HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.23.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
August 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Bldg, 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 July 26, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary
B Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) fo r a
residential renovation for the replac ement o f the exis ting wo o d s id ing with hard ie s iding loc ated at 1407 S .
Myrtle St., bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.09 ac . Hughes S econd Additio n (Part Blk C Resub ), Lot 1.
(COA-2018-035) Mad is o n Thomas, AICP, His to ric & Downto wn Planner
C Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f a conceptual review fo r a p ro p o s ed infill d evelopment fo r the p ro p erty
loc ated at the 109 and 101 2nd Street bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.704 ac . Georgetown, City of,
Bloc k 2, Lot 5-7 (Pt)8 & Ab andoned Rd., and 0.582 ac. Georgetown, City o f, Blo ck 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt
Ab andoned Rd., (COA-2018-041). Madis on Tho mas , Histo ric and Do wntown Planner
D Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o n the proc es s and s tand ard s related to the R ehabilitation P lan fo r a historic
Page 1 of 46
struc ture. Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Historic and Do wntown Planner.
E Up d ates, Commis s ioner ques tions and c omments . Sofia Nelson, Planning Directo r
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the July 26, 2018 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
Minutes _HARC_07.26.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: July 26, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice-Chair; Karl Meixsell;
Catherine Morales; Amanda Parr (alternate); and Lawrence Romero.
Absent: Kevin Roberts (Alternate); and Terri Assendorf-Hyde
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Charlie McNabb, City Attorney; Madison
Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm. Commissioner Hood read the meeting procedures.
B. Consideration of the Minutes from the June 28, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Romero, second by Hood, to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
residential renovation and addition for the property located at 907 Pine Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.45 ac. Outlot Division C, Block 5(PT) (COA-2018-008). Madison Thomas,
Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the case. She listed the criteria that the application complies with and those
it does not comply with. Staff recommends approval based on complying with the criteria.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the
hearing.
Motion by Romero to approve the application 2018-008 as submitted. Second by Hood.
Romero was asked to list the criteria that this application complies with. He amended the
motion to include that this application complies with Criteria of the Design Guidelines 6.27,
7.1, 7.2, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 14.1, and 14.9 through 14.19, 20.22 and Section 13.03.030 of the
UDC. Approved 7 – 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
residential addition for the property located at 1263 S. Austin Ave., bearing the legal
description of .192 ac. Morrow Addition, Block C (S/PT) (COA-2018-025). Madison Thomas,
Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The commissioners did not have questions of the applicant
or staff.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the
hearing.
Page 4 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: July 26, 2018
Motion by Hood to approve COA-2018-035 as submitted based upon compliance with
Section 3.13.030. Second by Romero. Approved 7 – 0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
the infill development of a two (2) story commercial retail and office building at 200 E. 8th St.,
bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 - 8 (COA-2018-029). -
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the case. This is a different application for the property than was originally
submitted. This development was reviewed as a concept plan at the last meeting. This
property is in the transition zone from downtown to old town. This is a two story mixed use
structure. The applicants used the comments given by HARC previously and have taken the
brick all the way to the top of the structure and revised the materials to be more consistent with
the area. They have added the modulation and design elements that were requested. They
followed the topography of the site and have designed the building to step down with the
slope.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing:
Larry Olsen, 300 E. 8th Street, thanks the developer for making the changes that have been made
as requested by the public. He would like to suggest that there is another opportunity to name
this building the Anderson Building as a reference to the historic roots of the property. He is
also concerned about the noise of the dumpster service on the site very early in the morning.
He asks for sound buffering of some sort. He is also concerned about the maximum impervious
cover and stormwater run-off. He wants dark-sky security lighting. And is concerned about
the loss of the heritage trees.
Richard Cutts, 1312 S. Elm Street, has spoken before and agrees with the last speaker that this
presentation is much better. He likes the variety of windows and arched tops. He feels this is
more attractive and in keeping with the character of the downtown area. He does not like the
south elevation which is a solid brick wall.
Ann Seaman, 810 S. Church, wants to thank the applicant and designer for listening to the
neighbors and redesigning this building. She is still concerned about the drainage of the site,
with 95% impervious cover, and has issues with the standing water that is now there in the
street. She is also concerned about the removal of the two heritage trees.
Chair Browner closed the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wanted to comment.
John Readyhough appreciated the nice comments about the project.
Motion by Romero to approve COA-2018-029 with compliance of Guidelines 10.1 – 10.4, 13.1
– 13.10, 13.12 – 13.19, 13.20, 13.22, and 13.30. Second by Parr.
Commissioners discussed the project and Thomas reiterated the items that are covered by the
COA review and those which are reviewed by staff.
Motion approved 7 – 0.
Chair called for a 10 minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 6:52.
Page 5 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: July 26, 2018
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
a Fence Exception of 7-feet from the 6-foot maximum fence height requirement to allow a fence
height of 13-feet and a setback exception of 2-feet 2-inches from the prescribed 10-foot rear
setback to allow a setback of 7-feet 10-inches also per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section
8.07.040.B; for a residential addition for the property located at 908 E. University Ave,
bearing the legal description of 0.80 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 5 (E/PT), (COA-2018-031).
Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the case, explaining that the applicant installed the fence panels without a
permit and without a COA. These panels are not in compliance with the UDC fencing
standards and are inconsistent with Design Guidelines. Staff recommends denial of the fence
additions.
Commissioners deliberated.
The applicant spoke to why he did this. The back of his house is visible to the two story
building across the street. He says when the panels are stained and finished, they will not be
that visible. The panels are for his privacy and light blocking from the other building.
Romero questioned the applicant about why this was started now. The applicant explained the
vegetation did not grow as fast as he had thought to provide the privacy he wants.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the
hearing.
Motion by Romero to deny the COA-2018-031 as it does not meet the guidelines, or UDC
Section 13.03.030. Second by Hood. The Application was denied 7 – 0.
G. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential renovation for the replacement of the existing wood siding with hardie siding
located at 1407 S. Myrtle St., bearing the legal description of 0.09 ac. Hughes Second Addition
(Part Blk C Resub), Lot 1. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. Based on the site visit and review of the façade of the
structure, the front face should be removed and placed because of the current damage. She
explained that the damaged pieces should be salvaged as possible, but the replacement
materials need to be the same style and size and not what is proposed. Staff recommends
denial.
Commissioners asked questions but the applicant was not present.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the
hearing.
Commissioners discussed possible direction to give the applicant to allow more time for
research.
Motion by Bain, second by Hood to postpone this application to the next meeting, August 23
to allow the applicant time to bring back more detailed proposals that are more consistent
with the guidelines. Approved 7 – 0.
Page 6 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: July 26, 2018
H. Presentation and discussion on the process and standards related to a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a historic structure. Madison
Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Thomas explained the demolition process. Commissioners discussed and asked questions.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Hood, second by Bain. Meeting adjourned at 8:02 pm.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 7 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (C OA) fo r a
res id ential reno vatio n fo r the rep lacement o f the existing wo o d siding with hardie s id ing loc ated at 1407 S .
Myrtle S t., b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.09 ac . Hughes S ec ond Additio n (Part Blk C Resub ), Lot 1.
(COA-2018-035) Madis on Tho mas , AICP, His toric & Do wntown Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The ap p licant is req uesting to replac e the exis ting wood s id ing o n the ho me with hardie s id ing. Per the
ap p licant, wo o d was no t c o nsidered . Hard ie was c hosen bas ed on cost, maintenance, fire res is tant,
lo ngevity and a s imilar lo o k/feel to wood . The applic ant has c hosen the s malles t wid th hardie panel that is
available.
Case Histo ry:
This ap p lication was taken to the July 26th HAR C Meeting. The Co mmis s ion reques ted ad d itional
informatio n from the applic ant on the d ecisio n to change to hard ie siding. T he Commission also req uested
that s taff res earc h availability o f the existing wood s id ing.
Staff Findings :
In add ition to the findings p revious ly reported, s taff res earc hed the availab ility o f the exis ting s id ing. The
Doub le Ogee Novelty wo o d s id ing c an be fo und and is s o ld at a loc al lumber s tore by order. Typic al
referenc e for the siding refer to it as “117 s iding #2 yello w pine”. Ac c o rd ing to the lo cal retailer, it d o es no t
have to be s pec ialty milled.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 & 3- Letter of Intent and Plans Exhibit
Exhibit 4- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 8 of 46
EL
M
S
T
A
SH
ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E 1 5TH ST
E 1 3 T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
S M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
W 17T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
E 1 7TH ST
W U N IV E R SI TY AV E
GEOR
GE
S
T
WAL
NUT
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T C Y R U S A V E
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 7T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
C Y R U S A V E
COA-2018-035Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 9 of 46
Page 10 of 46
2
July 6th 2018
Planning Board (HARC Review):
Additional detail has been requested in regards to the extent of damage to the exterior of the
house at 1407 S. Myrtle St.
Although it is difficult to assess what extent of damage there is once siding is removed. I would
estimate that 25 – 40% of the wood siding is either rotten and/or pulling away from the house. It
would appear the approach to maintain the exterior of the house in the past was to apply lots of
paint.
Please see photos for visuals
Front of 1407 S. Myrtle St.
1407 S. Myrtle: Residential Renovation
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
Page 11 of 46
3
Right Side of 1407 S. Myrtle St. – facing front of house
Rear of 1407 S. Myrtle St.
Left Side of 1407 S. Myrtle St – facing front of house
Note: last picture on right is termite damage – extent of interior damage TBD
Page 12 of 46
Page 13 of 46
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address BRACE, JANNA & RYAN & DENNIS PERKINS, 1407 S MYRTLE ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.630922 Longitude -97.67483
Addition/Subdivision:S8214 - Hughes Second Addition (part Blk C Resub)
WCAD ID:R042850Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES SECOND ADDITION (PART BLK C RESUB), LOT
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1930
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 14 of 46
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story Tudor Revival style house clad in wood siding with an L-plan and a cross-gabled roof with a flared eave;
there is an inset entry with a single front door, as well as a partial-width, projecting porch with a wood balustrade.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Porch modified, windows replaced, window resized on secondary elevation
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed 1 Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Gabled
Vinyl
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 15 of 46
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: vinyl windows)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Despite some alterations, property is
significant and contributes to neighborhood
character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:887
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 16 of 46
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 17 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: 8/23/2018
File Number: COA-2018-035
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential renovation for the replacement of the existing wood siding with hardie siding located at 1407
S. Myrtle St., bearing the legal description of 0.09 ac. Hughes Second Addition (Part Blk C Resub), Lot 1.
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1407 S. Myrtle: Residential Reconstruction
Applicant: Gregory Brown
Property Owner: Gregory Brown
Property Address: 1407 S. Myrtle St., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.09 ac. Hughes Second Addition (Part Blk C Resub), Lot 1
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: This application was taken to the July 26th HARC Meeting. The Commission
requested additional information from the applicant on the decision to change to
hardie siding. The Commission also requested that staff research availability of the
existing wood siding.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1930
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A
2007 - Medium
2016 - Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood siding on the home with hardie siding. Per the
applicant, wood was not considered. Hardie was chosen based on cost, maintenance, fire resistant,
longevity and a similar look/feel to wood. The applicant has chosen the smallest width hardie panel that
is available.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Per the Historic Resources Survey, this is a single-story, Tudor Revival style home that was built in
1930. The home is located on the corner of S. Myrtle St. and E. 15th Street. The front of the home faces S.
Page 18 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 2 of 5
Myrtle St., which backs up to the homes which face Church Street. The survey identifies a porch
modification and window replacement as some modifications that were made in the past. The
applicant is requesting to replace the wood siding on all facades of the home with hardie siding. The
changes to the street-facing facades are HARC’s purview.
Staff conducted a site visit with the applicant and a representative from the building department to
inspect the current condition of the siding on the home. The siding showed signs of water damage,
including peeling paint, rot, and warping. Portions of it had been replaced with the same type of wood
siding. Time of replacement is unknown. Staff and the applicant estimate that the front façade materials
need total replacement due to significant rot and warping. The design of the front façade requires
shorter pieces of siding, rendering most pieces that are currently on that façade unsalvageable. The
façades facing E. 15th Street and the driveway are estimated to contain 40-50% of salvageable material
and Myrtle St. facade to contain 20% salvageable material. All of these estimates assume no termite
damage; however multiple portions of the home do show signs of presence.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation and maintenance of existing
historic materials.
“The best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-planned maintenance. Wood
surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of paint. In some cases, historic building
materials may be deteriorated. When deterioration occurs, repairing the material rather than replacing it is
preferred.”
Frequently, damaged materials can be patched or consolidated using special bonding agents.
Preservation Principal #5 calls for the:
“ Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. Maintain
the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for
repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing
configuration.”
For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be
replaced. The guidelines call for the replacement material to match the original in appearance. The
applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood siding with hardie siding. This change will not
match in appearance to the original, and is a different material. Not only is the material different, but
the profile is different as well. Hardie is not made in the same style/design as the siding on this home,
therefore the change will change the visual appearance and character.
In addition to the findings previously reported, staff researched the availability of the existing siding.
The Double Ogee Novelty wood siding can be found and is sold at a local lumber store by order. Typical
reference for the siding refer to it as “117 siding #2 yellow pine”. According to the local retailer, it does
not have to be specialty milled.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Page 19 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 3 of 5
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
5.01 Maintain existing wall materials and textures.
• Avoid removing materials that are in good condition or that can be
repaired in place.
Remove only those materials that are deteriorated and must be
replaced.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be
repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building that is no longer
historic.
• In many cases, original building materials may not be damaged
beyond repair and do not require replacement. Repainting wood,
ensuring proper drainage, and keeping the material clean may be all
that is necessary.
Partially Complies
Applicant states
that 25%-40% of the
existing wood
siding is damaged
and needs to be
replaced.
5.02 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-
in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials.
• Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
• Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using
consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair.
Also, special masonry repair components may be used.
Does not comply
The materials that
are not damaged
and that could be
retained will also be
removed with the
deteriorated ones.
5.04 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when
replacing it on a primary surface.
• If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the
replacement material should be wood as well. It should match the
original in size, the amount of exposed lap, and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged
beyond repair, then only replace them and not the entire wall.
Does not comply
The original
material is wood
and the request is
to replace with
hardie siding. The
replacement
material does not
match in size or
style. The applicant
is proposing to
replace all the
original material
including those
considered in good
condition.
Page 20 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 4 of 5
5.05 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum, vinyl siding, or
panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials on an
historic structure.
• Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick may not be
replaced with synthetic materials.
• See also Preservation Briefs #16: The Use of Substitute Materials on
Historic Building Exteriors, published by the National Park Service.
Does not comply
Hardie is a
synthetic material.
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
1. The application is complete and the information contained within
the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; N/A
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Does not comply
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Does not comply
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the
building, structure or site is preserved;
Partially Complies
The applicant is
proposing a siding
material that mimics
the horizontal profile
of the existing
material. However the
proposed material
does not match the
existing in style or
width.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with
surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is
protected; and
Complies
Removal of a historic
material could reduce
the integrity of the
structure, but the
Page 21 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 5 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
switch from hardie to
wood would not
greatly impact the
character of the
historic district.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay
district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the identified deteriorated wood should be replaced to reduce further water damage to
the home. However, the wood that does not exhibit rot, damage or warping should be retained or
salvaged and used on the home before entirely replacing the material. For the materials that are beyond
repair, the replacement material should be a matching wood material of the same style/ design.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 &3 - Letter of Intent and Plans
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 22 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of a c o nc ep tual review for a proposed infill develo p ment for the property
lo cated at the 109 and 101 2nd Street b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.704 ac . Geo rgeto wn, City o f, Bloc k
2, Lo t 5-7 (Pt)8 & Ab andoned Rd ., and 0.582 ac . Georgetown, City of, Blo c k 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt Aband o ned
Rd., (COA-2018-041). Madison Tho mas , His toric and Do wntown Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The ap p licant is req ues ting to c o nstruc t a three s to ry mixed-us e build ing on the empty lo ts at 109 and 101
2nd St. Thes e lo ts are zoned Mixed -Use Downtown, and loc ated in Area 2 o f the Downto wn Overlay. The
uses will inc lud e tenant s p ace and covered p arking o n the first floor, s econd flo o r offic e spac e and multi-
family o n the third floor.
The d es ign is meant to b e reflec tive o f historic wareho use s truc ture, using rec laimed bric k and steel framed
arched wind o ws. A sto refro nt is p laced on the firs t faç ad e ad jac ent to Aus tin Ave., with a three story entry
tower, and a rec es s ed third flo o r.
The fo llo wing are relevant chap ters o f the Do wnto wn and Old To wn Des ign Guid elines HARC s hould
cons id er when provid ing feed b ack. S taff has p ro vided an initial review of eac h of the ap p licable guidelines
attached them for your reference:
Chap ter 10: Des ign Guidelines for Awnings and Cano p ies
Chap ter 13: Des ign Guidelines for Infill Cons truc tion in Area 2 – Do wntown Overlay Histo ric District
(s etbac ks, mas s and s c ale, b uilding materials , p ed es trian friend ly character, trans itional c harac ter, ap p lying
the guidelines )
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Applicable Des ign Guidelines Exhibit
Page 23 of 46
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 NBS IH 35 FWY SB
S IH 35 FWY NB
EL
M
ST
E 7 T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
A
IN
S
T
A
SH
ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
SCENIC DR
E 5 TH ST
E 4 TH ST
E 2 N D S T
WE
S
T
S
T
N
C
O
L
LE
GE
S
T
E 6 TH ST
S
A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
E U N I V ER S IT Y AV E
W 8T H S T
PIN
E
ST
W 1 0 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11T H ST
N AUSTIN AVE
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
ENTR 262 SB
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
EMORRO W ST
T H O M A S C T
W 7T H S T
L O W ER PARKRD
W 3R D S T
PVR
ENTR 261 NB
WOLFRA N C H P K W Y
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
EXIT 261 S B
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
TH
E
R
K
I
N
G JR
S
T
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
N
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
WILLIAMS DR
N
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
SOUTHWESTE R N BLVD
R I V E R O A K S C V
E V A LL E Y S T
E 8 T H S T
W M OR R O W S T
A LLY
S M I T H C R E E K R D
C
H
A
M
B
E
R
W
A
Y
HINTZ RD
WE
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
W 5T H S T
R I V E R HILLSDR
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
N
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
N
MA
IN
S
T
W U N I V E RSI TY AV E
SO ULE D R
E 3 R D S T
W 9T H S T
R
I
V
E
R
YDRIVEWAY
BLU E HOLE PARK RD
RIV E R SID E D R
WSPRI N G S T
B R E N D ON L EE L N
RAILROADAVE
W 2 N D S T
J
O
H
N
C
A
R
T
E
R
D
R
W O O D L A WNAVE
E R U T ERSVIL
L
E
D
R
E 9 TH ST
R
U
C
K
E
R
S
T M C K E N Z I E D R
S A N G A B R I E L V I L LAG
E
B
L
V
D
R E T R E A
T
P
L
WATE R S E D G
E
C
I
R
E 9 TH 1 /2 S T
HERSHEY AVE
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
E 9 T H S T
E 3 R D S T
PIN
E
ST
WE
S
T
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 8 TH ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 2N D S T
COA-2018-041Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Page 24 of 46
Page 25 of 46
UP
UP
696
697 6 9 8
699
701
702
703
704
699 6 9 9
699
698
697
6966
9
46
9
3
6
9
2
6
94
696
697
6
9
9
701
701
7
0
2
7
0
3
704
7
0
6
7
0
1
6
9
9
698
6
9
7
694
693
692
691
689
688
687
6 8 7
6 8 8
6 8 9
6 9 1 6 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 4
WW
WW
WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW
W
W
WWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWW
W WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
WWWW
W WWWW
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGG
G
G
G
G
SS
SS
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SS SS SS SS SSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
A U S T I N A V E
2
N
D
S
T
1 0 0 Y E A R FL O O D P L A I N
PH
A
S
E
1
1s
t
F
L
O
O
R
:
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
2n
d
F
L
O
O
R
:
O
F
F
I
C
E
3r
d
F
L
O
O
R
:
M
U
L
T
I
-FA
M
I
L
Y
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D
D
U
M
P
S
T
E
R
EN
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
14
EX
T
E
N
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
W
W
W
W
W
W
FI
N
I
S
H
F
L
O
O
R
69
9
.
0
0
21
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
10
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
PL
A
I
N
E
X
T
E
N
T
10
'
X
2
0
'
W
A
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
,
CI
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
N
8
8
°
48
'
1
9
"
E
1
4
0
.
0
2
'
S 01°14'35"E 179.93'
S
8
8
°
46
'
0
0
"
W
2
4
0
.
0
0
'
N 01°13'08"W 240.84'
S 01°15'51"E 60.04'
N
8
8
°
34
'
2
9
"
E
1
4
.
9
5
'
N
7
7
°
1
8
'
0
2
"
E
5
0
.
8
9
'
N 01°03'18"W 44.88'
S
8
9
°
55
'
1
6
"
E
3
4
.
8
8
'
13
8
13
7
13
2
13
1
13
3
13
4
13
5
13
6
14
0
9
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
13
9
RE
M
O
T
E
FD
C
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
CR
O
S
S
W
A
L
K
FI
R
E
67
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
18
'
-
0
"
26
'
-
0
"
18
'
-
0
"
9' - 0"
5' - 0"
9' - 0"
116' - 0"29' - 5"150' - 0"TYP
9' - 0"
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
12
1
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
EG
R
E
S
S
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
PA
D
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
OU
T
D
O
O
R
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
PA
T
T
E
R
N
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
S
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
P
A
V
E
R
S
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
ZO
N
E
D
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
S
E
:
MI
N
.
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
TO
T
A
L
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
:
FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
:
ST
R
E
E
T
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
:
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
:
RE
A
R
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
:
MA
X
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
I
M
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
I
M
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
LO
T
S
I
Z
E
IM
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PA
V
I
N
G
/
W
A
L
K
S
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
:
*I
M
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
R
E
AP
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
A
T
T
H
I
S
P
H
A
S
E
AX
I
M
U
M
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
:
MA
X
I
M
U
M
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
:
MU
-
D
T
OF
F
I
C
E
A
N
D
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
56
,
1
4
2
S
F
(
1
.
2
9
A
C
R
E
)
0
F
T
0
F
T
0
F
T
0
F
T
70
%
=
(
5
6
,
1
4
2
*
.
7
0
)
=
3
9
,
2
9
9
S
F
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
OF
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
U
N
I
F
I
E
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
C
O
D
E
17
,
5
9
1
S
F
56
,
1
4
2
S
F
(
1
.
2
9
A
C
R
E
)
17
,
5
9
1
S
Q
F
T
(
3
1
%
)
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
0
,
3
8
6
S
Q
F
T
PA
V
I
N
G
/
W
A
L
K
S
7
,
2
0
5
S
Q
F
T
38
,
5
5
1
S
Q
F
T
(
6
9
%
)
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
:
3
4
,
8
1
5
S
Q
F
T
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
P
A
V
E
R
S
3
,
7
3
6
S
Q
F
T
40
'
-
0
"
3
S
T
O
R
Y
-
4
0
'
-
0
"
PA
R
K
I
N
G
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
:
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
2
S
T
O
R
Y
O
F
F
I
C
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
,
8
0
0
/
5
0
0
G
F
A
O
F
F
I
C
E
=
2
0
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
OR
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
9
,
8
0
0
/
3
3
3
G
S
F
O
F
F
I
C
E
=
2
9
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
P
E
R
O
W
N
E
R
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
3R
D
S
T
O
R
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
7
1
-
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
U
N
I
T
S
7
*
1
.
5
=
1
1
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
A
N
D
1
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
S
P
A
C
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
+
A
DD
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
5
%
=
1
3
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
OF
F
I
C
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
:
2
0
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
:
1
3
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
TO
T
A
L
:
3
3
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
TO
T
A
L
:
4
2
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
P
E
R
O
W
N
E
R
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
4
4
S
P
A
C
E
S
SC
A
L
E
:
mu
s
t
a
r
d
D
E
S
I
G
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
TH
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
I
N
T
E
R
I
M
RE
V
I
E
W
A
N
D
N
O
T
F
O
R
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
Y
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
,
P
E
R
M
I
T
T
I
N
G
,
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
AN
D
R
E
W
B
R
A
Y
18
7
5
4
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
As
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Ri
v
e
r
p
l
a
c
e
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
08
.
0
1
.
1
8
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
01
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
N
0'
20
'
50
'
10
0
'
Page 26 of 46
Page 27 of 46
Page 28 of 46
Page 29 of 46
Page 30 of 46
Page 31 of 46
Page 32 of 46
Page 33 of 46
Page 34 of 46
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:
DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS AND
CANOPIES
10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to
the style of the building is encouraged.
− Operable awnings are encouraged on historic
buildings. N/A
Use colors that are compatible with the overall color
scheme of the facade. Solid colors or simple, muted-
stripe patterns are appropriate.
The awning should fit the opening of the building.
Simple shed shapes are appropriate for rectangular
openings.
Odd shapes, bullnose awnings, and bubble awnings
are inappropriate on most historic structures.
Complies
The new metal awnings are
compatible with the new
structure as well as the
awnings typically found on
commercial historic
structures.
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-
mounted brackets, chains, and posts.
Consider using a contemporary interpretation of
those canopies seen historically.
Complies
The metal canopies are
proposed over the entry
doors and some of the
ground floor windows.
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-
defining features.
It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may
be found above the storefront and should not hide
character-defining features.
Its mounting should not damage significant features
and historic details.
Complies
Multiple metal canopies are
used to enhance the
pedestrian scale.
CHAPTER 13 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION IN
AREA 2- DOWNTOWN OVERLAY HISTORIC DISTRICT
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property 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.
More information needed:
show sidewalk and
proposed second building
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back, define
the edge of the property with landscape elements.
More information needed on
the landscaping elements,
Page 35 of 46
• For example, define the edges of a lot with
landscaping, such as low-scale urban street trees
or shrubs.
• Landscaping elements should be compatible 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 structural
element, that reflects the position of typical
storefront elements. These elements should align
with nearby traditional commercial building
types.
some shown along the
Austin Ave. frontage.
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
The structure has three
changes in the facade plane
along the Austin Ave. The
materials on the structure
were used to express a
traditional lot width by how
they were varied. Height is
varied on all facades, with the
main portion two-stories, the
recessed third floor and the
three-story entry tower
element. The building
materials are also used to
create a modular effect, using
design to create columns,
cornices, arch details, with
repeating window elements.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide
variety.
A larger development should step down in
height towards the street or smaller, surrounding
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.
Complies
The height of this structure is
two-story; seen in typical
historic commercial buildings
in the area including those in
Area 1. The third story is
setback from the street.
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several
buildings, rather than a single structure.
Complies
Page 36 of 46
This will help reduce the perceived size of the project.
The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional
lot width.
The total lot size is 1.29 acres,
instead of developing a
single, large structure, the
applicant is proposing
multiple structures.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building
into modules that reflect the traditional 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 following:
- 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-dimensionally 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.
Complies
The design has utilized
material changes, insets,
height variation, setbacks,
architectural detailing to
create a modular effect on the
building. The majority of the
structure is two-stories, with
a recessed third.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.
In certain circumstances views to the courthouse
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.
Complies
At multiple locations the
proposed height of the
structure meets the
courthouse view corridor.
There is one perspective
where the proposed height
exceeds the height permitted
however, Tamero plaza
currently exceeds this height,
already blocking the
courthouse view.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are
preferred.
Brick and stone are preferred for new construction.
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 have a demonstrated
durability for the Central Texas climate. For example,
Complies
Brick will be used on the two
floors of the two street facing
facades, as well as one the
park facing façade. The
recessed third floor will have
a modern, metal wall panel.
The stucco used on the non-
street facing façade will have
Page 37 of 46
some facade materials used in new construction are
more susceptible to weather and simply do not last as
long as stone or brick.
details that are similar to the
brick pattern to create
columns and modulation.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large
expanse of wall plane.
A matte, or non-reflective, finish is preferred.
Polished stone and mirrored glass, for example, are
inappropriate and should be avoided as primary
materials.
Complies
The brick, stucco and
proposed matte charcoal gray
metal wall panel are
appropriate.
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and
stone are encouraged.
− Horizontal lap siding of traditional dimensions is
appropriate in most applications. N/A
− Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions are
encouraged. N/A
Brick or stone, similar to that used traditionally, is
also appropriate.
Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
New materials that are similar in character to
traditional ones may be considered. Alternative
materials should have a proven durability in similar
locations in this climate.
Complies
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage
pedestrian activity.
Provide at least one of the following along
primary pedestrian ways:
A storefront
Display cases
Landscaping
o A courtyard or plaza
Include traditional elements such as display
windows, kickplates, and transoms on
commercial storefronts.
Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
Complies
The building is located along
Austin Ave. and the façade
along the adjacent street line
and has been designed with
traditional style storefront
with doors and large
windows that are inviting for
pedestrians. The back portion
of that façade is not adjacent
to the sidewalk, as it is
blocked by the bridge. This
portion still has modulation,
and parking structure
ventilation screening. This
portion of the façade is not
meant for pedestrian access
and should not encourage it.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the
street.
Complies
The main entry is easily
identifiable and located
Page 38 of 46
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.
adjacent to Austin Ave. The
entry is recessed.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for
both automobiles and pedestrians.
Use landscaping and lighting accents to identify
entrances.
Complies
The road edge adjacent to the
street façade and driveway
entrance has been
landscaped.
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.
Needs more info. to
determine if additional
buildings will share drive
aisle.
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.
Complies
Covered parking is located at
the rear of the lot, with teaser
parking located along the
drive aisle.
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 adjacent buildings.
Where the setbacks are uniform, the new building
should be placed in general alignment 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.
Complies
This property is not adjacent
to any type of development
however, typically
commercial properties are
developed parallel to the
street and with minimal
setbacks. There are existing
residential properties in the
nearby area that exhibit
traditional yard space and
dimensions, with this
proposed design not
developing the entire site, but
leaving some yard space is
appropriate.
13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human 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.
Complies
The building is two-stories
has been designed with a
traditional style storefront
with doors and large
windows that are inviting for
pedestrians. The structure has
Page 39 of 46
Use elements that provide a sense of scale. been modulated using
building materials,
architectural elements, as well
as a stepped back third floor
help to 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, surrounding structures.
Complies
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.
Partially Complies
Flat roof forms are provided
and are typically found on
historic commercial buildings
in the area.
13.22 New interpretations of traditional building styles are
encouraged.
A new design that draws upon the fundamental
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.
Complies
Page 40 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion on the p ro cess and s tandards related to the Rehab ilitatio n Plan for a his toric
s tructure. Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His toric and Downto wn P lanner.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1-Demolition by Neglect Code Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Demolition by Neglect Compliance Exhibit
Exhibit 3-Demolition by Neglect Enforcement Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Rehabilitation Plan Outline Exhibit
Page 41 of 46
Sec. 4.08.060. - Demolition by Neglect.
A. An owner of a building or structure designated as a historic landmark or located in a historic overlay
district, or person with interest in the real property, shall not allow such structure to fall into a serious
state of disrepair so as to result in deterioration which would, in the judgment of the Historic
Preservation Officer and the Building Official, produce a detrimental effect upon the life and
character of the structure itself.
B. The Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer of the City of Georgetown shall determine the
"serious state of disrepair" in accordance with the most current form of the International Property
Maintenance Code. Examples of such deterioration include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Deterioration of walls or other vertical supports;
2. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
3. Deterioration of exterior chimneys;
4. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar;
5. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof or foundations, including broken windows or
doors;
6. Deterioration of exterior walls, doors, windows, or other means of interior access, so as to
create a danger of trespassing;
7. Deterioration of plumbing and electrical systems affecting the exterior of the structure; or
8. A hazardous condition resulting from the deterioration of any exterior feature, which might
indicate that demolition is necessary for the public safety.
C. A property owner, or person with interest in the real property, who is in violation of this Section shall
be subject to enforcement measures under Section 15.02.030 of this Code.
D. Should compliance with this Section require more than ordinary maintenance and repair, the
provisions of Section 3.13, Certificate of Appropriateness, shall be applicable.
(Ord. No. 2015-34, § 2(Exh. A), 5-12-2015)
Page 42 of 46
Sec. 15.02.030. - Demolition by Neglect.
A. Upon identification of any property in possible violation of Section 4.08.060 of this Code, the Building
Official shall notify the property owner or person with interest in the real property, of the possible
violation. Such notification shall be in writing and be mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested. The notification shall state the nature of the possible violation with sufficient specificity to
enable the owner or person with an interest in the real property to bring the property into compliance
with this Section. The notification shall also state that the owner or person with an interest in the real
property shall have 90 days to bring the property into compliance with this Code.
B. The Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer will work with the property owner to develop a
rehabilitation plan. Upon completion of the 90-day grace period, the Building Official and Historic
Preservation Officer will reinspect the property to determine com pliance with this Code. Should the
property owner or person with an interest in the real property fail to bring the property into
compliance with the 90-day grace period, the City shall seek enforcement of this Code under Section
15.03 of this Code and any applicable provisions of the Georgetown Municipal Code.
(Ord. No. 2015-34, § 2(Exh. A), 5-12-2015)
Page 43 of 46
Enforcement
Sec. 15.03.010. - Stop Work Orders.
A. Whenever any building or site development work is being done contrary to the provisions of this
Code, the Building Official or designee may order the work stopped and also revoke the building
permit theretofore issued by notice in writing served on any person owning such property or their
agent or on any person engaged in the doing or causing of such work to be done. Such person shall
forthwith stop and cause to be stopped such work until authorized by the Building Official or
designee to recommence and proceed with the work or upon issuance of a building permit in those
cases in which the building permit has been revoked. Such stop work order and revocation of permit
shall be posted on work being done in violation of this Code.
B. Whenever any building or portion thereof is being used or occupied contrary to the provisions of this
Code, the Building Official or designee or the Community Development Director or designee may
order such use or occupancy discontinued and the building or portion thereof vacated by notice
served on any person using or causing such use or occupancy to be continued. Such person shall
vacate such building or portion thereof within ten days after receipt of such notice or make the
building or portion thereof comply with the requirements of this Code.
C. Whenever a posted stop work order due to a violation of any provisions of this Code is removed,
penalties shall be enforced pursuant to Section 15.03.020.
Sec. 15.03.020. - Notice of Intent to Suspend or Revoke.
A. Before suspension or revocation pursuant to this division, the Building Official may give notice of
intent to suspend or revoke, which notice may specify a reasonable time for compliance with this
Code.
B. If notice of intent is given, suspension or revocation shall not occur before the time for compliance
has expired.
C. The Building Official shall not be required to provide notice of intent to suspend or revoke for
violations of this Code that cause imminent destruction of property or injury to persons.
Sec. 15.03.030. - Penalties.
A. Any person or other legal entity who shall violate any of the provisions of this Code or who shall fail
to comply with any provisions hereof within the corporate limits of the City or the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the City, outside the corporate limits shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be fined with the maximum fine in the amount of $2,000.00 for a violation of any
provision governing the public health, safety, and welfare and shall be fined with the maximum fine in
the amount of $500.00 for any other violation. Each day any violation of noncompliance continues
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
Sec. 15.03.040. - Other Remedies.
A. The City shall have the right to withhold approval of any Certificate of Occupancy, permit, plat, or
any other authorization or approval until the applicant pays all fees, fines, and penalties that have
been assessed and are due and owing to the City. The withholding of the Certificate of Occupancy
shall carry forward with the land to any future assessors and assigns until all penalties have been
addressed.
B. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the City may disconnect utility services for violations of this
Code.
C. The penalties and other remedies set forth herein shall be cumulative of other remedies provided by
State law and the power of injunction may be exercised in enforcing this Code whether or not there
has been a criminal complaint filed.
Page 44 of 46
Date:
Location: Priority: Other Designations:
Item Task Completion
Date Process
Walls/vertical Supports
Roofs/ horizontal members
Exterior Stucco/mortar
Waterproofing of exterior
walls/ roof/ foundations/
broken windows/doors
Exterior
walls/doors/windows/
interior access that could
create a danger of trespassing
Plumbing and electrical
systems affecting the exterior
of the structure
Additional Comments
Rehabilitation Plan
Comments:
Enforcement: Staff and applicant have agreed upon _____days to complete all work listed above. See
below reference for enforcement per the UDC.
Sec. 15.02.030 B. The Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer will work with the property owner to
develop a rehabilitation plan. Upon completion of the 90-day grace period, the Building Official and Historic
Preservation Officer will reinspect the property to determine compliance with this Code. Should the property
owner or person with an interest in the real property fail to bring the property into compliance with the 90-day
grace period, the City shall seek enforcement of this Code under Section 15.03 of this Code and any applicable
provisions of the Georgetown Municipal Code.
Sec. 15.03.030. - Penalties. A. Any person or other legal entity who shall violate any of the provisions of this Code
or who shall fail to comply with any provisions hereof within the corporate limits of the City or the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the City, outside the corporate limits shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be
fined with the maximum fine in the amount of $2,000.00 for a violation of any provision governing the public
health, safety, and welfare and shall be fined with the maximum fine in the amount of $500.00 for any other
violation. Each day any violation of noncompliance continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
Page 45 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Updates , Commis s io ner q uestio ns and comments . S o fia Nels o n, Planning Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
..
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 46 of 46