HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_07.27.2017Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
July 27, 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.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the
Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the
recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
A Co nsideration of the Minutes from the June 22, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary
B Co nc ep tual Review o f the Lofts on Ro ck, loc ated at 810 Roc k Street. S o fia Nels o n, P lanning Director
C Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n o f ac ceptanc e of the 2016 His toric Res o urc es Survey --
So fia Nels on, CNU-A, Planning Direc tor
D Up d ates of Downto wn P ro jects and up co ming meetings .
Next Demolitio n Sub committee Meeting, August 8th
Next Regular HARC Meeting, Augus t 24th
Page 1 of 71
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 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the June 22, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC_Minutes _06.22.2017 Backup Material
Page 3 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: June 22, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Assendorf-Hyde (alternate); Justin Bohls; Art Browner;
Shawn Hood, Vice-Chair; Karl Meixsell; and Lawrence Romero
Absent: Patty Eason and Catherine Morales (alternate).
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:10 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Regular Session
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration of the Minutes from the May 25, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Bohls, second by Romero to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0.
C. Conceptual Review for a proposed Infill Project located at 815 Main Street - Sofia Nelson,
Planning Director
Nelson explained the review criteria that the commission should use for their comments. They
should consider building materials, massing and compatibility with the district. The commission
will not be taking action, but are asked to provide comments to the applicant.
Gary Wang, Architect presented the building. He explained the owners wanted a brick building
with a terrace to see the Square, and they wanted it to blend in with the other buildings on the
Square. This is a “quiet, reserved, and stately building”. Wang said he used the bays of three
concept and was keeping the building centered, even with the offset glass canopy.
Commissioners offered comments. Browner liked the north side courtyard. He asked about the
existing transformer. Nelson stated the transformer is staying in its current location.
Commissioners asked about parking for the building and adjacent property owners that use the
current parking lot. Nelson stated that parking was not being reviewed by the commission.
Hood commented that he likes the crisp, clean lines of the building and the glass canopy. He
suggested that non-reflective glass be used and that the mutton bars of the windows be
considered again. Bohls likes the concept and feels it meets the design criteria of the Design
Guidelines.
D. Historic Resource Survey Update -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson announced the draft Survey is almost complete and notifications will be going out the
following week to all 1677 property owners of the properties that are documented. Property
owners are being invited to attend private meetings with the historians on July 13th to discuss
their properties. A Public Open House will be held on July 13th at 6:00 for the presentation of the
Page 4 of 71
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: June 22, 2017
Survey.
Nelson introduced Kim McAuliffe, the new Downtown Development Manager for the city.
E. Adjournment
Motion by Romero, second by Hood to adjourn at 6:42 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Shawn Hood
Page 5 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
Conceptual R eview of the Lo fts o n Roc k, lo c ated at 810 Ro ck S treet. Sofia Nels on, Planning Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Commiss io n will review the conceptual propos al fo r an infill projec t loc ated at 815 Main Street. The
review will pro vide d irectio n o n the projec t regard ing c o mp lianc e with the Do wntown and Old To wn
Design Guidelines . C o nc ep tual review allo ws the o p p o rtunity fo r dialogue with the Commission and staff
to d is cus s the c o mp o nents o f the p ro ject, inc lud ing the p ro p o s ed size, sc ale, mas s ing, and materials for
the projec t. Site develo p ment plan c o mp o nents , s uc h as parking, s ite lighting, lands c ap ing and other
features will b e reviewed b y s taff p rio r to the formal Certificate of Ap p ro priatenes s review. No fo rmal
actio n will b e taken o n this applic ation at this meeting. A fo rmal Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s review will
o cc ur at a future meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Lofts on Rock Concept Backup Material
Page 6 of 71
DN
(6) PARKING STALLS
9' X 18'
(3) MOTORCYCLE
STALLS 4.5' X 8'
(1) PARALLEL
ON-STREET
STALLS 8.5' X
22'
EXISTING
DOORWAY
EXISTING
DOORWAY
77'
43'
77
'
0.5'
1.
6
7
'
0.5'
1.5'
8.5'
22'
18
'
18
'
9'
13.75'
8'
4.5'
15'
10.5'
R
3'
R5'
R15'
R14.6'
R
3
'
R
3
'
R
1'
R1.3'
23
.
2
1
'
5.25'
0.75'
7.
6
7
'
(4) PARKING STALLS
9.25' X 15'
(GROUND LEVEL)
(1) WHEELCHAIR
ACCESSIBLE
PARKING STALL
8' X 15'
(GROUND LEVEL)
DN
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
,
V
E
R
T
GR
A
T
E
(
2
F
T
W
I
D
E
X
1.
7
F
T
H
I
G
H
)
FL
O
W
L
I
N
E
E
L
E
V
=
74
4
.
1
4
'
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
ONCRETE
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
G
R
A
T
E
IN
L
E
T
-
T
O
P
:
7
4
6
.
0
8
'
SO
U
T
H
1
8
"
I
N
:
7
4
3
.
0
6
'
NO
R
T
H
1
8
"
O
U
T
:
7
4
2
.
7
5
'
AS
P
H
A
L
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
WO
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
ON
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
L
WO
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
18" STORM DRAIN LINE
12" DOMW WATER LINE
GA
S
LI
N
E
D
BUILDING
FOOTPRINT
43' X 77'
(14) PARKING SPOTS
TOTAL ON-SITE
LIBRARY
PARKING
77
'
-
0
"
42
'
-
2
3
/
4
"
COVERED PARKING
UNDER STRUCTURE
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
59' - 1 3/4"
11
9
'
-
4
3
/
4
"
11
9
'
-
2
3
/
4
"
TRANS.
BOX
59' - 1 3/4"
EXIT
DOOR
59' - 1 3/4"
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
11
9
'
-
2
3
/
4
"
59' - 1 3/4"
59' - 1 3/4"
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
11
9
'
-
4
3
/
4
"
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
LO
F
T
S
O
N
R
O
C
K
6-23-17
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 7 of 71
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"
8'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
7' - 0"
4'
-
0
"
4' - 0"
3' - 10"
3'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
1/2" 12"
MAX. 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"5' - 0"
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
BRICK
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
METAL AWNING
LOW SEAM
CHARCOAL
METAL RAILING
CHARCOAL
STOREFRONT
WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM
CHARCOAL
STOREFRONT
WINDOW SYSTEM
CHARCOALSTOREFRONT
WALL SYSTEM
CHARCOAL
CAST STONE
BANDS
CHOP BLOCK
STONE
LIMESTONE
30' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"
A03.1
3
STOREFRONT
WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM
CHARCOAL
ELEV. SHAFT P.H.
55' - 7"
1' - 0"1' - 0"
1/2" 12"
A06
1
A06
2 A06
3
PARAPET WALL HT. = 44' - 7"
3'
-
1
"
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"
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 ROOF
5' - 0"21' - 2"2' - 0"
9' - 0"6'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
4' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
5' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
10' - 6"
8'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
77' - 0"
12' - 5 1/2"38' - 0 3/4"11' - 3 3/4"2' - 0"11' - 2"2' - 0"
9'
-
6
"
6' - 0"
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(8' - 0")
ELEV. SHAFT P.H.
55' - 7"
A06
4
A06
5
2'
-
3
"
2'
-
3
"
2'
-
6
"
6'
-
9
"
2'
-
3
"
3'
-
1
"
PARAPET WALL HT. = 44' - 7"
1st Floor Plan
0' - 0"
Roof
26' - 0"
2nd Fl. Pl. Ht.
18' - 4"
2'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
16' - 4 1/2"
GRAY BORDER STUCCO BEIGE
LETTERS
WHITE
LETTERS
CHARCOAL METAL
FACIA
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
A03.1
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
LO
F
T
S
O
N
R
O
C
K
6-23-17
3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"1 RIGHT ELEVATION
1/2" = 1'-0"3 CALLOUT OF PROPOSED SIGNAGE
EXTERIOR FINISHES
STONE
LIMESTONE
BRICK
BANDS
STUCCO
AWNINGS &
TRIM
NAME DESCRIPTION
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE
ACME - MOCHA BROWN, ENP114, 746363
AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
Page 8 of 71
2' - 0"13' - 11 1/4"61' - 0 3/4"
77' - 0"
9' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
2'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
2' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
8' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
2' - 0"21' - 2"5' - 0"
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
"
6' - 0"
1' - 0"1' - 0"
PARAPET WALL HT. = 44' - 7"
3' - 0"
6'
-
8
"
MECH.
CHASE
DOOR
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"18' - 6"2' - 0"18' - 6"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
1/2" 12"
BRICK
ELEV. SHAFT P.H.
55' - 7"
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(9' - 0")
(8' - 0")
5' - 0"
2' - 0"
1' - 0"1' - 0"
1/2" 12"
PARAPET WALL HT. = 44' - 7"
3'
-
1
"
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"
A03.2
ELEVATIONS
REAR & LEFT
_
81
0
R
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
LO
F
T
S
O
N
R
O
C
K
6-23-17
3/16" = 1'-0"1 LEFT ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"2 REAR ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES
STONE
LIMESTONE
BRICK
BANDS
STUCCO
AWNINGS &
TRIM
NAME DESCRIPTION
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE
ACME - MOCHA BROWN, ENP114, 746363
AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
Page 9 of 71
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 "
A12
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
LO
F
T
S
O
N
R
O
C
K
6-23-17
STONE
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
STONE
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE
BANDING
AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
BRICK
ACME - MOCHA BROWN
ENP114, 746363
STUCCO
MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE"
METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM
MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM
RENDERING @ NORTHEAST CORNER
RENDERING @ SOUTHEAST CORNER
Page 10 of 71
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 "
A13
AERIAL MODEL
VEIWS
_
81
0
R
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
LO
F
T
S
O
N
R
O
C
K
6-23-17STONE
ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP
STONE
ACME - WHITE CHOPPED
LIMESTONE
BANDING
AMERICAN ARTSTONE
4700MAE, AA16232
BRICK
ACME - MOCHA BROWN
ENP114, 746363
STUCCO
MERLEX - P-174
"DESERT BEIGE"
NORTHEAST CORNER SOUTHWEST CORNER TO SQUARE
NORTHWEST CORNER
METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM
MUELLER - CHARCOAL
STANDING SEAM
Page 11 of 71
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation of ac c ep tance o f the 2016 His to ric Res ources Survey -- Sofia
Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Directo r
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City Planning Dep artment has b een working with Cox-McClain fo r the las t year on an up d ated Historic
Resource Survey. A his to ric res o urc es survey is s imply an inventory, a tool to doc ument the appearance
and s ignificanc e of p ro p erties o ver time and does not in its elf impose regulatio ns . Being “o n” a survey jus t
means that it has been doc umented. The survey is a key to o l for the his toric p res ervatio n p ro gram and
s erves as the bas is fo r the red evelopment and demolitio n d ecisions regarding his to ric p ro p erties, as
o utlined in the City’s Unified Development C o d e.
Cox Mc Lain evaluated the c urrent res o urc es o n the 1984 and 2007 surveys , and c o nducted an intens ive
s urvey to comp ile a complete list of the prop erties b uilt prior to 1974. In 1984, 900 resources were lis ted ,
all c o nstruc ted prior to 1935 and as a result we had s everal build ings and dis tric ts lis ted in the National
Regis ter o f His to ric Plac es . In 2007, the 900 res ources were res urveyed and the area of d o cumentation
was expand ed and res o urc es c o nstruc ted prior to 1960 were doc umented, and the lis t went up to almost
1600.
A letter went out two weeks ago to 1677 pro p erty owners with res o urc es that are lis ted on the 2016 Survey.
Almost 100 p ro p erties mo re than the 2007 survey. The letter id entified an ad d res s and the p rio rity type that
the property was lis ted as, high medium or low. Thes e properties were the ones lis ted in 1984, 2007 and
tho s e that were c ons tructed prior to 1974. T he total s urvey area enc o mp as s es 3,300 p arcels, but not
everything was b uilt before 1974, and there were s o me demolitio ns s inc e the las t s urvey.
The d raft res ults have been pub lis hed fo r public review o n the c ity's web s ite at
www.his toric .georgetown.o rg and notification was s ent to each of the prop erty owners id entified on the
s urvey. The no tific ation includ ed info rmation ab o ut the s urvey, and invited property o wners to meet
individ ually with the c o nsultants o n July 13th. It als o gave notice o f the Public Open Ho use o n July 13th.
Over 135 p eople attended the Open Ho use pres ented b y Cox-McLain. The p res entation given at that
meeting is attac hed . The survey doc uments are too large fo r attac hment but are availab le by go ing to the
website.
Staff is s eeking a recommend ation from the Commis s ion to ac cept the 2016 s urvey res ults from Cox-
McLain.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r and Karen F ro s t, P lanning Sp ecialis t
Page 12 of 71
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
His toric Res ources Survey Pres entation Backup Material
Page 13 of 71
City of Georgetown
2016 Historic
Resources Survey
JULY 2017
Page 14 of 71
Presentation Overview
•Historic Resources and Historic
Resources Surveys
•Background: Previous Surveys
•2016 Survey
•Methodology
•Results
•Recommendations
•Next Steps
Page 15 of 71
Historic Resources
Page 16 of 71
Historic Resources
•Building, structure, object, site, or district
•Generally 50 years old or older
Page 17 of 71
Significance
•Significance in American history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or culture
•Important to history at the local, state, or national
level
Page 18 of 71
Integrity
SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY, AS DEFINED BY THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE:
•Location
•Design
•Materials
•Workmanship
•Setting
•Feeling
•Association
Page 19 of 71
Significance & Integrity
significance + integrity significance, but lacks integrity
Page 20 of 71
Historic Resources Surveys
•A systematic method to identify and document
historic‐age resources
•Fieldwork and research
Page 21 of 71
Historic Resources Surveys
•A historic resources survey is simply an inventory
•A tool to document the appearance and significance of
properties over time
•Does not in itself impose regulations
•How the survey is used by the City is based on City
code
Page 22 of 71
Previous Surveys
Page 23 of 71
Background: Previous Surveys
1984 HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY
•Resources constructed prior
to 1935
•900 resources
•Assigned High, Medium, Low
priorities
2007 HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY
•1984 survey
•Resources constructed up to
1960
•1,574 resources
•Assigned High, Medium, Low
priorities
•Included representative
properties from postwar
subdivisions
Page 24 of 71
1984
Page 25 of 71
2007
Page 26 of 71
2016
Page 27 of 71
2016 Survey
•Re‐survey 1984/2007 properties
•Within boundary: survey resources
constructed in 1974 or earlier
2016 survey boundary
Page 28 of 71
1974
Page 29 of 71
Field Map
Data entry form
Page 30 of 71
Page 31 of 71
SURVEY RESULTS
Page 32 of 71
Types and Styles
Page 33 of 71
Types of Resources
Page 34 of 71
Types of Resources
Page 35 of 71
Types of Resources
Commercial
Other uses: churches, schools, agriculture, municipal, etc.
Page 36 of 71
Bungalow
Page 37 of 71
Minimal Traditional
Page 38 of 71
Ranch
Page 39 of 71
Categories
Page 40 of 71
High Priority
•Contribute significantly to local
history/broader historical patterns
•May be good examples of architecture,
engineering, or crafted design
•Retain a high degree of integrity
Page 41 of 71
Medium
•Add to an area’s character and contribute
moderately to our understanding of local
history/broader historical patterns
•Typical examples of a style or form
•Somewhat modified
Page 42 of 71
Low
•Not associated with a trend in history,
significant architectural style, building
form, or construction method
•And/or significantly altered
Page 43 of 71
Categories: 2016 Survey
Summary of Categorization for Historic‐Age Properties
Category Count Percent
High 191 11%
Medium 589 35%
Low 897 53%
Total 1,677 100%
Page 44 of 71
Categories
Medium
Low
Page 45 of 71
Categories
57
upgraded
179
downgraded
Page 46 of 71
Categories
49: low to medium
3: low to high
5: medium to high
57
up
g
r
a
d
e
d
Page 47 of 71
Categories
17
9
do
w
n
g
r
a
d
e
d
165: medium to low
14: high to medium
Page 48 of 71
Category Change Examples
2007 survey: medium priority 2016 survey: low priority
Page 49 of 71
Category Change Examples
2007 survey: low priority 2016 survey: medium priority
Page 50 of 71
Category Change Examples
2007 survey: low
2016 survey: high
Page 51 of 71
Demolitions
o 2007 survey identified 163
resources that had been
demolished between 1984
and 2007
o 65 resources demolished
between 2007 and 2016
High
1%
Medium
45%
Low
54%
Priority of Resources Demolished
between 2007 and 2016
Page 52 of 71
Demolitions
2007‐2016
Page 53 of 71
Demolitions
Page 54 of 71
What does this mean for me
as a property owner?
Page 55 of 71
Common questions
o Does being documented in the survey mean my
property is historically significant?
Not necessarily. All properties inside the survey boundary
that were believed to be constructed in 1974 or earlier were
documented.
Other properties outside the boundaries that were
documented in the 1984 or 2007 survey were updated.
The High, Medium and Low categories address the
significance of each property.
Page 56 of 71
Common questions
oWhy can’t my property just be removed from the
survey?
The point of the survey is to have a comprehensive record
of historic‐age buildings in the City.
We would not want to delete an entry that serves as
valuable record of how this property appears today.
Page 57 of 71
Common questions
o Does the survey mean my property needs to be
restored or demolished?
No. The survey does not mean that a property must be
preserved exactly as it is, restored, or demolished.
The survey is simply a snapshot of each historic‐age
property as it appears today.
Page 58 of 71
What does this mean for me
as a property owner?
Page 59 of 71
Location in an overlay
Page 60 of 71
Categories
What does this mean for you as a property owner?
Outside the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts:
Your property is only subject to special required approvals for demolition. All
other construction or changes to your property are subject to the standard
permitting requirements.
Page 61 of 71
Categories
What does this mean for you as a property owner?
Outside the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts:
Your property is only subject to special required approvals for demolition. All
other construction or changes to your property are subject to the standard
permitting requirements.
Within the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts:
Certain changes to your property could require a Certificate of
Appropriateness reviewed by the Historic Preservation Officer or by the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) ( See Section 3.13
Certificate of Appropriateness of the Unified Development Code).
Page 62 of 71
Current code definitions
Page 63 of 71
Current code definitions
Page 64 of 71
RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 65 of 71
Recommendations
•Survey areas of City and surrounding areas that have
not yet been comprehensively surveyed
Page 66 of 71
Page 67 of 71
Recommendations
•Consider boundary expansions of National Register
Historic Districts
Page 68 of 71
Williamson County Courthouse Historic District (1977)
Olive Street
Historic
District
(2013)
University
Ave‐Elm
Street
Historic
District
(1979)
Belford
Historic
District
(1986)
Page 69 of 71
Next Steps
•Consider and incorporate public input
•Produce final forms and report
•Survey to be adopted by Council
Page 70 of 71
Questions?
Emily Reed
EmilyR@coxmclain.com
512.338.2223
Page 71 of 71