designed to be
compatible in scale and materials with the
surrounding structures. Many of the
surrounding structures are non‐historic and
do not have any historic fabric.
Page 10 of 36
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the Downtown Overlay
District and accomplishes some of the goals
identified in the 2013 Downtown Master
Plan update.
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
application. Any future signage will require
a Certificate of Appropriateness.
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.
The proposed project complies with the
Unified Development Code and the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines as outlined in the staff report.
The infill construction does not directly
impact a historic resource and does not
adversely impact the overall historic district.
The proposed design utilizes the building to
shield the parking areas from street view,
limiting the impact upon the walkability of
the Downtown Overlay District. In addition,
new commercial space along Austin Avenue
will draw pedestrians further off the Square,
enhancing the vibrancy of the Downtown
Overlay District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of CDC‐2015‐025 as submitted.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 11 of 36
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
Letter of Intent
Exhibit 1 – Renderings
Exhibit 2 – Material List
Exhibit 3 – Site Plan
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Page 12 of 36
Francisco Tae Choi, AIA, NCARB
FTC Architects, PC
501 S Austin Ave, -
Georgetown, TX 78626
Tel: 512.819.9900
Cell:512.297.7263
www.FTCarchitects.com
francisco@tamiro.com
RE:
Tamiro Plaza Phase2 - Brownstones
HARC Narratives 15July2015 – Concept Review
TO:
Mr. Matt Synatschk,
Historic Planner
City Of Georgetown, Texas
Matt, Mr. Synatschk,
Here is a simple narrative and supporting excerpts and descriptions of foregoing HARC’s concept review in the
upcoming HARC’s session. I have emailed you several computer renderings of the concepts. More clarification
drawings will be emailed to you as they become available.
Since official name has not been given to the project as such, we shall call it at this time as,
Tamiro Plaza Phase Two - Brownstone Development.
“Live Work and Play” is the heart and living soul of the theme of this brownstone development proposal in the
heart of historic Overlay in Historic Downtown Georgetown – ….touching the 9 block Historic Square.
The architecture is a uniquely blend of traditional shapes and forms that adheres with the scale of historic
downtown. Each unit is a simple form that creates wonderful and very large outdoor terrace on each and every
floor at second, third and fourth, comprising not just a small balconies, but rather a roomful size terraces where
outdoor living activities will be greatly enjoyed to its fullest. The entire ground floor is designed to receive all
kinds of retail shops and amenities.
Thus, these “upscale brownstones” owners or inhabitants will have amenities like no other as they will not only
live a stone throwaway from the Square, but enjoy dozens if not hundreds of shops within walking distance of
merely two to three city blocks from it’s Tamiro Plaza.
Lastly, such high end residential/retail proposed here will be new way of conceiving downtown living, and is as
closest as any development has ever come to historic downtowns, and hopefully such dream will become a
reality soon.
Sincerely,
Francisco
Page 13 of 36
Background – Expectations of the City of Georgetown
Excerpts from the Downtown Master Plan:
From the Framework Strategy: This renaissance must concentrate on enhancing the core with a mix of
uses, including higher density residential, commercial and cultural attractions.
(Tamiro Plaza Phase II addresses the mix of higher density residential and commercial retail.
The design provides up to 43,000 square feet of residential, and up to 16,600 square feet of retail.
Map 6 of the Strategy designates the intersection of Austin Avenue and E. 5th Street as a Development
Anchor. 'The Monument Cafe and Tamiro Plaza at 5th and Austin offer a mix of uses that currently
draw pedestrians from the square. More development should follow in this direction.'
(Tamiro Plaza Phase II satisfies the intent of this designation.)
Generally, everything within a block and a half of the historic courthouse is termed the 'Downtown
Core.' Specialty retail, dining and entertainment venues should be present to position the downtown
core as an exciting place distinct from regional suburban shopping centers.
(Tamiro Plaza Phase II contributes to the desired distinction of the downtown core.)
This area should strengthen as the specialty shopping and dining destination for the county. Office
space and apartments on upper floors should be promoted. Surface parking should be kept to a
minimum.
(Tamiro Plaza Phase II addresses the desire for specialty shopping, dining destination, office
space, and apartments on upper floors while minimizing surface parking.)
Promote development of downtown living and professional offices on upper floors.
(Tamiro Plaza Phase II supports downtown living and professional offices, including support for
entrepreneurs who wish to 'live above the store.')
A vertical mixed use block is usually more intensive than a horizontal mixed use block, often requiring
underground or above-grade parking to accommodate the on-site needs. Vertical mixed use blocks tend
to be larger in mass and scale. Stepping back upper floors is one way to reduce the scale of the
building from the street level. Parking is generally located underground or in a structure.
(Tamiro Plaza Phase II provides mixed-use, and stepped-back upper floors.)
Page 14 of 36
Page 15 of 36
Page 16 of 36
Page 17 of 36
Page 18 of 36
Page 19 of 36
TamiroPlazaPhase2 – Building Material 29 July2015 FTC Architects, PC
4th Floor
Coping to Match Stucco Finish Cornice; 2 ft high by 2 ft(overhang) cornice
Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish – Beige/creamy color – “Old World”
Look Finish.
Windows (Anderson 200 Series or Equal) Clear insulated low-e glass
Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Dr or Equal) Stiles to match stucco color
Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze
finish
Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil
Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal
3rd Floor
Stucco Finish Exterior Wall Moulding; 2ft high by 6” projecting cornice
Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish –Beige/creamy color –“Old World”
Look Finish.
Windows (Anderson 200 Series or Equal) Clear insulated low-e glass
Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Dr or Equal) Stiles to match Stucco color
Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze
Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil
Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal
Metal Canopy – painted to match anodized (dark brown – satin finish) secured with
turn buckle or steel tube assemblies; all painted to match metal canopy
2nd Floor
Stucco Finish Exterior Wall Moulding; 2ft high by 6” projecting cornice
Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish –Beige/creamy color –“Old World”
Look Finish.
Windows (Anderson 200 Series or Equal) Clear insulated low-e glass
Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Doors or Equal) Stiles to match color of Stucco
Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze
Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil
Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal
Metal Canopy – painted to match anodized (dark brown – satin finish) secured with
turn buckle or steel tube assemblies; all painted to match metal canopy
1st Floor
Stucco Finish Exterior Wall Molding; 2ft high by 6” projecting cornice
Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish –Beige/creamy color –“Old World”
Look Finish.
Windows/Storefront/Door assemblies (Kawneer or Equal) anodized finish frame
with Clear insulated low-e glass with ornamental hardware series by Schlage
Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Doors or Equal) Stiles to match color of Stucco
Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze
finish
Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil
Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal
Metal Canopy – painted to match anodized (dark brown – satin finish) secured with
turn buckle or steel road assemblies; all painted to match metal canopy
2’-0” high smooth finish Texas Limestone Base – to be continuous throughout….
Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action regarding the demolition delay period for the unapproved
demolition of a historic structure located at 1700 Leander Street, bearing the legal description of
Outlot Division A, Block 13, Lot 1, 0.332 acres.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown was notified on July 27, 2015 that the historic structure located at 1700
Leander Street had been demolished without an approved Certificate of Appropriateness or an
approved Demolition Permit. The demolished structure, built in 1900, was listed as a Low priority
structure in the 1984 City of Georgetown Historic Resource Survey, as shown in the attached
form. The 2007 update changed the status to medium priority, as shown in the attached survey
update.
UDC Section 3.13.040 states the following:
A. Demolition, including demolition by neglect, of a building or structure prior to approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, when
required, shall be subject to an automatic hold on all permits. No permit may be granted until this
period is complete and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission has granted a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if
applicable.
B. The permit delay period shall be determined by the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission, but in no case shall it exceed 365 days.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission is responsible for reviewing the demolition
and determining the duration of the delay period, not to exceed 365 days. A building permit
application is on file for the proposed new construction on the site. The new construction does not
require a Certificate of Appropriateness due to its location outside of the historic districts.
The 1984 and 2007 Historic Resource Survey information is attached for review. In addition, the
2015 GIS Aerial image and the April 2015 Google Street View images are included as well.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1 - 1984 Historic Resource Survey Backup Material
Page 22 of 36
Exhibit 2 - 2007 Historic Resource Survey Form Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - 2015 GIS Aerial Image Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - April 2015 Google Street View Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - March 9, 2014 Photo Exhibit
Page 23 of 36
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8 ·82)
1. County hlil 1 j amsqo Site No. _..::2:.;::8~7 ___ _
Ci tv/ Rural __ G::.:.e::.:.o::.:.r:..g~c~to""'':.!.2•n~----
2. Name Est. __ .......,] ... 9 ..... oo,.__ __ _
Address 1702 Leander
Contractor-------------
3. Owno 1 -~------~-------8. Swle/Typo -----ll":.c:e:.J.:r.lln..aaLG.JJU.J.laa.~;;r ___________ _
Address 9 . Original Use ----rt.JiiiQ.Ita.,;~~· d~lii~Q~t:;.;ib<a;&..].l.-------~----
4. Blo ck/Lot Present Use ____ rt:Jeiit.:SiO,;l~· d;~Jii'i-IP;JJt;.;i~aa...lL-------------
10 . De~cript i on Qoe-story \y'ood frame d!)(el lin g with hall parlor plan; evredoc hii!1la ~o~itl:t g:;b@s'
sbioile §i.diog : gable . roof 1yj tb ,yam! shingles: Front e l ev faces E ; wood sash do!! h) e=hu
wjndmvs wHb 6/6 lights; tl.m, single door entrances; throo-bay pMCb 1o1itb bip roof Qj;l i.
el eu ; hoy S!!pport 9 on brick pi-ers •
11. ProsentCondition fair: altered asbestos siding; parch cha n g ed; addi tions
12. Significance ----------------------------------------
13 . Relationship to Site: Moved Date _____ or Original Site (describe) _______________ _
14. Bibliography _____________ _ 15. Informant----------~---------
16 . Recorder D Moore /H HM
DESIGNATIONS
TNRIS No. ld THC Code-----
0 RTHL 0HABS (no.) TEX·---
N R: 0 Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
B&W 4x5s
35mm Negs.
YEAR
NR File Name------------I Other ___________________________ ___
CONTINUATION PAGE
PHOTO DATA
Slides
DRWR ROLL FRME
I
19 130 I
Date -w--..J~whlol-.¥y~lllolo0S~t~, -
ROLL FAME
to rn to
to
No . ....LoLL.
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
\Villiamson 1. County --,...:.:.::.=-=::.=!:==:..._---
City/Rural Georgetown
I \~E ,5. USGS Quad No.----3:::.:0~9::..:7_-...:::3..=.1.:::..3_slte No. __ ....;;;2~8-7 __ _
2. Name ________________ ~-------
Page 24 of 36
Photo Index Form HARDY • HECK · MOORE
Project Photographer Date F i lm Type Roll No
Georgetown Survey David Moore 2-3-84 P1us-X 19
Frame Name I Address VIew Camera USGS Site
No. Facing Quad No.
3 204 Main SE oblique NW 3097-313 418
4 206 II SE oblique NW II 419
5 210 II SE oblique NW II 420
6 414 Austin SE oblique NW " 359
7 404-06-08 Austin SE oblique NW II 358
' 8 208 Austin E. elevation w " 357
9 106 Austin SE oblique NW II 356
10 502 Rock SE oblique NW " 342
ll 508 ,, E. elevation w " 343
12 1012 West NE oblique sw " 297
13 1002 ,, NE oblique SW II 296
14 1005 " SW oblique NE II 300
15 1102 Railroad NE oblique sw II 283
16 1104 " NE oblique SW " 284
17 1502 Hart NE oblique sw II 308
18 141 2 II SE oblique NW II 307
19 1406 II NE oblique sw II 306
20 1404 II SE oblique NW II 305
21 1304 II SE oblique NW II 304
22 1302 II SE oblique NW ,, 303
23 1208 " SE oblique NW " 302
24 2120 Leander SE oblique NW II 292
25 2000 II SE oblique NW II 291
26 1910 II SE oblique NW II 290
27 1906 II SE oblique NW II 289
28 1804 " SE oblique NW II 288
29 1711 II SW oblique NE II 293
30 1702 II NE oblique sw II 287
31 1901 Railroad NE oblique SW II 285
32 1008 Main SE oblique NW ,, 426
33 101 w. 6th SE oblique NW " 31
34 508 N. Rock NE oblique SW II 780
35 302 w. Spring S. elevation N II 770
Page 25 of 36
Page 26 of 36
INVENTORY OF RESOURCES
PRESERVATION
PRIORITY THUMBNAIL IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION RESOURCE INFORMATION
Leander Road, 1.35 mile west of
Weir Road, south side
1304a
N/A
Domestic Buildings / Single Family
Bungalow Plan
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1930Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.
1984 NOT
RECORDED
2007 LOW
Leander Road, 1.35 mile west of
Weir Road, south side
1304b
N/A
Farming Facilities (Agriculture) / Auxiliary Facilit
Barn
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1930Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.
1984 NOT
RECORDED
2007 LOW
1000 Leander Road
2022a
Queen Anne
Domestic Buildings / Single Family
Center Passage Plan
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
1903Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.858
1984 HIGH
2007 HIGH
1000 Leander Road
2022b
N/A
Domestic Buildings / Ancillary Structure
Shed
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1910Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.
1984 NOT
RECORDED
2007 HIGH
2201 Leander Road
1305a
Ranch
Domestic Buildings / Single Family
Linear
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1945Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.
1984 NOT
RECORDED
2007 HIGH
2201 Leander Road
1305b
N/A
Domestic Buildings / Single Family
Hall-and-Parlor (Two-Room Plan)
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1915Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.879
1984 LOW
2007 HIGH
2201 Leander Road
1305c
N/A
Domestic Buildings / Ancillary Structure
Shed
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1960Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.
1984 NOT
RECORDED
2007 LOW
2201 Leander Road
1305d
N/A
Domestic Buildings / Ancillary Structure
Garage
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
ca. 1945Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.
1984 NOT
RECORDED
2007 MED
1700 Leander Street
425
N/A
Domestic Buildings / Single Family
Two-Room Plan
Property Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
1900Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.287
1984 LOW
2007 MED
1700-block, W side Leander
Street
470
N/A
Commercial Buildings / Empty LotProperty Type
Form / Plan Type
Stylistic InfluenceAddress
2007 Site ID No.
Construction Date
1984 Site ID No.293
1984 HIGH
2007 LOW
Appendix F, Page 101Page 27 of 36
Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas - 2007
Thumbnails - by Address Order
315.01_AM_071107_091LR.jpg
Looking
View
Photographer Amy McWhorter
Image Name
1000 Leander Road
2022a
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_AM_071107_092LR.jpg
Looking
View
Photographer Amy McWhorter
Image Name
1000 Leander Road
2022a
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_AM_071107_093LR.jpg
Looking
View
Photographer Amy McWhorter
Image Name
1000 Leander Road
2022b
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_EP_082107_017LR.jpg
Looking southeast
View oblique
Photographer Emily Payne
Image Name
2201 Leander Road
1305d
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_EP_082107_018LR.jpg
Looking southeast
View oblique
Photographer Emily Payne
Image Name
2201 Leander Road
1305c
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_EP_082107_019LR.jpg
Looking south
View façade
Photographer Emily Payne
Image Name
2201 Leander Road
1305b
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_EP_082107_020LR.jpg
Looking southeast
View oblique
Photographer Emily Payne
Image Name
2201 Leander Road
1305b
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_EP_082107_021LR.jpg
Looking southwest
View oblique
Photographer Emily Payne
Image Name
2201 Leander Road
1305a
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_EP_082107_022LR.jpg
Looking southwest
View oblique
Photographer Emily Payne
Image Name
2201 Leander Road
1305a
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_TD_061407_089LR.jpg
Looking west
View façade
Photographer Tara Dudley
Image Name
1700 Leander Street
425
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_TD_061407_090LR.jpg
Looking southwest
View oblique
Photographer Tara Dudley
Image Name
1700 Leander Street
425
Address
Site ID No.
315.01_TD_061407_203LR.jpg
Looking northwest
View view
Photographer Tara Dudley
Image Name
1700-block, W side Leander Street
470
Address
Site ID No.
Page 160Page 28 of 36
W 17TH ST
RAILROAD AVE
LE
ANDE
R S
T
±1700 Leander Street2015 Aerial Image
Page 29 of 36
1700 Leander Street
Google Street View Image
April 2015
Page 30 of 36
Page 31 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and action to appoint Commissioner Richard Mee to the HARC Historic Resource
Survey Subcommittee
ITEM SUMMARY:
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 many
decisions. The proposed survey project will evaluate the current resources on the 1984 and 2007
surveys, plus conduct an intensive survey of the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts, to
compile a complete list of the properties. The results will be utilized by staff, the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission, and interested members of the community to provide research
on the historic properties. The survey will include completed Texas Historical Commission Survey
forms, eliminating the need to require the completion of the forms by the property owner.
The survey will categorize properties as contributing and noncontributing properties, as outlined in
the recently adopted Unified Development Code amendments. In addition, the survey will identify
potential properties eligible for the new Historic Landmark designation.
In addition, the survey will serve as the initial review criteria for any future preservation
incentives, currently being reviewed by staff.
Staff wishes to create the Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee to assist staff throughout the
survey process. The Survey Subcommittee will work with City staff and the selected project
consultant to manage the survey project and provide updates to the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission. The Subcommittee will work closely with staff to ensure timely completion
of the survey and assist with the coordination of additional research and identifying stakeholders
for inclusion in the process.
The proposed members work closely with the current survey and will continue to play an active
role in the utilization of the updated survey.
Article VI of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission bylaws authorizes the
Commission to create subcommittees for specific projects related to Commission matters.
Subcommittees with non-members require City Council approval prior to their formation.
The proposed Survey Subcommittee will be comprised of the following people:
1. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Chair or designee
2. City of Georgetown Planning Director or designee
3. Chief Building Official or designee
4. Citizen at Large with an interest in historic preservation
5. Georgetown Heritage Society President or designee
Each member of the Subcommittee plays a key role in the implementation of the completed
survey.
Page 32 of 36
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Page 33 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Page 34 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.
ITEM SUMMARY:
1. National Register Project
2. Downtown Projects
3. Historic Resource Survey
4. Code Enforcement
5. Grace Heritage Center
Upcoming Meetings
1. Third Monday Main Street Lunch - Monday, September 21st
2. Demolition Subcommittee Meetings - Monday, September 14th and Thursday, September 24th
3. HARC Meeting - Thursday, September 24th
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk
Page 35 of 36
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2015
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 36 of 36