HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_03.19.2019Notice of Meeting for the
P lanning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 19, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at Council and Courts B uilding, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
A As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on the agenda.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t to zone a 0.63-ac re tract in the L.P. Dyches S urvey,
Abstract No. 171, to the G eneral C ommercial (C -3) dis tric t upon annexation, for the property generally
loc ated at 8400 R R 2338, to be a part of Highland Village. (2019-1-ANX) C hels ea Irby, S enior P lanner
C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a S pecial Us e P ermit (S UP ) for the s pecific us es of
1) “Bar, Tavern, or P ub”, and 2) “Event F acility” within the Mixed-Us e Downtown (MU-DT ) zoning
district, for the property loc ated at 718 S Austin Ave, bearing the legal des cription of 0.14 acres cons is ting
of the south one-half (1/2) of Lot 8, and the East one-fourth (1/4) of Lots 6 and 7, Bloc k 41, of the C ity
of G eorgetown, to be known as Barrels & Amps (2019-2-S UP ). Madis on T homas , AI C P, His toric &
Downtown P lanner
D P ublic hearing and pos s ible ac tion on proposed amendments to C hapter 2, R eview Authority, C hapter 3,
Applic ations and P ermits , C hapter 4, Zoning Dis tric ts, and C hapter 16, Definitions, of the Unified
Development C ode (UDC ) regarding the rules, standards and regulations of the Historic Dis tric ts
(Amendment No. 2). S ofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Direc tor
E Discussion Items:
Updates and Annouc ements (S ofia Nels on)
Update from other B oard and Commission meetings.
Q uestions or c omments from Alternate Members about the ac tions and matters cons idered on this
agenda.
Page 1 of 198
R eminder of the April 2, 2019, P lanning and Zoning C ommission meeting in the C ouncil C hambers
loc ated at 510 W 9th S t, s tarting at 6:00pm.
Adjournment
C E RT IF IC AT E O F P O S T IN G
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily
ac cessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained so pos ted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
____________________________________
R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 198
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 19, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request to zone a 0.63-acre trac t in the L.P. Dyc hes S urvey,
Abs trac t No. 171, to the G eneral C ommerc ial (C -3) district upon annexation, for the property generally
located at 8400 R R 2338, to be a part of Highland Village. (2019-1-ANX) C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he applic ant is requesting annexation and initial zoning des ignation of G eneral C ommerc ial (C -3) for 0.63
acres. T he s ubjec t property will be a part of the Highland Village development. T he s mall portion of land
was not originally included in the Highland Village Annexation, Development Agreement, and P UD.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request meets 5 of the 5 c riteria es tablished in
UDC S ec tion 3.06 for a rezoning, as outlined in the attac hed S taff R eport.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the s ubjec t
property and within the subdivision were notified of the Zoning Map Amendment reques t (2 notices), a
legal notice advertis ing the public hearing was plac ed in the S un News paper (March 3, 2019 and signs were
pos ted on-site. To date, staff has rec eived one (1) written c omments in favor, and zero (0) in oppos ition to
the reques t.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
2019-1-ANX - P&Z Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - C-3 Standards and Permitted Uses Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 6 - Public Comments Backup Material
2019-1-ANX Presentation Pres entation
Page 3 of 198
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 Page 1 of 6
Report Date: March 15, 2019
Case No: 2019-1-ANX
Project Planner: Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 8400 RR 2338 (to be part of the Highland Village Development)
Project Location: 8400 RR 2338, within City Council district No. 3
Total Acreage: 0.63
Legal Description: 0.63 acres out of the L.P. Dyches Survey, Abstract No. 171
Applicant: Turley Associates, Inc. c/o Jennifer Ryken
Property Owner: Highland Village Georgetown, LP c/o Joe Birdwell
Request: Zoning Map Amendment to zone the subject property to General Commercial
(C-3) upon annexation
Case History: This is the first public hearing of this request.
Location Map
Page 4 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 Page 2 of 6
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant is requesting annexation and initial zoning designation of General Commercial (C-3) for
0.63 acres. The subject property will be a part of the Highland Village development. The small portion
of land was not originally included in the Highland Village Annexation, Development Agreement,
and Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved by City Council in 2018.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located along RR 2338 (known as Williams Dr within the city limits), east of the
intersection of RR 2338 and Ronald Reagan Blvd. It will be a part of the Highland Village Development,
which is approved through a Planned Unit Development.
Physical and Natural Features:
The subject property is flat with some tree cover. The property is currently vacant and undeveloped.
There are no notable features.
Future Land Use and Zoning Designations:
The subject property has a Future Land Use designation of Mixed Use Community. The property is not
zoned, as it’s currently in the City’s ETJ.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding area is vacant and undeveloped, however, there are many entitled developments in
the vicinity including Highland Village and Parmer Ranch, both of which are mixed-use development
consisting of a mix of residential and non-residential uses along the major corridors. Sun City, a
residential development, is located further to the east.
The current zoning, Future Land Use designation, and existing uses of the adjacent properties to the
north, south, east and west are outlined in the table below:
DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE EXISTING USE
North
PUD with a based
district of RS and
C-3
Mixed Use Community
Vacant/Undeveloped
South (across
RR 2338) N/A - ETJ Low Density Residential
East
PUD with a based
district of RS and
C-3
Mixed Use Community
West
PUD with a based
district of RS and
C-3
Mixed Use Community
Page 5 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 Page 3 of 6
Aerial Map
Property History:
This is the first development/planning application for this property.
Comprehensive Plan Guidance
Future Land Use Map:
The Mixed Use Community category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as intended for large
tracts of undeveloped land, which are appropriate for larger scale, creatively planned communities,
where a mix of residential types and densities are complemented by supporting retail, small to
medium-scale office development, and integrated open spaces, where appropriate.
Growth Tier:
The subject property is located within Growth Tier 1B. Tier 1B is the area within the present city limits,
or subject to a development agreement, surrounding Tier 1A that is generally under-served by
infrastructure and where such service and facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of
the city once Tier 1A (that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place or can be
provided) approaches build-out. This includes area subject to development agreements or annexation
service plans, which mandate the provision of public facilities at varying levels of service. Other than
this commitment, the City’s priorities for capital improvements should focus on the development of a
full array of services and facilities with adequate capacities in Tier 1A, prior to initiating additional
major investments in Tier 1B.
Page 6 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 Page 4 of 6
Utilities
The subject property is located within the City’s service area for water and wastewater. Additionally,
it is located within the Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) service area for electric. It is anticipated
that there is adequate water and wastewater capacity to serve the subject property at this time. A Utility
Evaluation may be required at time of Subdivision Plat to determine capacity and any necessary utility
improvements.
Transportation
The subject property is located along RR 2338, a Major Arterial roadway per the City’s Overall
Transportation Plan (OTP).
Arterial streets provide traffic movement through and between different areas within the city and
access to adjacent land uses. Access is more controllable because driveway spacing requirements are
much greater and, if safety dictates, overall access can be limited to specific turning movements. Major
Arterials connect major traffic generators and land use concentrations and serve much larger traffic
volumes over greater distances.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Highland Village development is currently under review by the
City’s Engineering Department.
Proposed Zoning district
The General Commercial District (C-3) is intended to provide a location for general commercial and
retail activities that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may be large in scale and generate
substantial traffic, making the C-3 District only appropriate along freeways and major arterials.
Permitted uses in this district include, but are not limited to, general retail, hotels, restaurants, and
general office. Other uses such as activity center, bar/tavern/pub, college/university, fuel sales, and
event facility among others are permitted subject to specific design limitations. Certain land uses,
including automotive sales, rental or leasing facilities, require a Special Use Permit (SUP). Exhibit 4
contains a comprehensive list of C-3 district permitted uses and development standards.
Intergovernmental and Interdepartmental Review
The proposed rezoning request was reviewed by all applicable City Departments to determine the
appropriateness of the requested zoning on the subject property. No comments were issued regarding
the zoning request.
Approval Criteria
Staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning request and has found that it complies with the criteria
established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for a Zoning Map Amendment, as outlined below:
REZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA FINDINGS STAFF COMMENTS
1. The application is complete
and the information Complies An application must provide the
necessary information to review and
Page 7 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 Page 5 of 6
REZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA FINDINGS STAFF COMMENTS
contained within the
application is sufficient and
correct enough to allow
adequate review and final
action.
make a knowledgeable decision in order
for staff to schedule an application for
consideration by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council.
This application was reviewed by staff
and deemed to be complete.
2. The zoning change is
consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Complies
The General Commercial (C-3) zoning is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
because the property is designated as
Mixed Use Community, which
encourages a mix of residential and
supporting retail and other commercial
uses. In addition, this property is located
near a Regional Commercial and
Community Commercial nodes, both of
which encourage and support
commercial uses that support the
community and nearby neighborhoods.
3. The zoning change
promotes the health, safety
or general welfare of the
City and the safe orderly,
and healthful development
of the City.
Complies
The request promotes orderly
development because the General
Commercial (C-3) district is consistent
with the Highland Village PUD, which
has a base zoning district of C-3 on the
area surrounding the subject property. C-
3 is also appropriate along major
transportation corridors, such as RR 2338.
The properties across the roadway are
undeveloped, but are designated as Low
Density Residential on the Future Land
Use map. Commercial uses are
appropriate near residential areas to
support the needs of residents.
4. The zoning change is
compatible with the present
zoning and conforming uses
of nearby property and with
the character of the
neighborhood.
Complies
5. The property to be rezoned
is suitable for uses
permitted by the District
that would be applied by
the proposed amendment.
Complies
While the 0.63 acre-property by itself is
not suitable for the General Commercial
(C-3) zoning district because of size, the
site is adjacent to and is intended to
become part of the Highland Village
project. This property is planned to be
platted as a part of the larger
development, which will create
commercial properties along FM 2338
large enough to be developed to the
dimensional standards of the C-3 zoning
district.
Page 8 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 Page 6 of 6
In summary, the proposed C-3 zoning upon annexation is found to be appropriate for the subject
property. The purpose of the annexation request is to add a small area of land to the Highland Village
development, a mixed-use development consisting of residential and commercial uses along this
corridor. The proposed zoning is appropriate along a major roadway and is compatible with the
Highland Village PUD.
Meetings Schedule
City Council Resolution - 2/26/2019 - COMPLETE
Planning & Zoning Commission (Zoning Only) - 3/19/2019
City Council Public Hearing 1- 3/26/2019
City Council Public Hearing 2- 3/26/2019
City Council 1st Ordinance Reading - 4/23/2019
City Council 2nd Ordinance Reading - 5/14/2019
Public Notification
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the
subject property and within the subdivision were notified of the Zoning Map Amendment request (2
notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 3, 2019
and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received one (1) written comments in favor, and zero
(0) in opposition to the request.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Design and development standards of the C-3 zoning district
Exhibit 5 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 6 – Public Comments
Page 9 of 198
H E I D E R O S A R U N
R
I
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
C
V
E R I D G E W O O D R D
J E N N I N G S B R A N C H R D
C
R
2
4
5
RR 2338
CR 245
I N D I A N S P R I N G S R D
G A B R I E L V I S T A
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
V
I
S
T
A
C
T
2019-1-ANXExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Ronald Reagan Blvd
Page 10 of 198
RM 2338
RONALDWREAGAN BLVD
Coordin at e System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
2019-1-ANX
Legend
Thoroug hfare
Future Land U se
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Comm unity Commercial
Em ployment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty M ixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ram p
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 11 of 198
RM 2338
RONALDWREAGAN BLVD
Zon in g Information2019-1-ANXExhibit #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 12 of 198
Maximum Building Height = 60 feet Side Setback = 10 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Front Setback = 25 feet Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,
(0 feet for build-to/downtown)Rear Setback = 10 feet MF-1, or MF-2 districts
Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Agricultural Sales Activity Center (youth/senior)Auto. Parts Sales (outdoor)
Artisan Studio/Gallery Athletic Facility, Indoor or Outdoor Auto. Repair & Service, General
Assisted Living Bar/Tavern/Pub Auto. Sales, Rental, Leasing
Automotive Parts Sales (indoor)Business/Trade School Bus Barn
Auto. Repair and Service, Limited Church (with columbarium)Cemetary, Columbaria, Mausoleum, or
Memorial Park
Banking/Financial Services College/University Correctional Facility
Blood/Plasma Center Commercial Recreation Firing Range, Indoor
Car Wash Community Center Flea Market
Consumer Repair Dance Hall/Night Club Hospital, Psychiatric
Dry Cleaning Service Data Center Lumber Yard
Emergency Services Station Day Care (group/commercial)Major Event Entertainment
Event Catering/Equipment Rental Driving Range Manufactured Housing Sales
Farmer's Market Event Facility Meat Market
Fitness Center Fuel Sales Multifamily Attached
Food Catering Services Heliport Recreational Vehicle Sales, Rental,
Funeral Home Kennel Self-Storage (indoor or outdoor)
General Retail Live Music/Entertainment Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
General Office Micro Brewery/Winery Transient Service Facility
Government/Postal Office Neighborhood Amenity Center Wireless Transmission Facility (41'+)
Home Health Care Services Park (neighborhood/regional)
Hospital Pest Control/Janitorial Services
Hotel/Inn/Motel (incl. extended stay)School (Elementary, Middle, High)
Integrated Office Center Upper-story Residential
Landscape/Garden Sales Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Laundromat
Library/Museum
Medical Diagnostic Center
Medical Office/Clinic/Complex
Membership Club/Lodge
Nature Preserve/Community Garden
Nursing/Convalescent/Hospice
Parking Lot (commercial/park-n-ride)
Personal Services (inc. Restricted)
Printing/Mailing/Copying Services
Private Transport Dispatch Facility
Restaurant (general/drive-through)
Small Engine Repair
Social Service Facility
Surgery/Post Surgery Recovery
Theater (movie/live)
Transit Passenger Terminal
Urgent Care Facility
Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major)
Veterinary Clinic (indoor only)
General Commercial (C-3) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 13 of 198
Page 14 of 198
Page 15 of 198
Page 16 of 198
2019-1-ANX
8400 RR 2338 (Highland Village)
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2019
Page 17 of 198
Item Under Consideration
•ANX-2018-009 **ZONING ONLY**
–Public Hearing and possible action on a request to
zone 0.63 acres out of the L.P. Dyches Survey,
Abstract No. 171 to the General Commercial (C-3)
district upon annexation, for the property generally
located at 8400 RR 2338, to be a part of Highland
Village
Page 18 of 198
Location Map
Page 19 of 198
Aerial Map
Page 20 of 198
Future Land Use Map
Page 21 of 198
Zoning Map
Page 22 of 198
General Commercial (C-3) District
•The General Commercial District (C-3) is intended to
provide a location for general commercial and retail
activities that serve the entire community and its
visitors. Uses may be large in scale and generate
substantial traffic, making the C-3 District only
appropriate along freeways and major arterials.
Page 23 of 198
Page 24 of 198
Approval Criteria –UDC 3.06.030
Criteria For Zoning Map
Amendment Complies Partially
Complies
Does Not
Comply
The application is complete and
the information contained within
the application is sufficient and
correct enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
X
The zoning change promotes the
health, safety or general welfare of
the City and the safe orderly, and
healthful development of the City;
X
Page 25 of 198
Approval Criteria –UDC 3.06.030
Criteria For Zoning Map
Amendment Complies Partially
Complies
Does Not
Comply
The zoning change is compatible
with the present zoning and
conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of
the neighborhood; and
X
The property to be zoned is
suitable for uses permitted by the
district that would be applied by
the proposed amendment.
X
The zoning change is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan;X
Page 26 of 198
Public Notifications
Page 27 of 198
Public Notifications
•2 property owners, who are within 200’ of the subject
property to be rezoned, were notified about the public
hearing;
•Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun
News on March 3, 2019; and
•Signs were posted on the property in accordance with
the UDC.
•To date, staff has received one (1) written comment in
favor and zero (0) in opposition of the request.
Page 28 of 198
Summary:
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request to
zone 0.63 acres out of the L.P. Dyches Survey, Abstract
No. 171 to the General Commercial (C-3) district upon
annexation, for the property generally located at 8400
RR 2338, to be a part of Highland Village (2019-1-
ANX). Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
•Per UDC Section 3.06.020 E, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall hold a Public Hearing… and make a
recommendation to the City Council
Page 29 of 198
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 19, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a S pec ial Use P ermit (S UP ) for the spec ific uses of 1)
“Bar, Tavern, or P ub”, and 2) “Event F ac ility” within the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT ) zoning district,
for the property loc ated at 718 S Austin Ave, bearing the legal des cription of 0.14 acres cons is ting of the
s outh one-half (1/2) of Lot 8, and the Eas t one-fourth (1/4) of Lots 6 and 7, Block 41, of the C ity of
G eorgetown, to be known as Barrels & Amps (2019-2-S UP ). Madis on T homas , AI C P, His toric &
Downtown P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he ap p licant is reques ting a S p ecial Use P ermit (S U P ) fo r the spec ific us es o f “Bar, Tavern, o r P ub” and
“Event F acility” within the Mixed -Us e Do wntown zoning district to open a piano b ar to b e kno wn as
Barrels & Amps.
S taff’s Analysis:
1) Bar, Tavern, or Pub
S taff has reviewed the reques t in acc o rd anc e with the Unified Develo p ment C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable c o d es . S taff has determined that the proposed request complies with the criteria establis hed in
UDC S ec tion 3.07.030.C for a S pec ial Use P ermit, as outlined in the attac hed s taff report.
2)Event F acility
S taff has reviewed the reques t in acc o rd anc e with the Unified Develo p ment C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable c o d es . S taff has d etermined that the p ro p o s ed reques t complies with conditions with the
criteria estab lis hed in UDC S ectio n 3.07.030.C for a S pecial Us e P ermit, as o utlined in the attached s taff
report.
Public Comments:
As req uired by the Unified Develo p ment C ode, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the s ubjec t
property and within the s ubdivis io n were notified o f the S p ec ial Use P ermit req ues t (25 no tic es ), a legal
notice advertising the p ublic hearing was plac ed in the S un News paper (Marc h 3, 2019) and signs were
pos ted o n-site. To d ate, staff has rec eived o ne (1) written c o mments in favo r, and zero (0) in o p p o s ition to
the reques t.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
Page 30 of 198
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
2019-2-SUP - P&Z Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - Conceptual Plan Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - Elevations Backup Material
Exhibit 6 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 7 - Public Comments Backup Material
2019-2-SUP - Presentation Pres entation
Page 31 of 198
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 1 of 9
Report Date: March 15, 2019
Case No: 2019-2-SUP
Project Planner: Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Barrels & Amps
Project Location: 718 S Austin Avenue, within City Council district No. 6
Total Acreage: 0.14
Legal Description: 0.14 acres consisting of the south one-half (1/2) of Lot 8, and the East one-fourth
(1/4) of Lots 6 and 7, Block 41, of the City of Georgetown
Applicant: Dina Meixsell
Property Owner: Dina Meixsell
Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) for “Bar, Tavern, or Pub” and an “Event Facility”
specific uses within the Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district
Case History: This is the first public hearing of this request.
Location Map
Courthouse
Page 32 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 2 of 9
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the specific uses of “Bar, Tavern, or Pub”
and “Event Facility” within the Mixed-Use Downtown zoning district to open a piano bar to be known
as Barrels & Amps.
According to the applicant’s Letter (Exhibit 6), there will be two areas of interest. A pub/gathering place
on the 8th Street side, offering food, drinks, and entertainment such as music or comedy acts. The Austin
Avenue side will be a versatile space for a dueling piano bar, nostalgic film nights, and private
party/reception use.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located at the corner of Austin Avenue and 8th Street, at the southwest corner of
the Downtown Square.
Physical and Natural Features:
There are no natural features on the subject property, the structure covers the entire lot. The structure
on the property is identified as a high priority structure on the historic resources survey. It is also
located in the Williamson County Courthouse National Register District.
Future Land Use and Zoning Designations:
The subject property has an existing Future Land Use designation of Special Mixed Use Area and is
currently zoned Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT). It is also in the Historic Overlay District, the
Downtown Overlay District, and the Courthouse View Overlay districts.
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is located on the Downtown Square in Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay District.
The structure located on the property is historic in design and nature, as well as the surrounding
buildings, including the historic County Courthouse. This property fronts Austin Avenue, which is a
main gateway through the Downtown Square, and commercial in nature. There is a second entrance
off of W. 8th Street, this street is also made up of commercial businesses. Uses within the area include
retail, restaurant, office and entertainment uses. The current zoning, Future Land Use designation, and
existing uses of the adjacent properties to the north, south, east and west are outlined in the table below:
DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE EXISTING USE
North
Mixed Use
Downtown
(MU-DT)
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Museum, Shops, and
Restaurants
South (across
8th Street)
Capital Title of Texas, Art
Gallery, Palace Theatre
East (across
Austin Ave.)
Historic Williamson County
Courthouse
West Offices and Boomtown
Escape Room
Page 33 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 3 of 9
Aerial Map and Surrounding Uses
Property History:
The subject property was rezoned in 2000 (Ordinance 2000-17) when many of the Downtown properties
were rezoned to Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT).
Comprehensive Plan Guidance
Future Land Use Map:
The Specialty Mixed-Use Area designation accommodates large-scale mixed-use developments that are
mostly commercial and usually near intense regional commercial uses and the I-35 corridor. This
category encourages the creation of well planned “centers” designed to integrate a variety of
complementary uses, with an emphasis on retail, offices, and entertainment activities. These centers
may also include civic facilities and parks or other green spaces. Housing, in the form of apartments,
townhomes, condominiums, and live-work spaces, is also encouraged in these mixed-use areas,
generally in higher densities. These areas should be designed in a pattern of pedestrian-oriented,
storefront-style shopping streets, with shared parking and strong pedestrian linkages to the
surrounding areas.
Growth Tier:
The subject property is located within Growth Tier 1A. Tier 1A is that portion of the city where
infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided, and where the bulk of the city’s
growth should be guided over the near term. Within Tier 1A, the city is called on to conduct
Courthouse
Capital Title of Texas, Art
Gallery, and Palace Theatre Offices and Boomtown
Escape Room
Museum, Shops, and
Restaurants
Page 34 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 4 of 9
assessments of public facility conditions and capacities, and to prioritize short and long term capital
investments so as to ensure that infrastructure capacity is sufficient to serve development intensities as
indicated on the Future Land Use Map and in the zoning districts.
Other Master Plans: Downtown Master Plan:
The Downtown Master Plan seeks to maintain the city’s unique character while maximizing
opportunities for economic development and for enhancing the quality of life for its residents. The
intent is to move the downtown area towards becoming a center of activity not only in the day, but also
at night and on weekends, by promoting a mix of commercial, entertainment residential, and civic uses.
Creative forms of housing are encouraged, such as attached homes, “lofts,” and live-work units.
The Downtown Master Plan identifies the subject property as being located in the Downtown Core.
The Downtown Core has a traditional urban form and atmosphere. According to this Plan, “specialty
retail, dining and entertainment venues should be present to position the downtown core as an exciting
place distinct from regional suburban shopping centers”. The Master Plan’s Recommend Projects for
this area include:
Facilitate adaptive reuse of historic buildings
Promote development of more cultural facilities and entertainment venues
Utilities
The subject property is located within the City’s service area for water, wastewater, and electric. It is
anticipated that there is adequate water and wastewater capacity to serve the subject property at this
time. A Utility Evaluation may be required at time of Site Development Plan to determine capacity and
any necessary utility improvements.
Transportation
The subject property is located at the corner of Austin Avenue, a major collector-level, and 8th Street, a
local street. The property is also located in close proximity to the GoGeo Transfer Station at the
Georgetown Public Library on 8th Street, providing access to other residential and commercial areas
within the city, including the convention center and St. David’s Hospital.
Collector-level streets are intended to balance traffic between arterial streets and local streets. These
streets tend to carry a high volume of traffic over shorter distances, providing access and movement
between neighborhoods, parks, schools, retail areas and the arterial street system. Local streets intend
to provide access to adjoining properties by collecting the traffic from surrounding areas and
distributing it to adjoining collectors or arterial streets. These streets can access both collector level
streets and arterial level streets. On-street parking exists along this roadway, providing additional
parking for the non-residential uses within the area.
Zoning district
The Mixed Use Downtown District (MU-DT) is intended to provide a location for a mix of land uses
including general commercial and retail activities, office as well as single-family and multi-family in
the downtown area. Developments in the MU-DT District are typically smaller in size and scope
although there may be occasional heavy traffic. The Mixed Use Downtown Zoning District is only
Page 35 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 5 of 9
appropriate in the traditional downtown area of Georgetown. Properties in MU-DT shall meet the
design requirements of the Downtown Overlay District, and Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
Per Section 5.04 of the UDC, a Special Use Permit (SUP) is required in the MU-DT district for a “Bar,
Tavern, or Pub” and “Event Facility”. A SUP allows for City Council approval of uses with unique or
widely varying operating characteristics or unusual site development features, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Code. SUPs may be issued only for uses that are generally compatible with
other uses permitted in a zoning district, but that require individual review of their location, design,
intensity, etc. Section 5.04 outlines specific SUP requirements for these uses. The purpose of requiring
a SUP for a “Bar, Tavern, or Pub” is to ensure that the Downtown area is to limit the amount of
establishments with this use in close proximity. The purpose of requiring a SUP for an “Event Facility”
is to ensure that the congregation of a large number people at specific times will not result in
unnecessary noise or safety issues.
Approval Criteria
SUP for the Bar, Tavern or Pub Specific Use
Staff has reviewed the request and determined that the proposed request complies with the criteria
established in UDC Section 3.07.030.C for a Special Use Permit, as outlined below:
APPROVAL CRITERIA FINDINGS STAFF COMMENTS
1. The proposed special use is
not detrimental to the health,
welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or
its occupants.
Complies
The proposed special use is not
detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood. The proposed use meets
the additional use requirements of the
UDC:
The establishment shall be
located no less than 300 feet
from a church, public or private
school or public hospital,
subject to the measurements of
the City Code of Ordinances.
The establishment shall be
located no less than 750 feet
from an existing bar, tavern,
pub, dancehall, or nightclub,
subject to the measurements of
the City Code of Ordinances.
The establishment is subject to
the provisions of Chapter 6.40,
Alcoholic Beverages, of the City
Code of Ordinances.
Staff found that the proposed use,
where proposed, is not located within
the distances listed above. In addition,
Page 36 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 6 of 9
APPROVAL CRITERIA FINDINGS STAFF COMMENTS
the use is not detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood because the
activities associated with the use will
all be indoors. The City has a noise
ordinance in place to regulate the
sound that may come from any events
or music within the building.
2. The proposed conceptual site
layout, circulation plan, and
design are harmonious with
the character of the
surrounding area. Complies
There are no changes proposed to the
subject property. All proposed changes
to accommodate the proposed use are
internal to the building. The concept
plan provided by the applicant is
harmonious with the character of the
Downtown area. The façade and
signage are compatible with
surrounding buildings.
3. The proposed use does not
negatively impact existing
uses in the area and in the City
through impacts on public
infrastructure such as roads,
parking facilities, and water
and sewer systems, and on
public services such as police
and fire protection and solid
waste collection and the ability
of existing infrastructure and
services to adequately provide
services.
Complies
The proposed use does not impact
public infrastructure. The roadways
and utilities are already in place for the
Downtown area. Area 1 of the
Downtown exempts the majority of
development from the parking
requirements because it is designed for
uses that do not require large amounts
of parking and that encourage
walkability. In addition, public on-
street and off-site parking lots exist
within the area to accommodate uses in
the Downtown core. The proposed use
of “Bar, Tavern, or Pub” does not
require large amounts of parking and is
consistent with the walkability pattern
and active uses of the Downtown
Square.
4. The proposed use does not
negatively impact existing
uses in the area and in the City
through the creation of noise,
glare, fumes, dust, smoke,
vibration, fire hazard or other
injurious or noxious impact.
Complies
The proposed use will not create any
hazardous, injurious, or noxious
impacts. The proposed use will all be
internal to the existing building and
subject to the noise, smoke and other
nuisance standards of the City Code to
ensure no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties.
In summary, the proposed use of “Bar, Tavern, or Pub” complies with the approval criteria for an
Page 37 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 7 of 9
SUP and the zoning use regulations. Staff has found that the proposed special use does not affect the
surrounding area and fits within the character of the Downtown area.
SUP for the Event Facility Specific Use
Staff has reviewed the request and determined that the proposed request complies with conditions
with the criteria established in UDC Section 3.07.030.C for a Special Use Permit, as outlined below:
APPROVAL CRITERIA FINDINGS STAFF COMMENTS
1. The proposed special use is not
detrimental to the health,
welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or
its occupants. Complies
The proposed special use is not
detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood because the activities
associated with the use will all be
indoors. The City has a noise
ordinance in place to regulate the
sound that may come from any events
or music within the building.
2. The proposed conceptual site
layout, circulation plan, and
design are harmonious with
the character of the
surrounding area. Complies
There are no changes proposed to the
subject property. All proposed changes
to accommodate the proposed use are
internal to the building. The concept
plan provided by the applicant is
harmonious with the character of the
Downtown area. The façade and
signage are compatible with
surrounding buildings.
3. The proposed use does not
negatively impact existing
uses in the area and in the City
through impacts on public
infrastructure such as roads,
parking facilities, and water
and sewer systems, and on
public services such as police
and fire protection and solid
waste collection and the ability
of existing infrastructure and
services to adequately provide
services.
Complies With
Conditions
The proposed use does not impact
public infrastructure. The roadways
and utilities are already in place for the
Downtown area. However, the
proposed use of event facility would
have an impact on public parking
facilities as there are no on-site parking
spaces. The applicant has not proposed
any additional plan for the
accommodation of guest parking
during special events. Area 1 of
Downtown exempts the majority of
development from the parking
requirements because it is designed for
uses that do not require large amounts
of parking and that encourage
walkability. The use of “Event Facility”
will require large amounts of parking to
accommodate guests.
Page 38 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 8 of 9
APPROVAL CRITERIA FINDINGS STAFF COMMENTS
To accommodate the increase in need
for parking during special events, staff
finds that a shared parking plan that
provides half of the parking that would
be required of the use had it been
located in the General Commercial (C-
3) zoning district should be provided
for this specific use. This is consistent
with other event facility uses in Area 2
of Downtown and will ensure
dedicated parking facilities for guests of
the proposed event facility.
4. The proposed use does not
negatively impact existing
uses in the area and in the City
through the creation of noise,
glare, fumes, dust, smoke,
vibration, fire hazard or other
injurious or noxious impact.
Complies
The proposed event facility use is all
indoors; no outdoor live entertainment
is being proposed. In addition, the
City’s noise and nuisance ordinances,
as well as Fire Code (occupancy)
regulations will govern the use outside
of the UDC to ensure no adverse
impact of the proposed use on the
adjacent properties.
In summary, staff finds that the proposed use of Event Facility is appropriate for the subject property
should adequate parking be provided due to the building’s square footage and Downtown location.
The event facility specific use would be appropriate at this location if the applicant can find a way to
provide shared parking to accommodate the increased need for parking.
Public Notification
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the
subject property and within the subdivision were notified of the Special Use Permit request (25 notices),
a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 3, 2019) and
signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received one (1) written comments in favor, and zero (0) in
opposition to the request (Exhibit 7).
Meetings Schedule
3/19/2019 – Planning and Zoning Commission
4/9/2019 – City Council First Reading of the Ordinance
4/23/2019 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Page 39 of 198
Planning Department Staff Report
2019-2-SUP
Barrels & Amps Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 4 – Conceptual Plan
Exhibit 5 – Elevations
Exhibit 6 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 7 – Public Comments
Page 40 of 198
E
L
M
S
T
A
S
H
S
T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W 8 TH ST
SCENIC DR
W 1 0T H S T
W
E
S
T
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 6 T H S T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
W 4 T H S T E 4 T H S T
E 5 T H S T
W 11TH ST
E 6 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
W 7 TH ST
E 1 0T H S T
E 11T H S T
FO
RES
T S
T
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
E U N I VER S ITY AVE
W 5 TH S T
S
C
O
L
LE
G
E
S
T
W 9 TH ST
RAILROAD AVE
R
U
C
K
E
R
S
T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
RIVEROAK
S
C
V
W U NIVERS ITY AVE
MONT
G
O
ME
RY
ST
W 5 T H S T
WE
S
T S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 9 TH S T
MONT
GOMERY
ST
2019-2-SUPExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 41 of 198
W 9 T H S T
W 8 TH ST
W 6 T H S T
W 7 TH ST
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S CHUR
CH ST
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
E 6 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
FO
R
ES
T S
T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
FO
R
E
S
T S
T
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/C entr al Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
2019-2-SUP
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Comm ercial
Community Commercial
Employm ent Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Comm unity
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
Legend
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 42 of 198
W 9 T H S T
W 8 TH ST
W 6 T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
W 7 TH ST
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S CHUR
CH ST
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
E 6 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
FO
R
ES
T S
T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
Zon in g Information2019-2-SUPExhibit #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 250 500Fee t
Page 43 of 198
Existing Floor Plan (@60")
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A1.0
1
F.F.@0'-0"
SIDEWALK @0'-0"
N
F.F.@-1'-1"
SIDEWALK
ALLEY WAY
SOLID BACK DOOR
THREE HOUR FIRE WALL,
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
CONCRETE FLOOR
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR EACH SUITE, METER
LOBBY TO
SECOND FLOOR
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
ALLEY WAY
THREE HOUR FIRE WALL,
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
THREE HOUR FIRE WALL,
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
THREE HOUR FIRE WALL,
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
THREE HOUR FIRE WALL,
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL W.C.W.C.
CONCRETE FLOOR
RAMP, CONCRETE
RAMP
STEPS, CONCRETE
BREEZEWAY
EXISTING
MASONRY
FEATURE
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
ELECTRICAL IN
EXISTING WELL - NOT IN USE
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
FIRE RESISTANT SELF CLOSING DOOR IN FIRE WALL
FUTURE WINDOW DISPLAY
AREA BELOW STAIR A1.0
EXISTING
FLOOR
PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 44 of 198
Floor Plan (@60")
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A1.1
1
LEGEND:
N
F.F.@0'-0"
F.F.@-1'-1"
F.F.@+0'-10 1/4"
F.F.@+1'-3"
F.F.@0'-0"
SIDEWALK
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
28.5 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR
WALK-IN COOLER WITH VCT TILE, COMPRESSOR ABOVE
42" GRAB RAIL FIXED TO WALL, 36" ABOVE F.F.
RAMP 16'-6" IN LENGTH, CONCRETE FLOOR, LESS THAN 1:12 SLOPE
WOOD BENCHES
WITH BACKS
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
THREE HOUR FIRE RATING;
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
INSULATED PANELS STRUCTURE WALK-IN FREEZER
2x4 WOOD FRAMING WITH WIPEABLE SURFACE IN KITCHEN, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL IN WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER: CLASS K, PORTABLE; MOUNTED ON WALL
ILLUMINATING
EMERGENCY EXIT
SIGN AND LIGHT
EXIT
PORTABLE FIRE
EXTINGUISHER
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
W.C.
WALK-IN
COOLER
KITCHEN
HALL
W.C.
W.C.
HALL
RAMP
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE DOOR
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
PERIMETER RAILING 36" ABOVE SURFACE
PERIMETER RAILING 30" ABOVE CONC. FLOOR
DINING
STAGE
STAGE
ALLEY WAY
ALLEY WAY
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
16'-6"
RAILING 40" ABOVE SURFACES, EXTENDS 12" BEYOND RAMP
BAR
AREA
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
28.5 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
65.3 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR, COMPLIES WITH 2012 TAS
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
46.9 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR, COMPLIES WITH 2012 TAS
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
42" GRAB RAIL FIXED TO WALL, 36" ABOVE F.F.
TAP CABINET
FIXED STOOLS
FIXED FREE-STANDING BAR TOP
FIXED BENCH SEATING WITH FIXED TABLE
BREEZEWAY
PREP TABLE
PRINT SYSTEM NOT SHOWN
BATHROOMS' SINK
TOILET
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECT
SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN
ELECTRICAL
PANEL
EXISTING
MASONRY
FEATURE
HAND SINK
POS SYSTEM
POS SYSTEM
POS SYSTEM
TANKLESS WATER HEATER
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
TOILET
TOILET
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
GLASS
WITH ALUMINUM
MULLION
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL;
STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR EACH SUITE, METER
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
ELECTRICAL IN
ICE MACHINE
SODA MACHINE
W.C.
RESERVED
AREA
FIXED FREE-STANDING BAR TOP
PIPE CONSEALING BEER LINES
STORAGE
POS SYSTEM
HAND SINK
BATHROOMS' SINK
WORK TABLE - STAINLESS STEEL TOP 30"x48"
GAS FRYER 65-80lb
GAS FRYER 65-80lb
GAS COUNTER TOP RANGE 8 BURNER 240,000 BTU
GAS COUNTER TOP GRIDDLE 128,000BTU
GAS RADIANT SALAMANDER BROILER 50,000BTU
FOOD WARMER 120V
DUAL TEMP UNDERCOUNTER REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER
WORK TABLE - STAINLESS STEEL TOP 30"x36"
HAND SINK 5" BOWL DEPTH
WOOD STEPS - EMPLOYEES ONLY
WOOD STEPS
RAILING AT 36" ABOVE SURFACES
COMBINATION BAR STATION
FIXED STOOL
WOOD STEPS - EMPLOYEES ONLY
GAURD RAILING AT 36" ABOVE
DISHWASHER
GLASS RACK STAINLESS STEEL 24"
REFRIGERATOR 54" WIDE WITH SOLID DOORS; MOBILE
ONE COMPARTMENT SINK 14" BOWL DEPTH
ONE COMPARTMENT SINK 14" BOWL DEPTH WITH DRAINBOARD
FREEZER (SOLID DOOR)
FREEZER (HALF DOOR)
W.C.
RAIL ON BAR
FIXED STANDING BAR TOP
TOILET
THIN WALL - SHEETROCK ANDA WOOD
WOOD STEPS - EMPLOYEES ONLY
RAILING 36" ABOVE CONC. FLOOR SURFACE
RAILING 36" ABOVE SURFACES AND EXTENDS 12" BEYOND
THICK GLASS FLOOR OVER EXISTING WELL TOP; FLUSH WITH FLOOR
WOOD FLOOR SURFACE
GLASS
WITH ALUMINUM
MULLION
RAILING 36" ABOVE CONC. FLOOR SURFACE
DISH CABINET STAINLESS STEEL 96"
TYPE ONE HOOD ABOVE WITH ANSUL SYSTEM, 13'-0"X4'-6"
THREE COMPARTMENT SINK 12" BOWL DEPTH
GREASE TRAP 150 GALLON
HAND SINK
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
45.8 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR, COMPLIES WITH 2012 TAS FIRE RESISTANT SELF CLOSING DOOR IN FIRE WALL
FUTURE WINDOW DISPLAY
AREA BELOW STAIR
ELECTRICAL PANEL - SUB PANEL
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR DRAIN
VCT TILE SURFACE
WOMEN'S
TWO HOUR FIRE WALL
BETWEEN SPACES
TWO HOUR FIRE WALL
BETWEEN SPACES
12'-0"4'-10"
12
'
-
5
"
87
'
-
0
"
58
'
-
7
"
77'-5 3/4"9'-10 1/4"
120'-0"
31'-9"
11
'
-
1
1
"
4'
-
0
"
9'
-
4
"
2'
-
7
"
6'
-
0
"
3'-0"
6'-0"27'-4"
5'-0"
9'
-
0
"
D
I
A
.
3'
-
4
"
5'
-
5
1
/
2
"
14
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
4'
-
6
3
/
4
"
4'
-
7
"
30
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
2'
-
7
"
12
'
-
0
"
3'
-
1
1
"
1'
-
1
1
"
14
'
-
6
"
3'
-
1
1
"
28
'
-
3
"
28
'
-
1
"
18
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
7'-0"
1'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3'-4"
3'
-
9
"
6'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
5'-2"
3'-3 1/4"
3'-2 3/4"
1'-1"
4'-6"4'-0"
16
'
-
0
"
10'-10"
14
'
-
1
0
"
12'-0"
3'
-
0
"
3'-3"
1'-4"
4'-7 1/2"3'
-
0
"
6'
-
1
"
3'-3 1/2"
2'-10"1'-4"
7'-0"4'
-
1
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
4'
-
1
1
/
2
"
12'-1"
5'
-
2
"
2'
-
0
"
4'-1 1/2"
24
'
-
1
"
6'-1"
4'
-
7
"
3'-8"
5'
-
2
1
/
4
"
14'-3"
9'-0"
2'
-
0
"
10'-6"
27'-4"
5'-11 1/2"
4'-3 3/4"
2'-4 3/4"
3'-11 3/4"
4'-2"
3'
-
0
"
2'-8"2'-8"
7'
-
9
1
/
2
"
5'-9"8'-0"
10'-7 1/4"
5'-3"
9'-0"
5'
-
1
"
7'-5"
14'-4"
2'-4"6'-0"6'-0"
2'
-
6
"
18'-4 3/4"19'-11 3/4"17'-10 1/2"19'-1 1/4"
8'-5 1/4"
3'
-
8
3
/
4
"
8'-5 1/4"
3'
-
2
3
/
4
"
9'-9 3/4"
16
'
-
1
0
"
3'-2
1
/
2
"
4'-
1
"
19'-1 1/4"17'-10 1/2"
3'-6 3/4"
9'-3/4"
19
'
-
1
0
"
12'-0"
12
'
-
1
1
"
5'
-
1
3
/
4
"
4'
-
7
3
/
4
"
9'-10 1/4"
9'-10 1/4"
65'-5 3/4"
21
'
-
1
/
2
"
2'
-
8
3
/
4
"
2'
-
8
3
/
4
"
5'
-
3
"
4'
-
9
1
/
2
"
2'
-
8
"
6'
-
8
"
26
'
-
6
"
3'
-
4
"
3'-8 1/4"
6'
-
1
/
4
"
5'
-
6
"
3'
-
3
"
3'
-
1
1
"
2'
-
6
3
/
4
"
5'
-
3
"
5'
-
0
"
BATHROOM DIVIDE; DOORS OPEN INWARD
A1.1
FLOOR
PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 45 of 198
Floor Plan (@60")
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A1.2
1
LEGEND:
EXIST TRAVEL DISTANCE: 204'-0"
42IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY WITH
FIXED SEATS,
OCCUPANT PER
FIXED SEAT,
OCCUPANT PER 24"
OF BENCH
91IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY,
ENTERTAINMENT,
OCCUPANT PER
15SQFT
#
N
15IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY, STAGE,
OCCUPANCY PER
NET 15SQFT
11IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY, STAGE,
OCCUPANCY PER
NET 15SQFT
2IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY, BAR
OCCUPANT PER
200SQFT
2IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY,
KITCHEN
OCCUPANT PER
200QFT
F.F.@0'-0"
F.F.@-1'-1"
1IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY,
STORAGE,
OCCUPANT PER
300SQFT
EXI
S
T
T
R
A
V
E
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
:
2
1
4
-
3
"
34IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY WITH
FIXED SEATS,
OCCUPANT PER
FIXED SEAT,
OCCUPANT PER 24"
OF BENCH5'-0"8IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY,
ENTERTAINMENT,
OCCUPANT PER
15SQFT
8IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY,
ENTERTAINMENT,
OCCUPANT PER
15SQFT
8IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY,
ENTERTAINMENT,
OCCUPANT PER
15SQFT
18IBC 2015,
OCCUPANCY
CLASS: A-2
ASSEMBLY WITH
FIXED SEATS,
OCCUPANT PER
FIXED SEAT,
OCCUPANT PER 24"
OF BENCH
DINING
PUBLIC SIDEWALKSAME LEVEL,
NO CHANGE IN
ELEVATION
SAME LEVEL,
NO CHANGE IN
ELEVATION
PLAIN SOLID COMMERCIAL DOORS
ILLUMINATING
EMERGENCY EXIT
SIGN AND LIGHT
EXIT
PORTABLE FIRE
EXTINGUISHER
PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL
SMOKE COMPARTMENTS
IBC 2012 CHAPTER 10.10.3
RAMP 16'-6" IN LENGTH, CONCRETE FLOOR, LESS THAN 1:12 SLOPE,
IBC 2012 CHAPTER 1028.6.1.4
NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS PER FLOOR SPACE
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
STAGE
WALK-IN
COOLER
BAR
AREA
W.C.
KITCHEN
W.C.
W.C.
W.C.
HALL
STAGE
ALLEY WAY
ALLEY WAY
BREEZEWAY
SAME LEVEL,
NO CHANGE IN
ELEVATION
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE DOOR
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
THREE HOUR FIRE RATING;
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
RAMP
SAME LEVEL,
NO CHANGE IN
ELEVATION
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
SPRINKLER SYSTEM
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER: CLASS K, PORTABLE; MOUNTED ON WALL
ELECTRICAL
PANEL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECT
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR EACH SUITE, METER
ELECTRICAL IN
PROJECT INFORMATION:
TDLR#: EXEMPT
VALUE: ESTIMATED $49,911.00USD
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TENANT FINISH OUT
BUILDING TYPE: III, WITH SPRINKLER
OCCUPANCY CLASS: A-2, TAVERN
TOTAL SQFT: 2,321 SQFT+ 2,677 SQFT = 4,998 SQFT
OCCUPANT LOAD: 240 PERSONS MAX
PARKING: N/A (DOWNTOWN)
OCCUPANCY SYNOPSIS (IBC 2012, A-2 TAVERN):
DINING AREA(S): 42 FIXED SEATS = 42
BAR AREA: 338 SQFT / 200 SQFT = 1.7 = 2
STAGE AREA(2): 225 SQFT / 15 NET = 15 = 15
STAGE AREA(1): 165 SQFT / 15 NET = 11 = 11
COMM. KITCHEN AREA(S): 388 SQFT / 200 SQFT = 1.9 = 2
OFFICE AREA(S): 0 SQFT / 100 SQFT = 0 = 0
ENTERTAINMENT AREA(S): 1,725 SQFT / 15 SQFT = 115 = 115
ENTERTAINMENT AREA(S): 52 FIXED SEATS = 52
STORAGE AREA(S): 240 SQFT / 300 SQFT = 0.8 = 1
RESTROOM AREA(S): 425 SQFT / EXEMPT = EXEMPT
CIRCULATION AREA(S): 766 SQFT / EXEMPT = EXEMPT
PROVIDED PLUMBING SYNOPSIS (IBC 2012, A-2 TAVERN):
WATER CLOSETS:
1/40 MALE = 120/40 = 3, AND
1/40 FEMALE = 120/40 = 3;
6 PROVIDED
LAVATORIES:
1/200 MALE = 120/200 = 0.6 = 1, AND
1/200 FEMALE = 120/200 = 0.6 = 1;
3 PROVIDED
DRINKING FOUNDTAIN:
1/500 PERSONS = 240/500 = 0.48 = 1;
EXEMPT (DRINKING WATER AVAILABLE IN A CONTAINER FREE OF CHARGE)
SERVICE SINK:
1 REQUIRED;
1 PROVIDED
EXIT REQUIREMENTS (IBC 2012, A-2 TAVERN):
NUMBER OF EXITS: 4
MAXIMUM EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE: 250 FEET (WITH SPRINKLER
SYSTEM)
REFRIGERATOR 54" WIDE WITH SOLID DOORS; MOBILE
FIRE RESISTANT SELF CLOSING DOOR IN FIRE WALL
FUTURE WINDOW DISPLAY
AREA BELOW STAIR
W.C.
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
65.3 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR, COMPLIES WITH 2012 TAS
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
46.9 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR, COMPLIES WITH 2012 TAS
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
45.8 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR, COMPLIES WITH 2012 TAS
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
28.5 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR
BATHROOM, COMPLIES IBC CHAPTER 29,
28.5 SQFT, CONCRETE FLOOR
HAND SINK
HAND SINK
HAND SINK
ELECTRICAL PANEL - SUB PANEL
WOMEN'S
4'
-
1
"
16'-6"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
3
"
A1.2
IBC 2012
CODE
ANALYSIS
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 46 of 198
Reflected Ceiling Plan
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A1.3
1
DINING
W.C.
FLUORESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE
BRONZE TIN SQUARES
WALK-IN CEILING AND ROOF,
COMPRESSORS SIT ABOVE,
OPEN WEB METAL JOISTS ARE EXPOSED ABOVE
WOOD CEILING
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN OSCILLATING FAN
WIPEABLE 24"x48"
CEILING TILES
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
WALK-IN
COOLER
KITCHEN
HALL
W.C.W.C.
WOOD CEILING
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
HALL
EXISTING WOOD CEILING
(NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT)
EXISTING WOOD CEILING AT AWNING
(NOT IS SCOPE OF PROJECT)
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
W.C.
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
BAR
AREA
TYPE 1 HOOD DONE BY OTHERS
GAS RADIANT SALAMANDER BROILER 50,000BTU
ELECTRICAL PANEL
SPRINLER SYSTEM RISER - NOT SHOWN
DECORATIVE PIPE
HOLDING BEER LINES
2 TON MINI SPLIT COOLING AIR HANDLER
OSCILLATING FAN 6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
SPIRAL DELIVERY AIR DUCT
SPIRAL DELIVERY AIR DUCT
ACCESS PANEL - NOT SHOWN
AIR DELIVERY REPRESENTATION
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
GYPSUM BOARD CEILING
AIR DELIVERY REPRESENTATION
AIR DELIVERY REPRESENTATION
AIR DELIVERY REPRESENTATION
W.C.
A1.3
REFLECTE
D CEILING
PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 47 of 198
Floor Plan (@60")
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A1.4
1
LEGEND:
N
SIDEWALKSAME LEVEL,
NO CHANGE IN
ELEVATION
ILLUMINATING
EMERGENCY EXIT
SIGN AND LIGHT
EXIT
PORTABLE FIRE
EXTINGUISHER
HAND SINK HIGHLIGHT
PLAIN SOLID COMMERCIAL DOORS
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
BREEZEWAY
WALK-IN
COOLER
BAR
AREA
W.C.
KITCHEN
W.C.
W.C.
W.C.
HALL
DINING
STAGE
ALLEY WAY
ALLEY WAY
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE DOOR
EXIT
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
THREE HOUR FIRE RATING;
20" THICK LIMESTONE WALL RAMP
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN
HAND SINK
TANKLESS WATER HEATER
2x4 WOOD FRAMING WITH WIPEABLE SURFACE IN KITCHEN, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL IN WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER: CLASS K, PORTABLE; MOUNTED ON WALL
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECT
ELECTRICAL
PANEL WORK TABLE - STAINLESS STEEL TOP 30"x48"
GAS FRYER 65-80lb
GAS FRYER 65-80lb
GAS COUNTER TOP RANGE 8 BURNER 240,000 BTU
GAS COUNTER TOP GRIDDLE 128,000BTU
GAS RADIANT SALAMANDER BROILER 50,000BTU
DUAL TEMP UNDERCOUNTER REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER
WORK TABLE - STAINLESS STEEL TOP 30"x36"
HAND SINK 5" BOWL DEPTH
DISHWASHER
GLASS RACK STAINLESS STEEL 24"
REFRIGERATOR 54" WIDE WITH SOLID DOORS; MOBILE
ONE COMPARTMENT SINK 14" BOWL DEPTH
ONE COMPARTMENT SINK 14" BOWL DEPTH WITH DRAINBOARD
FREEZER (SOLID DOOR)
FREEZER (HALF DOOR)
DOUBLE DECK OVERSHELF
PREP TABLE TWO DOOR REFRIGERATOR 48"
SODA MACHINE
ICE MACHINE
POS SYSTEM
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
BATHROOMS' SINK
BATHROOMS' SINK
STAGE
HAND SINK
FIXED STOOL
FIXED BAR TOP
FIXED BOOTH SEATS
AND TABLE
FIXED WOOD BENCH WITH BACK
BAR TOP
FIXED BAR TOP
THREE COMPARTMENT SINK 12" BOWL DEPTH
GREASE TRAP 150 GALLON
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
COMBINATION BAR STATION
HAND SINK
4'
-
1
"
9'
-
4
"
27'-4"
26
'
-
6
"
4'-10"
6'
-
0
"
6'-0"
5'-0"
3'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
3'-3"
3'
-
1
/
2
"
3'-4"
4'-6"
3'-11 1/2"
3'-2 3/4"
3'-11 1/2"
7'-5"
3'
-
1
1
"
2'
-
6
3
/
4
"
65'-5 3/4"
3'-8"
3'
-
9
"
5'-2 1/4"14
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
27'-4"
12'-0"10'-6"
4'-3 3/4"
5'-11 1/4"
19
'
-
1
0
"
12'-0"
5'
-
1
0
"
52
'
-
9
"
16
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
5'
-
0
"
2'
-
8
"
3'-3"
3'-2 1/4"
9'
-
1
3
/
4
"
3'
-
0
"
2'-8"2'-8"
4'
-
0
"
A1.4
HEALTH
SERVICES
REVIEW
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 48 of 198
Roof Plan
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A3.1
1
N
ALLEY WAY
SOLID BACK DOOR
FLAT ROOF SYSTEM
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR EACH SUITE, METER
ALLEY WAY
ROOF
FLAT ROOF SYSTEM
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
ROOF
HOOD EXHAUST VENT
CONDENSOR
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT - CONDENSER
ROOF DRAIN
ROOF DRAIN
ROOF DRAIN
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECT
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT
AWNING
4'-0"
4'-0"1'-0"4'-0"1'-0"4'-0"1'-0"4'-0"4'-0"
4'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
119'-0"
A3.1
ROOF
PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 49 of 198
Section: AA
scale: none
A4.3
1
Section: BB
scale: none
A4.3
2
A4.3
SECTIONS
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 50 of 198
Sprinkler Plan
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A5.1
1
LEGEND:
N
SIDEWALK
ALLEY WAY
SOLID BACK DOOR
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR EACH SUITE, METER
ALLEY WAY
W.C.W.C.
RAMP
BREEZEWAY
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
ELECTRICAL IN
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
ILLUMINATING
EMERGENCY EXIT
SIGN AND LIGHT
EXIT
PORTABLE FIRE
EXTINGUISHER
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHER OF AT LEAST 2A10B:C RATING, MOUNTED ON WALL
6"x6" STEEL TUBE COLUMN
SPRINKLER
HEAD
SPRINKLER
RISER
SPRINKLER RISER
ELECTRICAL PANEL
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
A5.1
SPRINKLER
PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 51 of 198
Electrical Plan
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
E1.1
1
LEGEND:
N
NETWORK CONNECTION
GFCI
ELECTRICAL PANEL
S
D
S
TH
VF
S 3
S
VF
WALK-IN COOLER WITH
CONDESSOR ABOVE AND INTERIOR
LIGHTS
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
S
TH
THERMOSTADT
D
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
VF
VF
GAS COMES TO
THE BUILDING
SPRINKLER SYSTEM - NOT SHOWN
CONDENSER ABOVE
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
S
GFCIGFCIGFCI
S
TH
VF
GFCI GFCI GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
CONDENSER ABOVE
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
S
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
GFCIGFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI VF S
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
GFCI
S
ELECTRICAL PANEL - SUB PANEL
D
S
S
D
THERMOSTADT
D
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
CAGE LIGHT
HANG LIGHT
CONST LIGHT
RECESSED LIGHT
COOK HOOD
DUPLEX OUTLET
NETWORK
5 TON AIR HANDLER ABOVE;
CONDENSER ON ROOF
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR ALL SUITES (ELECTRICAL IN) HERE
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
BREEZEWAY
SIDEWALK
STAGE
WALK-IN
COOLER
BAR
AREA
W.C.
GFCI OUTLET
FLUORESCENT FIXTURE
ON/OFF SWITCH
DIMMER SWITCH
THERMOSTADT
VENT FAN
THREE WAY SWITCH
EXIT EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE DOOR
EMERGENCY PATH OF EGRESS
ALWAYS ILLUMINATED;
BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
EGRESS ILLUMINATION, ALWAYS ON, BACK UP PAOWER SOURCE
EXIT DISCHARGE PATH ILLUMINATION;
BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
CONNECTED TO BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
EXIT DISCHARGE PATH ILLUMINATION;
BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
CONNECTED TO BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
KITCHEN
W.C.
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
EXIT
5 TON AIR HANDLER ABOVE;
CONDENSOR ON ROOF
5 TON AIR HANDLER ABOVE; CONDENSER ON ROOF
5 TON AIR HANDLER ABOVE; CONDENSER ON ROOF
EXIT DISCHARGE PATH ILLUMINATION;
BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
EXIT DISCHARGE PATH ILLUMINATION;
BACK-UP POWER SOURCE
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
EXIT
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
ILLUMINATING EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN AND LIGHT ABOVE
HALL
DINING
STAGE
ALLEY WAY
ALLEY WAY
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT: EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY
EGRESS ILLUMINATION, ALWAYS ON, BACK UP PAOWER SOURCE
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
QUADRUPLEX OUTLET
ELECTRICAL BOX
REPRESENTATION
OF BEER LINE
COOLANT SYSTEM
W.C.
GLASS WITH
ALUMINUM MULLION
CAGE LIGHT ON COLUMN FACE
CAGE LIGHT ATTACHD TO WALL
CAGE LIGHT ATTACHED TO WALL
CAGE LIGHT ATTACHED TO WALL
IN BAR FOR
PATRON USE
POS SYSTEM
POS SYSTEM
POS SYSTEM
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
OSCILLATING FAN ABOVE
E1.1
ELECTRIC
AL PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 52 of 198
Mechanical Plan
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
M1.1
1
N
HOODS DONE BY OTHERS
MI
N
I
-
S
P
L
I
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TYPE 1 HOOD AND VENT
FOR FRYERS WITH
RETURN AIR AND
FIRE SUPRESSION SYSTEM
4x 5.00 TON UNIT
COMCHECK TO BE DONE BY
MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR.
TYPE 1 HOOD IN KITCHEN
DONE BY OTHERS.
FILTER
GRILL
RETURN
FILTER
GRILL
RETURN
10"
10"
10"10"
6"6"
8"8"
DELIVERY
(SPIRAL DUCT)
FILTER
GRILL
RETURN
FILTER
GRILL
RETURN
10"
6"
8"
10"8"
6"
10"
10"
DELIVERY
(SPIRAL DUCT)
5 TON AIR HANDLER
5 TON AIR HANDLER
5 TON AIR HANDLER
5 TON AIR HANDLER
6"6"
6"
8"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
1x 2.00 TON MINI-SPLIT UNIT
THERMOSTADT
RETURN AIR
DELIVERY (FLEX WORK)
ELECTRICAL BOXES FOR SUITES
MECHANICAL INFORMATION
ALL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS COMPLY WITH 2012 IMC
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
WALK-IN
COOLER
KITCHEN
DINING
STAGE
ALLEY WAY
ALLEY WAY
RETURN AIR
OPENING
FOR AIR
PASSAGE
OPENING FOR
AIR PASSAGE
WALK-IN COOLER
CONDENSOR
WALK-IN COOLER
CONDENSOR
STAGE
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
OSCILLATING FAN
BAR
REPRESENTATION
OF BEER LINE
COOLANT SYSTEM
CEILING PANEL
2 TON MINI SPLIT COOLING AIR HANDLER
RETURN AIR
RETURN AIR
DELIVERY (FLEX WORK)
THERMOSTADT
THERMOSTADT
THERMOSTADT
M1.1
MECHANI
CAL PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 53 of 198
Plumbing Plan
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
P1.1
1
N
HOSE BIBVENTEXISTING FLOOR DRAIN - NOT SHOWN; TO BE SURFACED OVER
EXISTING FLOOR DRAIN - NOT SHOWN; TO BE SURFACED OVER
CONDENSATE LINE FOR AIR HANDLER ABOVE
CONDENSATE LINE FOR AIR HANDLER ABOVE
2" AIR GAPVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTDRAINDRAIN3" AIR GAP
VENTDRAIN3" AIR GAP
TO CITY OF GEORGETOWNDRAINDRAINBREEZEWAY
TOILET
SINK
LOBBY
(NOT IN SCOPE
OF PROJECT)
DINING
W.C.
WALK-IN
COOLER
KITCHEN
HALL
W.C.W.C.
HALL
ALLEY WAY
ALLEY WAY
GAS BROUGHT TO BUILDING
W.C.
W.C.
TANKLESS WATER HEATER
ONE COMPARTMENT SINK 14" BOWL DEPTH
THREE COMPARTMENT SINK 12" BOWL DEPTH
GREASE TRAP 150 GALLON
ONE COMPARTMENT SINK 14" BOWL DEPTH WITH DRAINBOARD
DISHWASHER
GLASS RACK STAINLESS STEEL 24"
HAND SINK 5" BOWL DEPTH
ELECTRICAL PANEL
BATHROOMS' SINK
TOILET
TOILET
HAND SINK
ICE MACHINE
SODA MACHINE
TAP CABINET
HAND SINK
COMBINATION BAR STATION
HAND SINK BATHROOMS' SINK
TOILET
TOILET
SINK
SINK
SINK
SINK SINK
SINK
SINK
TOILET
TOILET
SINK
RAMP
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR DRAIN
P1.1
PLUMBING
PLAN
Rev.:07/31/2018
BA
R
R
E
L
S
A
N
D
A
M
P
S
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
81
7
S
.
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
7
8
6
2
6
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 54 of 198
Project Perspective View
scale: none
C1.0
1
VICINITY MAP
scale: not to scale
C1.0
2
PROJECT DATA:
ERECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE: STEEL TUBE COLUMNS WITH HOLDING OPEN WEB METAL JOISTS AND CONCRETE OVER METAL DECKING, EXTERIOR
LIMSTONE WALLS STAND ALONE WITH NEW TIES TO STEEL TUBE COLUMNS
EXTERIOR WALL FINISH: STUCCO, SOME EXPOSED LIMESTONE OF EXTERIOR WALLS
EXTERIOR ROOF FINISH: RIGID INSULATION FLAT ROOF
FOUNDATION TYPE: CONCRETE SLAB(S), COLUMNS HAVE CONCRETE FOOTERS, WALLS HAVE LINEAR CONCRETE FOOTERS
CONCRETE SLAB AREA(S): 3,584 SQFT, AND 2,628 SQFT
IMPERVIOUS COVER AREA: 7,024 SQFT
PERVIOUS COVER AREA: 0 SQFT
SITE AREA: ESTIMATED 7,024 SQFT
BREEZEWAY AREA: 150 SQFT
MUSIC AREA: 2,138 SQFT
KITCHEN AREA: 388 SQFT
TAP ROOM AREA: 1,576 SQFT
FLOOR DRAINS: 4
TOILET COUNT: 6
SINK COUNT: 9
ELECTRICAL ACCESS: THREE PHASE
BUILDING PERIMETER LENGTH: 480 FT
SEWAGE: CITY OF GEORGETOWN
GAS APPLIANCES: (2) FRYER 65-80lb, COUNTER TOP RANGE 8 BURNER 240,000BTU, COUNTER TOP GRIDDLE 128,000BTU,
RADIANT SALAMANDER BROILER 50,000BTU
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES: VENT FAN, (8) OSCILLATING FAN, (4) 5 TON AIR HANDLERS AND CONDENSORS, (2) WALK-IN COOLER CONDENSORS,
(2) TANKLESS WATER HEATER
SITE LOCATION
EAST 6TH STREET
EAST 7TH STREET
EAST 8TH STREET
EAST 9TH STREET
MYRTLE STREET
CHURCH STREET
MAIN STREET
AUSTIN AVENUE
N
WEST 6TH STREET
WEST 7TH STREET
WEST 8TH STREET
NOTE: LIMESTONE WALLS IN KITCHEN
COVERED WITH NEW WALL SURFACE;
WIPE-ABLE, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING
NOTE: A FEW STEPS LEAD PATRONS
TO BENCH SEATS AT AN ELEVATED POSITION;
WIDTH OF STAIR HAS BEEN SET TO 42"
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN AUTHORED BY DAVIN HOYT OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS.
DAVIN HOYT IS NOT A REGISTERED OR LICENSED ARCHITECT IN ANY OF THE UNITED STATES.
DISCLAIMER:
PROJECT PARAMETERS:
BUILDING CODE: INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2012
MECHANICAL CODE: INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2012
PLUMBING CODE: INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 2012
ELECTRICAL CODE: NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE 2012
FIRE CODE: INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2012
HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY:
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT,
EXTERIOR DOOR TO LOBBY OF SECOND FLOOR;
AREA DOES NOT PROGRESS TO CURRENT PROJECT SPACE
ONLY ONE MINI-SPLIT IN CURRENT PROJECT
PROJECT INFORMATION:
TDLR#: EXEMPT
VALUE: ESTIMATED $49,911.00USD
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TENANT FINISH OUT
BUILDING TYPE: III, WITH SPRINKLER
OCCUPANCY CLASS: A-2, TAVERN
TOTAL SQFT: 2,321 SQFT+ 2,677 SQFT = 4,998 SQFT
OCCUPANT LOAD: 240 PERSONS MAX
PARKING: N/A (DOWNTOWN)
OCCUPANCY SYNOPSIS (IBC 2012, A-2 TAVERN):
DINING AREA(S): 42 FIXED SEATS = 42
BAR AREA: 338 SQFT / 200 SQFT = 1.7 = 2
STAGE AREA(2): 225 SQFT / 15 NET = 15 = 15
STAGE AREA(1): 165 SQFT / 15 NET = 11 = 11
COMM. KITCHEN AREA(S): 388 SQFT / 200 SQFT = 1.9 = 2
OFFICE AREA(S): 0 SQFT / 100 SQFT = 0 = 0
ENTERTAINMENT AREA(S): 1,725 SQFT / 15 SQFT = 115 = 115
ENTERTAINMENT AREA(S): 52 FIXED SEATS = 52
STORAGE AREA(S): 240 SQFT / 300 SQFT = 0.8 = 1
RESTROOM AREA(S): 425 SQFT / EXEMPT = EXEMPT
CIRCULATION AREA(S): 766 SQFT / EXEMPT = EXEMPT
PROVIDED PLUMBING SYNOPSIS (IBC 2012, A-2 TAVERN):
WATER CLOSETS:
1/40 MALE = 120/40 = 3, AND
1/40 FEMALE = 120/40 = 3;
6 PROVIDED
LAVATORIES:
1/200 MALE = 120/200 = 0.6 = 1, AND
1/200 FEMALE = 120/200 = 0.6 = 1;
3 PROVIDED
DRINKING FOUNDTAIN:
1/500 PERSONS = 240/500 = 0.48 = 1;
EXEMPT (DRINKING WATER AVAILABLE IN A CONTAINER FREE OF CHARGE)
SERVICE SINK:
1 REQUIRED;
1 PROVIDED
EXIT REQUIREMENTS (IBC 2012, A-2 TAVERN):
NUMBER OF EXITS: 4
MAXIMUM EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE: 250 FEET (WITH SPRINKLER
SYSTEM)
C1.0
COVER
PAGE
AND
VICINITY
MAP
Rev.:07/31/2018
BARRELS AND AMPS
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Mark Thompson
(512) 688.0394
markthompson60@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
817 S. Austin Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HOFFMAN/HOFFMAN_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:04/23/2016
NOT A PLAYER HATER
Page 55 of 198
LETTER OF INTENT TO OBTAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT
City of Georgetown Planning Department
Please accept this letter of intent to obtain a Special Use Permit for Bar/restaurant and event center for
718 S. Austin Ave. Georgetown TX., It is currently zone MU-DT and as such, requires a special use
permit for this site.
-General Concept -
A casual but swanky-nostalgic Texas Pub/Gathering place. The overall space will offer two
areas of interest; Bar /Draft side on 8th Ave, with a smart & unique menu, long bar,
community tables in the center & retro booth seating against the 140 year old rock walls.
This side also offers a small stage for casual entertainment such as music or comedy acts.
The other side with the main entrance on Austin Ave is more venue minded, and will be
more versatile in what we can offer; such as Dueling Piano Bar nights, nostalgic film nights,
Private party & reception use.
Both areas have a large common walkway and the building itself has 5 emergency exits (not
including the upstairs rooftop access)
We have made sure the number of restrooms is well above what is required for a building of
this size and concept.
To support the success of this concept, while preserving the historic exterior as well as the interior soul
of the building, we have completely reinvented and remade the building to prepare it for its next 140
years of service to the community. It is what we boast to be the most modern and code compliant
building on the square. A new steel structure and concrete foundation have given this building a new
lease on life. Four out of five entrances to the building are now ADA compliant and access to the
second floor of the main building has been upgraded with a new hotel grade Schindler elevator. The
building has been upgraded with a total of 13 bathrooms, 5 of which are ADA compliant. The building
has also been upgraded with a sprinkler system that covers 100% of the interior of the building. And a
grease trap has been installed to support the new kitchen.
Page 56 of 198
- Our Vision -
We recognize Georgetown is growing by leaps and bounds, and we are very excited to be a
part of it by creating & offering what we hope will become a landmark destination point.
This venue will be another great reason for the people to choose to come to the historic
downtown of Georgetown rather than some other locale when they decide to go out for an
afternoon or evening on the town.
We want this venue to be a draw for the entire community and to offer something for
everyone. Everything about the concept down to the seating arrangement will be about
bringing people together. In addition to live music, we hope to bring a rotation of
entertainment such as classic movie night, comedy, vaudeville, a dueling piano concept to
the venue. We also want it to be a gathering place for private events. It will offer a mix of
events to keep community interest fresh and appealing.
- Security - Parking & Sound/Noise -
All of our normal day to day activities of operation will be serviced in-house by our
experienced and highly trained managers, as well as the working owners.
Any larger events, we will contract with licensed & insured security services and / or Off-
duty police personal as appropriate.
Parking is offered in a number of places in Downtown, and our studies have shown that
approximately 50% of the guest visiting downtown Georgetown like to just park wherever
is available and walk around discovering what the Square has to offer.
Besides all the Square parking there are several free parking lots in all surrounding corners
as well as side streets including a planned new 4-story parking structure between 6th & 7th
local off the Square.
Directly behind us a block away on 8th is another huge open parking lot, and this along
with other Daytime business would be more than useful for our establishment since the
majority of our business would be in the evening.
Page 57 of 198
All entertainment will be monitored by managers as well as the owners of Barrels and
Amps to assure that we are in compliance with all of the ordinances of the City of
Georgetown.
Our managers will be provided with and trained on the use of decibel sound monitoring
devices and they will be charged with assuring compliance with sound ordinances.
Both stages are intentionally oriented to project sound away from direct openings for
optimum in-house sound absorption.
The management of Barrels and Amps will do everything possible to pre-screen all artists /
performers to ensure that they will be a good fit for the venue as well as to represent the
community of Georgetown. We will to assure that they are a good fit and will be required
to read and sign agreements regarding notifications regarding house rules and city
ordinances prior to being allowed to perform
Page 58 of 198
Page 59 of 198
Barrels & Amps
2019-2-SUP
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2019
Page 60 of 198
Items Under Consideration
•2019-2-SUP –Granting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the
specific uses of 1) “Bar, Tavern, or Pub”, and 2) “Event
Facility” within the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning
district, for the property located at 718 S Austin Ave.
Page 61 of 198
Location
Courthouse
Page 62 of 198
Future Land Use
Specialty
Mixed Use
Area
Page 63 of 198
Zoning
Mixed Use
Downtown
(MU-DT)
Page 64 of 198
Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT)
The Mixed Use Downtown District (MU-DT) is intended to
provide a location for a mix of land uses including general
commercial and retail activities, office as well as single-
family and multi-family in the downtown area.
Developments in the MU-DT District are typically smaller in
size and scope although there may be occasionally heavy
traffic. The Mixed Use Downtown District is only
appropriate in the traditional downtown area of
Georgetown. Properties in MU-DT shall meet the design
requirements of the Downtown Overlay District, and
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
Page 65 of 198
Special Use Permit (SUP)
A “Bar, Tavern, or Pub” and an “Event Facility” requires a
SUP within the Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning
district.
•The SUP allows for Planning & Zoning Commission and
City Council approval of uses with unique or widely
varying operating characteristics or unusual site
development features, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the UDC.
•The SUP also allows for additional restrictions to be
placed on the use by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and the City Council.
Page 66 of 198
Special Use Permit (SUP)
Bar, Tavern, or Pub
•The establishment shall be located no less than 300 feet from a church, public or private
school or public hospital, subject to the measurements of the City Code of Ordinances.
•The establishment shall be located no less than 750 feet from an existing bar, tavern,
pub, dancehall, or nightclub, subject to the measurements of the City Code of
Ordinances.
•The establishment is subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.40, Alcoholic Beverages, of
the City Code of Ordinances.
Event Facility
•A Special Use Permit is required in the C-3 and PF Districts for Event Facilities designed
to host events with more than 300 attendees. A Special Use Permit is required in the AG,
CN, C-1 and MU-DT districts for all Event Facilities.
•Any outdoor live music or entertainment area shall be shown on a Site Plan and shall be
set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property line of a residentially zoned property.
•Any live music or entertainment in association with an event is subject to the provisions of
Chapter 8.16 "Noise" of the Georgetown Municipal Code.
Page 67 of 198
Pub Area
(Food, drinks,
entertainment)
Piano bar, film
nights, private
event space
Page 68 of 198
Approval Criteria –Bar, Tavern, or Pub
Criteria For SUPs Complies
Complies
with
Conditions
Does
Not
Comply
The proposed special use is not detrimental to
the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants.
X
The proposed use does not negatively impact
existing uses in the area and in the City
through the creation of noise, glare, fumes,
dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard or other
injurious or noxious impact.
X
Page 69 of 198
Approval Criteria –Bar, Tavern, or Pub
Criteria For SUPs Complies
Complies
with
Conditions
Does
Not
Comply
The proposed use does not negatively impact
existing uses in the area and in the City
through impacts on public infrastructure such
as roads, parking facilities, and water and
sewer systems, and on public services such
as police and fire protection and solid waste
collection and the ability of existing
infrastructure and services to adequately
provide services.
X
The proposed conceptual site layout,
circulation plan, and design are harmonious
with the character of the surrounding area.
X
Page 70 of 198
Approval Criteria –Event Facility
Criteria For SUPs Complies
Complies
with
Conditions
Does
Not
Comply
The proposed special use is not detrimental to
the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants.
X
The proposed use does not negatively impact
existing uses in the area and in the City
through the creation of noise, glare, fumes,
dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard or other
injurious or noxious impact.
X
Page 71 of 198
Approval Criteria –Event Facility
Criteria For SUPs Complies
Complies
with
Conditions
Does
Not
Comply
The proposed use does not negatively impact
existing uses in the area and in the City
through impacts on public infrastructure such
as roads, parking facilities, and water and
sewer systems, and on public services such
as police and fire protection and solid waste
collection and the ability of existing
infrastructure and services to adequately
provide services.
X
The proposed conceptual site layout,
circulation plan, and design are harmonious
with the character of the surrounding area.
X
Page 72 of 198
Public Notifications
Page 73 of 198
Public Notifications
•25 property owners, who are within 200’ of the subject
property, were notified about the public hearing, and to
date, no letters in opposition or in favor of the request
have been received.
•Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun
Newspaper on March 3, 2019.
•Signs were posted in the property in accordance with
the UDC.
•To date, one (1) written comment in favor as been
received
Page 74 of 198
Summary
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Special Use
Permit (SUP) for the specific uses of 1) “Bar, Tavern, or Pub”, and 2)
“Event Facility” within the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning
district, for the property located at 718 S Austin Ave, bearing the legal
description of 0.14 acres consisting of the south one-half (1/2) of Lot
8, and the East one-fourth (1/4) of Lots 6 and 7, Block 41, of the City
of Georgetown, to be known as Barrels & Amps
•Per UDC Section 3.07.030, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall
hold a Public Hearing… and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
•The SUP also allows for additional restrictions to be placed on the
use by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Page 75 of 198
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 19, 2019
S UB J ECT:
P ublic hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to C hapter 2, Review Authority, C hapter 3, Applications and P ermits, C hapter 4, Zoning Districts, and C hapter 16,
Definitions, of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) regarding the rules, standards and regulations of the Historic Districts (Amendment No. 2). S ofia Nelson, C NU-A, Planning
Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
Background:
T he City C ouncil directed staff to update the UDC ’s standards and processes relating to the historic districts as part of the 2018/19 UDC Annual Review process (Amendment
No. 2). T he purpose of this amendment is to incorporate recommendations from the 2016 Historic R esource S urvey, streamline the standards based on the City's historic
resources, and address challenges in the review process.
In November 2018, December 2018, and January 2019, the City Council discussed the City's historic resources, current processes, and provided direction and guidance on changes to
improve the historic standards and review process.
S ummary o f P ro posed U DC Amendments
City Code/UDC Section Proposed UDC Change
City Code 2.50 HAR C to provide C ity C ouncil with a recommendation on C O As
UDC Section 3.03 Update public notice requirements for C ity Council review of C O As
UDC Section 3.13
• Reflect C ity Council as the decision maker, instead of HAR C
• Make a Master S ign P lan an application that can be approved administratively if all design guidelines are met
• Include the use of in-kind (like or similar material) replacements of architectural features on medium and low priority resources
• Include “creating or adding to an existing street facing façade” to Table 3.13, therefore requiring C ity C ouncil approval
• Remove review of Low P riority (outside a National R egister District) and Non-Contributing S tructures
• Remove 60-day demolition delay period for properties outside of a historic district
UDC Section 16.02
Updated to Clarify Definition
· Historic S tructure, C ontributing
· Historic S tructure, Non-C ontributing
· Historic and Architectural R eview C ommission
· Downtown and O ld Town Design G uidelines
· C ertificate of Appropriateness
Develop New Definition
· National Register of Historic P laces
· R eplacement Materials, In-Kind
Next Steps:
Back up Materials:
Additional materials that may support your review of this item include the following:
UDC Amendments reader guide. T his is a summary of the amendments that outlines discussions with C ity C ouncil, specific sections of the UDC being amended,
preservation goals established by C ity C ouncil and other strategies City Council discussed when directing work on the UDC amendments.
S ummary of the conducted public outreach- T he 11.2019 presentation made to C ity C ouncil is attached for your review. It includes a summary of each of the conducted
surveys and community feedback.
Map of the low priority structures within a historic district- T he following interactive map to review all historic structures (in and outside of a historic district).
https://georgetowntx.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=22cfe94aa87c4224a6b87347e0668220
UD C Advisory Committee (UDCAC) Recommendation:
Page 76 of 198
UD C Advisory Committee (UDCAC) Recommendation:
T he UDC AC held a public hearing and discussion on this item on 3/13/2019. The UDC AC requested a continuance of the item until 3/18/2019 to allow for additional participation
from two commissioners that were missing from the meeting. S taff will prepare a full update on the recommendation of the UDC AC for you at the 3/19/2019 meeting.
F IN ANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
S UB MITT E D B Y:
S ofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Director
AT TAC HMENT S:
Description Type
COA summary guide of udc amendments Cover Memo
Summary of public outreach pres ented to City Council Nov 2018 Cover Memo
udc amendments Cover Memo
public comment Cover Memo
Page 77 of 198
Reader’s Guide
Unified Development Code (UDC) Changes for the
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Process
February 2019
Page 78 of 198
2018 Council Workshop Discussions Related to COA Process
February 27, 2018
•Workshop on implementation of the Historic Resource
Survey and recommendation by UDC Advisory
Committee on revisions for COA process
August 14, 2018 •City Council requested changes to COA review
authority
August 28, 2018 •Workshop on public engagement plan for COA process
October 23, 2018 •Review of past and current Historic Preservation Policy
November 27,
2018
•Presented findings of public outreach efforts
•Confirmed goals for measuring success for historic
preservation
•Presented short, medium, and long term opportunities
for improving the COA process
December 11,
2018
•Identifed short term educational opportunities and long
term policy improvements
January 8, 2019 •Direction provided on low priority resources, resources
outside the District, and the use of in-kind materialsPage 79 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement Based on Public Outreach
Education Regulation Process Policy
Page 80 of 198
Strategies with Consensus from City Council on Dec. 11, 2018
Education Strategies
•Prepare HARC Commissioner
Training Plan (start Jan. 2019)
•Execute HARC Commissioner
Training Plan (continuous)
•Prepare an annual public education
seminar/outreach (May 2019,
coincide with Preservation Month)
•Hold HARC meetings twice/month
(March 2019)
•Update the Historic Resource Survey
every 3-5 years, rather than every 10
years (Council Resolution)
•Review and remove conflicts between
the UDC and the Design Guidelines.
Specially, update the UDC appeal
requirements for a supermajority vote.
(3 to 6 months)
Process Strategies
•Review Design Guidelines for
consistency with Downtown Master
Plan (6 to 10 months)
•Utilize the local landmark process (1
to 2 years)
•Prepare a Historic Preservation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
(2 to 3 years, coincide with DMP
update)
Policy Strategies
Page 81 of 198
Strategies with Consensus from City Council on Jan. 8, 2019
•Review of Low Priority –no review of low priority structures inside Old Town and
Downtown, unless located with one of the four National Register Districts
•Use of In-Kind* Materials –the use of in-kind materials in medium and low priority
structures
*In-Kind = Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that it is either the same or a similar material, and the result match all visual
aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original character and historic integrity of the structure.
•Review of Demolition Process Outside of Historic District –Retain HARC Review for
high priority structures, staff-only review for medium priority structures, and remove 60-day
waiting period
•Review Authority Change –The final decision maker of COAs requiring a public hearing
shall become the City Council. HARC shall prepare a recommendation for the City Council.
Page 82 of 198
Code Section Amended and Summary of Change
City Code Section 2.50 updated to…
•Reflect responsibility of HARC to provide City Council with a recommendation on COAs.
UDC Section 3.03 updated to…
•Reflect the notice requirements for City Council review of COAs.
UDC Section 3.13 updated to…
•Reflect City Council as the decision maker, instead of HARC
•Make a Master Sign Plan an application that can be approved administratively if all design
guidelines are met
•Include the use of in-kind (like or similar material) replacements of architectural features on
medium and low priority resources
•Include “creating or adding to an existing street facing façade” to Table 3.13, therefore
requiring City Council approval
•Remove review of Non-Contributing Structures
•Remove 60-day demolition delay period for properties outside of a historic districtPage 83 of 198
Code Section Amended and Summary of Change
UDC Section 16.02 (Definitions)
Updated to Clarify Definition
•Historic Structure, Contributing
•Historic Structure, Non-Contributing
•Historic and Architectural Review Commission
•Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines
•Certificate of Appropriateness
Develop New Definition
•National Register of Historic Places
•Replacement Materials, In-Kind
Page 84 of 198
Questions and Additional Resources
Hyperlinks
•Current UDC Requirements
•View Past City Council Workshops
•Interactive Historic Properties Map (Identifies all resources, priority levels, Historic
Districts, and National Register Districts)
Staff Contacts
•Sofia Nelson, Planning Director –sofia.nelson@georgetown.org –512-931-7611
•Madison Thomas, Historic Planner –Madison.Thomas@georgetown.org –512-930-3581
Page 85 of 198
Certificate of Appropriateness
Public Input Process and
Opportunities for Improvement
November 27, 2018
Page 86 of 198
Outreach Team
•Communications
Department
Jackson Daly
Keith Hutchinson
Beth Wade
•Planning Department
Karen Frost
Madison Thomas
Andreina Davila-
Quintero
Nat Waggoner
Page 87 of 198
Purpose of Presentation
•Present findings of public outreach efforts
•Confirm goals for measuring success for historic
preservation in Georgetown, Texas
•Identify short, medium, and long term
opportunities for improvements to education,
regulations, process, and policy
Page 88 of 198
Feedback Requested
•Identify short, medium, and long term
opportunities for improvements to education,
regulations, process, and policy.
•Based on goals and public input, are there
specific changes and alterations to the UDC or
Design Guidelines City Council would like
implemented?
Page 89 of 198
Presentation Agenda
•Cases
•Workshops
•Outreach
Direction
•Information
Requested
Part 1
Recap 2018
Discussions
•Outreach
Impact
Report
•Confirm
Themes
Part 2
Public
Engagement
Feedback
Themes
•Overarching
goals
•Downtown
Development
Goals
Part 3
Reconfirm
Goals
•Themes
•Possible Next
Steps
•Opportunities
for
improvement
Part 4
Action Plan
Page 90 of 198
Part 1:
Recap of 2018 Discussions on
Historic Preservation
Page 91 of 198
Jan. 2018:
Appeal on
HARC action
on a CoA for
204 E. 8th
Street
Feb. 2018:
Workshop on
UDC
revisions for
COA
approvals
Aug. 2018:
•Appeal on
HARC action on
CoA for 511 S.
Main St.
•City Council
requests
changes to CoA
review authority
•Workshop on
COA process
outreach efforts
Sept. 21,
2018:Public
comment on
demolition of a
medium
structure
priority
Oct. 23, 2018: Review
of Past and Current
Historic Preservation
Policy
2018
Historic
Preservation
Conversations
Part 1Page 92 of 198
Appeal Cases
204 E. 8th St.
511 S. Main St.
Located in Downtown
Overlay District-Area
2
Key Points of
Appeals:
Massing and
scale of property
in the transition
zone
Part 1Page 93 of 198
Outreach
Themes
•Process Experience & Cost
•Education
•Value of Historic Preservation
Stakeholders
•Development Professionals
•Property Owners
•Business Owners
•Georgetown Citizens
•Current & Past HARC Commissioners
•Current and Past COA applicants
Methods for
Engagement
•Survey
•Focus Groups
•Public Meeting
•Office Hours
Outreach Direction Provided
Part 1Page 94 of 198
Information Requested
•Development Process
•Historic District Boundaries
Part 1Page 95 of 198
Development Process
Part 1
Page 96 of 198
COA Application Submittal
Completeness Review
Technical Reviews
HARC DeterminationStaff Determination
Pre-Application
Meeting (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
HARC Conceptual
Review (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
Certification of Appropriateness
Application Process
Part 1
Page 97 of 198
After technical review is
complete, and all proposed
changes meet the Downtown
Design Guidelines and Unified
Development Code Criteria:
•HPO Approval Memo
is issued immediately
Administrative
Determination
If proposed changes do not
meet the Downtown Design
Guidelines:
•Proposed changes can
be appealed to HARC
HARC Determination
After technical review is
complete, a project is scheduled
for the next HARC Meeting. At
the meeting HARC can:
•Find all criteria is met, approve
project
•Find all criteria is not met, add
conditions or delay to next
meeting so the applicant may
address comments
•Find all criteria is not met, deny
project
Applicant can appeal to City
Council
Part 1
Page 98 of 198
HARC Public Hearing Schedule
HARC Meetings occur once a month .
•Steps required for scheduling a case for a HARC
hearing
•21 Days Prior: Technical Review Due
•17 Days Prior: Signs & Letters ready and posted
•15 Days Prior: Staff Reports Due
•10 Days Prior: Project put in Novus
•6 Days Prior: Agenda Posted
Part 1
Page 99 of 198
Historic District Boundaries
Part 1
Page 100 of 198
District
Boundaries
•Courthouse
Historic District
(1977)
•Courthouse
National Historic
District expanded
(1986)
Part 1
Page 101 of 198
District
Boundaries
•Downtown
Overlay District
Part 1
Page 102 of 198
District
Boundaries
•Old Town Overlay
District
Part 1
Page 103 of 198
District
Boundaries
•University-Elm
Street National
Register Districts
Part 1
Page 104 of 198
District
Boundaries
•National Register
Districts
•Belford Historic
District (1986)
Part 1
Page 105 of 198
District
Boundaries
•National Register
Districts
•Olive Street Historic
(2013)
Part 1
Page 106 of 198
Part 2:
Public Engagement
Page 107 of 198
Outreach Methods
Surveys (4)
Property Owners on the
Historic Resource Survey
and/or within a Historic
District
Applicants who have
submitted a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA)
Community-at-large
Past HARC Commissioners
•Office Hours
•Focus Groups
•Public Meeting
Part 2Page 108 of 198
Outreach
Impact Surveys
•4 unique surveys
•667 Respondents
Office Hours
•5 participants
Focus
Groups
•4 groups
•20 participants
Public
Meeting
•46 attendees Page 109 of 198
Highlights of Community
Surveys
Part 2Page 110 of 198
Survey No. 1
Property Owners designated on the
Historic Resource Survey and/or
within a Historic District
Part 2
…11%
…35%
…54%
…38%…62%
Page 111 of 198
Who Responded?
89.46%
2.15%
9.46%
6.45%
4.95%
Residential property
owner
Residential property
tenant
Commercial property
owner
Commercial property
tenant (business
owner or manager)
Other (please
specify)
Part 2Page 112 of 198
Survey Findings -Property Owners
•85% of respondents find value in owning property on
the HRS or in the historic overlay district.
•97% of respondents understand there is additional
oversight for historic properties.
•61% of respondents own a property on the HRS.
•72% of respondents have not taken a project through
HARC.
Part 2Page 113 of 198
Survey Findings-Property Owners
•82% of respondents identified HARC should have
oversight of new construction in the overlay.
•50% of respondents identified HARC should have
oversight over the demolition of structures on the Historic
Resources Survey that are OUTSIDE a historic district.
•74% feel that the city’s overview of properties on the HRS
add value.
•General responses indicate HARC should review High
and Medium priority structures.
Part 2Page 114 of 198
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 97.01%74.73%39.40%
Non-street facing facades 82.80%57.35%21.51%
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 89.87%63.07%23.53%
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 90.63%68.88%26.89%
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic
architectural feature 95.29%73.96%31.30%
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 85.96%60.70%23.51%
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.37%63.79%22.92%
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that
results in modifications to the building facade 90.63%67.81%26.56%
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district 96.98%76.65%40.11%
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 88.54%64.97%29.94%
Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74%77.84%35.51%Page 115 of 198
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74%77.84%35.51%
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total
square footage of the existing structure 90.19%67.09%28.48%
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay
district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within
the same historic overlay districts)95.97%72.33%40.63%
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay
district 87.32%64.49%31.88%
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the
overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 93.64%75.76%44.55%
Signage 94.79%76.07%52.76%
Part 2Page 116 of 198
Survey No. 2
Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) Applicants, 2015 -present
Part 2Page 117 of 198
COA Cases 2015 -present
Part 2
43
16
27
45
17
28
41
20 21
58
31
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total COA's HARC Cases Administrative COA's
Certificate of Appropriateness Cases
2015 2016 2017 2018
Page 118 of 198
Who Responded-Applicants
Survey
41.38%
41.38%
10.34%
27.59%
6.90%Residential property owner
Commercial property owner
Commercial property tenant
(business owner or
manager)
Development Professional
(i.e. Engineer, Architect,
Contractor)
Other (please specify)
Page 119 of 198
Survey Findings-Applicants
•57% of respondents find value in properties in the
Historic Resource Survey or historic district.
•78% of respondents understood the additional
oversight for historic properties in Georgetown prior to
beginning their project(s).
•40% of respondents identified the Guidelines were
not easy to understand or apply.
•61% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS adds
value to the properties.
Part 2Page 120 of 198
88%92%
55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Development
Professionals
Commercial Property
Owner
Residential Property
Owner
Types of applicants
Did you understand the additional
oversight for historic properties in
Georgetown prior to beginning your
project(s)?
38%33%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Development
Professionals
Commercial
Property Owner
Residential Property
Owner
Types of applicants
Do you think the guidelines governing what
can and cannot be done on historic
properties are clear and easily applied?
Agree
Survey Findings:
Applicants
Part 2Page 121 of 198
Survey Findings: Applicants
38%
50%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Development Prof.Commercial Property Owner Residential Property Owner
Types of applicants
Was the development process fair?
Part 2Page 122 of 198
Survey Findings: Applicants
•32% of respondents had a positive perception
of HARC
•39% of respondents identified all decisions by
HARC should have final approval by City
Council.
•53% identified HARC should NOT have
oversight of new construction in the overlay .
Part 2Page 123 of 198
Survey Findings: Applicants
•61% feel HARC should not have oversight of
HRS properties outside of the districts.
•General responses indicate HARC should review
High and Medium priority structures.
Part 2Page 124 of 198
Survey of COA Applicants:
Q. Should HARC have oversight over the following processes
in a historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 95.65%65.22%30.43%
Non-street facing facades 93.33%26.67%6.67%
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 94.12%47.06%17.65%
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 95.00%30.00%10.00%
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic
architectural feature 100.00%50.00%9.09%
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 90.91%36.36%18.18%
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 93.33%33.33%13.33%
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment
that results in modifications to the building facade 95.24%52.38%4.76%
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district 100.00%50.00%13.64%
Part 2
Page 125 of 198
Survey of COA Applicants:
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 93.33%33.33%13.33%
Demolition of a street-facing facade 90.48%52.38%33.33%
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total
square footage of the existing structure 92.86%50.00%21.43%
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay
district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within
the same historic overlay districts)94.12%58.82%35.29%
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic
overlay district 92.31%30.77%15.38%
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the
overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 100.00%64.29%35.71%
Signage 94.12%41.18%17.65%
Page 126 of 198
Survey No. 3
Community Wide Survey
Part 2Page 127 of 198
Who Responded?
•164 Responses
•92% of respondents were residential
property owners in the City of Georgetown
•86% of respondents do not own a property
on the HRS
•93% of respondents have not taken a
project through the HARC process
Part 2Page 128 of 198
Survey Findings: Community Wide
•78% of respondents indicated Downtown or Old Town
area had an impact on their decision to live or work
in Georgetown.
•62% of respondents feel city’s efforts to oversee
development in Old Town & Downtown Overlay
Districts are effective.
•86% of respondents find value in the city having a role
in preserving historic buildings.
•90% of respondents understand there is additional
oversight for historic properties
Part 2Page 129 of 198
Survey Findings: Community Wide
•73% of respondents have a positive perception of
HARC.
•80% of respondents identified HARC should have
oversight of new construction in the overlay districts.
•41% or respondents identified HARC should have
oversight of demolition of structures on the HRS
outside the overlay.
•71% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS adds
value to the properties.
Part 2Page 130 of 198
High Priority
Structures
Medium Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 96.30%75.00%36.11%
Non-street facing facades 76.19%64.29%22.62%
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 85.42%72.92%29.17%
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 92.93%67.68%24.24%
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-
historic architectural feature 96.12%72.82%33.98%
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 83.13%71.08%25.30%
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.30%64.89%22.34%
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that
results in modifications to the building facade 87.64%68.54%25.84%
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district 95.19%75.96%39.42%
Community Survey of Historic Properties & Districts:
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
Part 2
Page 131 of 198
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 85.71%71.43%29.67%
Demolition of a street-facing facade 93.27%71.15%37.50%
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in
the total square footage of the existing structure 90.11%70.33%30.77%
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic
overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or
structures within the same historic overlay districts)95.00%73.00%38.00%
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the
historic overlay district 80.52%77.92%35.06%
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with
the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable
guidelines 92.93%73.74%43.43%
Signage 90.91%76.77%48.48%
Community Survey of Historic Properties &
Districts:
Q. Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
Part 2Page 132 of 198
Survey No. 4
HARC Commissioners
2015 to Present
Part 2Page 133 of 198
Survey Findings: HARC Commissioners
•9 Responses
•77% of respondents indicated they believe Guidelines
governing what can and cannot be done on historic properties
are clear and easily applied.
•100% of respondents had a positive experience serving on
HARC.
•100% feel that city oversight of the properties on the
Resources Survey adds value.
•44% of respondents identified the training provided was
adequate.
•88% of respondents identified staff provides adequate
information prior to the meeting.
Part 2Page 134 of 198
Survey Findings: HARC Commissioners
•100% of respondents indicated HARC should have
oversight over all new construction in a Historic
Overlay District.
•55% of respondents indicated HARC should have
oversight of demolitions outside of a Historic Overlay
District.
•General responses indicate HARC should review
High and Medium priority structures.
Part 2Page 135 of 198
Focus Groups and Individual
Interviews
Part 2Page 136 of 198
Summary of Outreach
•Focus Groups:
•Architecture and Design professionals (3
participants )
•Residential applicants (8 participants)
•Commercial applicants (4 participants)
•Real Estate professionals (6 participants )
Part 2Page 137 of 198
Summary of Outreach
•Office Hours/Individual Interviews:
•4 community members requested a one -on-
one session. These members included the
following:
•1 past HARC Commissioner
•1 representative from Preservation Georgetown
•2 interested citizens and residents of Old Town
Part 2Page 138 of 198
Summary of Feedback:
•The COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown. It protects property values and separates
Georgetown from other suburbs in the area.
•The process is too expensive, too lengthy, and
generally unclear.
•The COA process encourages demolition by neglect
and this should be addressed, whether via a grant
program or more flexible regulations.
Part 2Page 139 of 198
Summary of Feedback:
•There is room for improvement in the education of
HARC members and citizens.
•Low-priority properties should not be subject to
HARC review or should be subject to less stringent
guidelines.
Part 2Page 140 of 198
Feedback Themes
COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown.
Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on
their decision to live or work in Georgetown.
Low Priority structures should receive less
review.
COA development process should be examined for
expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria.
Part 2Page 141 of 198
Part 3:
Reconfirm Goals for Historic
Preservation
Page 142 of 198
•Purpose
•To establish
application and
review
procedures,
public notice and
hearing
procedures, and
review criteria for
the processing of
applications for
COAs
•Purpose.
•A basis for making
decisions about the
appropriate
treatment of historic
resources and new
construction.
•Purpose
•Documents historic
resources within the
community
•Purpose
•Sets vision for
Downtown
•Goals for land use,
public improvements,
urban design, and
public spaces
Downtown
Master Plan
Historic
Resources
Survey
UDC
Design
Guidelines/
Secretary of
Interior
Standards
Part 3
Page 143 of 198
Overarching Goals -Confirmed at
10/23 meeting
Preservation
Rehabilitation
Compatibility
Character
•Encourage preservation of
historic structures
•Guide/ Promote maintenance
and rehab of distinctive key
character defining features
•Seek compatibility with the
character of the existing area
as new infill development is
considered
•Character of historic
structures is encouraged to
be maintained as they are
adapted to new uses.
Part 3Page 144 of 198
Overarching goals for Downtown
Development
Compatibility
Pedestrian
Friendly
Environment
•Maintain traditional
mass, size, and
form.
•Sidewalk and
amenities for
comfortable walking
experience.
•Building placement
and scale
Part 3Page 145 of 198
Part 4:
Identify next steps for
implementing goals for
Historic Preservation
Page 146 of 198
Feedback Themes
COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown.
Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their
decision to live or work in Georgetown.
Low Priority structures should receive less review.
COA development process should be examined for
expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria.
Part 4Page 147 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement
Education Regulation Process Policy
Part 4Page 148 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement
Prepare HARC Commissioner Training Plan
•Timeframe: January 2019
Execute HARC Commissioner Training Plan
•Timeframe: continuous
Prepare annual public education seminar/outreach
•Timeframe: May, to coincide with Preservation Month
Part 4
Education
Strategy
1
Strategy
2
Strategy
3
Page 149 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Regulation
& Process
Public Outreach
Feedback:
Length of Development
Process/ Low Priority
structures should receive
less review
Implementation
Timeframe:
3 to 6 month time frame
Change:
No Review of Low Priority Structures
inside Old Town Downtown
Implementation: UDC Amendment
Impact: 468 resources out of 1,033 in
Old Town would not go through COA
review process
Change: Staff only review of Low
Priority Structures inside Old
Town Downtown
Implementation: UDC
Amendment
Impact:Removes 20+ days from
permitting process.
Change:
Use of In-kind materials rather than requiring
restoration of original architectural features
coupled with Option 2.
Implementation:
UDC Amendment and Design Guidelines
Amendment
Impact:Removes 20+ days from permitting
process with added flexibly in use of
materials
Strategy
4
Option 1
Strategy
4
Option 2
Strategy 4
Option 3
Page 150 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Regulation
& Process
Public Outreach Feedback:
HARC review of demolitions
shall be limited to properties
within a Historic Overlay
District.
Implementation Timeframe:
3 to 6 month time frame
Change:
No review of historic resources outside a
Historic Overlay District
Implementation: UDC Amendment
Impact:643 resources would no longer
require review
Change: HARC review of only
High Priority resources outside a
Historic District without 60 day
waiting period
Implementation: UDC
Amendment
Impact: 616 resources would no
longer require reviewChange:
Retain HARC review for High Priority
structures, staff only review for Medium
Priority structures outside of a Historic
Overlay District and remove 60 day waiting
period
Implementation:
UDC Amendment
Impact:Removes the 60 day waiting
period.
Strategy 5
Option 1
Strategy 5
Option 2
Strategy
5
Option 3
Page 151 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Regulation &
Process
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Public Outreach
Feedback:
COA Development
Process takes too long
and process is
inconsistent
Strategy:Update HARC
meeting calendar to meet 2X a
month
Implementation:March 2019
Strategy:Establishing
annual or biannual review of
Historic Resources Survey
Implementation:Resolution
to City Council
Strategy:Work with City Legal
Department to review for any
conflicting language between
Design Guidelines and UDC
Regulations
Implementation:3 to 6 months
Strategy
6
Strategy
7
Strategy
8
Page 152 of 198
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Policy
Strategy
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Public Outreach
Feedback:
Downtown or Old Town
area had an impact on
their decision to live or
work in Georgetown
Strategy: Utilize local
landmark process to focus on
preservation efforts on highest
priority community resources
Implementation: 1 to 2 year
time frame
Strategy: Review Design
Guidelines for Downtown
Overlay Area 2 for consistency
with Downtown Master Plan
Implementation:6 to 10 month
time frame. Result in update of
UDC and Design Guidelines
Strategy: Prepare Historic Preservation
Element of 2030 Plan as called for in City
Charter to allow for more long term goal
setting approach to historic preservation.
Implementation: 2 to 3 year time frame.
Coinciding with the update of the Downtown
Master Plan.
Strategy
9
Strategy
10
Strategy
11
Page 153 of 198
Feedback Requested
•Identify short, medium, and long term
opportunities for improvements to education,
regulations, process, and policy.
•Based on goals and public input, are there
specific changes and alterations to the UDC or
Design Guidelines City Council would like
implemented?
Page 154 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 1 of 2 Chapter 16
Deleted language is strikethrough
Chapter 16 - DEFINITIONS
SECTION 16.01. - GENERAL
***
SECTION 16.02. - DEFINITIONS
The following definitions describe terms found in this Code.
***
Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). A certificate documenting approval by the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission (HARC)City Council or the Historic Preservation Officer
(HPO) to construct, reconstruct, alter, restore, remove, relocate, or demolish a building or
structure that is designated as a historic landmark, or contributing historic structure, or located
in a historic overlay district, including specific site features such as signage and fences, as
applicable.
***
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. A Council-adopted ordinance that provides
guidance and approval criteria for the City Council, Historic and Architectural Review
Commission, along with theand Historic Preservation Officer, when reviewing design
compliance and proper preservation practices for proposed projects in the Downtown and Old
Town Historic Overlay districts.
***
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC). A City Council-appointed board,
consisting of seven members, who have decision-making authoritymake recommendations to the
City Council regarding Certificates of Design ComplianceAppropriateness, and make
recommendations to the City Council on the designation of Historic Districts, in addition to other
duties as identified in Section 2.03 of this Code.
***
Historic District, Designated. Any site, district, or area of historical, archeological, or cultural
importance or value which the City Council determines by action shall be protected, preserved,
or enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the people.
Historic Places, National Register. The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of
the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic
Page 155 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 2 of 2 Chapter 16
Deleted language is strikethrough
Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part
of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate,
and protect America's historic and archeological resources. The City of Georgetown, Texas,
contains four historic districts that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(“National Register”):
Williamson County Courthouse Historic District, designated in 1977, includes a period of
significance ending in 1923. Its boundaries were increased in 1986.
University Avenue-Elm Street Historic District, designated in 1979, includes a period of
significance ending in 1900.
Belford Historic District, designated in 1986, includes resources constructed prior to 1935.
Olive Street Historic District, designated in 2013
***
Historic Structure, Contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that
supports the district's historical significance through location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings identified as low, medium and high priority
structures in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck
& Moore, as amended, shall be considered contributing Historic Structures for purposes of this
Code. For the purpose of demolition only, buildings or structures listed in this survey and that
are located outside of a historic overlay district shall be considered contributing historic
structuresone of the following shall also be considered a Contributing Historic Structure for
purposes of this Code:.
Medium and High priority structures, as identified on the city’s most recent historic
resources survey, and that are located within a Historic Overlay District;
Low, Medium, and High priority structures, as identified on the city’s most recent historic
resources survey, and that are located within a National Register of Historic Places.
Historic Structure, Non-Contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that
does not support the district's historic significance through location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings that are not identified in the 1984 and 2007
Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be
considered non-contributing historic structures for purposes of this Code.
***
***
Page 156 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 1 of 3 Chapter 2
Deleted language is strikethrough
Chapter 2 - REVIEW AUTHORITY
SECTION 2.01. - GENERAL
***
Sec. 2.01.020. - Summary of Review Authority.
The following table summarizes the decision-making authority of each review body for the City.
Table 2.01.020: Summary of Review Authority
Procedure Planning
Director
Building
Official
Dev
Engineer
Urban
Forester
Historic
Preservation
Officer
HARC ZBA P&Z City
Council
City Council Action
***
Certificate of
Appropriateness R <R> DM
Certificate of
Appropriateness for
relocation, removal or
demolition, or building
height, setback or floor-
to-area ratio
modification
R <R> <DM>
***
Administrative Action
***
Master Sign Plan DM A
Master Sign Plan in a
historic overlay district DM A
***
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Action
Certificate of
Appropriateness R <DM> A
HARC Exception
(Building
Height/Setback
R <DM> A
Page 157 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 2 of 3 Chapter 2
Deleted language is strikethrough
variations pursuant to
Section 4.08)
Master Sign Plan R <DM> A
***
r - Review or Recommendation DM - Decision Making Authority A - Appeal Authority
< - Public Hearing * Administrative Exceptions related to Chapter 8 items are sent to the City Council,
all others are appealed to ZBA.
***
SECTION 2.02. - ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS
***
Sec. 2.02.060. - Historic Preservation Officer.
***
B. Powers and Duties.
The duties of the Historic Preservation Officer shall include, but are not limited to:
1. Providing review, report and recommendation to the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission (H ARC) and City Council regarding Certificates of Appropriateness and
any other provisions of this Code requiring action by HARC;
***
SECTION 2.03. - HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (HARC)
Sec. 2.03.010. - Powers and Duties.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) has the following powers and duties
as described in this Code:
A. Final ActionReserved.
The HARC shall be responsible for hearing and taking final action on the following
procedures described in this Code:
1. Certificate of Appropriateness;
2. HARC Exceptions on building height and setback variations pursuant to Section
4.08 of this Code; and
3. Hear and take final action on an appeal of an administrative Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Page 158 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 3 of 3 Chapter 2
Deleted language is strikethrough
B. Review and Recommendation.
The HARC shall review and make recommendations to the City Council on the
following procedures described in this Code:
1. dDesignation of Historic Overlay Districts and Historic Landmarks, subject to the
terms and conditions set forth for the procedure in this Code;.
2. Certificate of Appropriateness; and
3. Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or building
height, setback or floor-to-area ratio modification.
C. Additional Duties.
The HARC has the following additional duties:
1. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other
supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review; and
2. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant,
on new construction or the restoration, alteration, or maintenance of any building
or structure within a Historic Overlay District or designated as a Historic Landmark.
***
***
Page 159 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 1 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
Chapter 3 – APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS
***
SECTION 3.03. - PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE
Sec. 3.03.010. - Provision of Public Notice.
A. Summary of Notice Required.
Notice shall be required for application review as shown in the following Table.
Table 3.03.010: Summary of Notice Requirements
Procedure Published Mailed Posted
***
Certificate of Appropriateness (Sec 3.13.030, City Council approval) ‡ X
Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or
building height, setback or floor-to-area ratio modification X ‡ X ‡ X
***
X = Notice Required
* = Notice to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20
‡ = Only applicable to Certificate of Appropriateness applications that require
consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission
***
***
Sec. 3.03.020. - Required Public Hearing.
The following table identifies the types of applications requiring a Public Hearing and the review
body responsible for conducting the hearing.
Table 3.03.020: Summary of Required Public Hearing
Type of Application HARC
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
Planning
&
Zoning
City
Council
***
Page 160 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 2 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
Certificate of Appropriateness (Sec 3.13.030, City Council
Approval) ‡X
Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or
demolition, or building height, setback or floor-to-area
ratio modification
X X
***
X = Public Hearing Required
* = Public Hearing to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20.
‡ = Only applicable to certificate of appropriateness applications that require consideration by
the Historic and Architectural Review Commission
***
SECTION 3.12. - MASTER SIGN PLAN
***
Sec. 3.12.030. - Criteria for Approval.
In addition to the general review criteria in Section 3.03.050.D or 3.13 for property in a historic
overlay district, the Building Official or Historic and Architectural Review
CommissionPreservation Officer, as applicable, must shall determine the following in order to
approve the Master Sign Plan:
***
Sec. 3.12.040. - Responsibility for Final Action.
***
B. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionPreservation Officer is responsible for
final action on Master Sign Plans for property located in a historic overlay district.
***
SECTION 3.13. - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Sec. 3.13.010. - Applicability.
A. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Texas Local Government Code ch. 211 and
the City Charter, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required in accordance with Table
Page 161 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 3 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
3.13.010 below. Activities that include more than one project (scope of work) shall be subject
to the review process and criteria for approval for each specific project as identified in Table
3.13.010.
Table 3.13.010: Certificate of Appropriateness Required
Project (Scope of Work) Historic Significance
Review
AuthorityDecision
Making
HARC = Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCC = City Council * HPO = Historic
Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required
New Construction (Infill Development)
New building construction All Historic Overlay Districts HARCCC
Additions
ToAddition that creates a new, or adds to an
existing street facing facade
Historic Landmark
HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure All
Historic Overlay Districts
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure HPO
Addition of a Nnon-street facing facades
Historic Landmark HARCCC
Contributing Historic Structure HPO
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
New addition does not comply with the
zoning standards of the historic overlay
district
Historic Landmark
HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure
Awning or canopy
Historic Landmark HARCCC
Contributing Historic Structure * HARCCC
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure * HPO
Porch, patio or deck
Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure * HPO
Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes
Restoring historic architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Page 162 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 4 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Replacing a historic architectural feature
with a non-historic architectural feature+
Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Replacing roof materials with different roof
materials+
Historic Landmark HARCCC
Contributing Historic Structure HPO
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways
and ramps using in-kind material
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways
and ramps
Historic Landmark HARCCC
Contributing Historic Structure * HARCCC
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure * HPO
Paint removal from historic and significant
architectural features (back to original
condition; does not include repainting)
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Changes to paint color on previously
painted surfaces (includes repainting or new
paint on previously painted surface)
Historic Landmark
HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure *
New paint on unpainted historic and other
significant architectural features
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Changes in color to awning fabric
Historic Landmark
HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure *
Exterior lighting that is attached to the
building or structure
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Page 163 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 5 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure *
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or
communication equipment that result in no
modifications to the building facade
Historic Landmark *
HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure *
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or
communication equipment that result in
modifications to the building facade
Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure * HPO
Removal, Demolition or Relocation
Awnings or canopies
Historic Landmark HARCCC
Contributing Historic Structure * HARCCC
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Exterior non-historic architectural features
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Exterior siding to unencapsulate historic
siding materials
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Removal, stripping, concealing, or
destruction of any historic and architectural
features that is integral to the historic
character of the building or structure, or
historic overlay district
Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure * HPO
Non-historic additions that are made of non-
historic materials
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Attached carport, porch, patio or deck
Historic Landmark HARCCC‡ Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Historic Landmark HPO
Page 164 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 6 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
Attached carport, porch, patio or deck made
of non-historic materials
Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to
original condition
Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure *
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Street facing facade
Historic Landmark HARCCC‡ Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Demolition that results in the reduction or
loss in the total square footage of the existing
structure
Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure High Priority resources
identified in the Historic Resource
Survey located outside a Historic
Overlay District
NR CC‡
Medium Priority resources
identified in the Historic Resource
Survey located outside a Historic
Overlay District
HPO‡
Relocation of a building or structure on the
same lot
Historic Landmark
HPO Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure
Relocation of a building or structure to a
historic overlay district (includes relocation
of buildings or structures within the same
historic overlay districts)
Historic Landmark
HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure
Relocation of a building or structure outside
of the historic overlay district
Historic Landmark HARCCC Contributing Historic Structure
Non-Contributing Historic
Structure NR
Signage
Master Sign Plan All Historic Overlay Districts HARCHPO
Page 165 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 7 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
New signage, to include new signage that is
consistent with an approved Master Sign
Plan
HPO
New signage that is inconsistent with an
approved Master Sign Plan or applicable
guidelines
HARCCC
Changes in content or configuration (re-
facing) that do not involve changes in sign
location, dimensions, lighting or total sign
area
HPO
Amending an approved Master Sign Plan HARCHPO
Fences
New fence, railing or wall that is
inconsistent with the overlay district's
characteristics and applicable guidelines
All Historic Overlay Districts† HARCCC
Miscellaneous
HARC eExceptions on (building height,
setback and FAR variations alternative
standards pursuant to Section 4.08) of this
Code
All Historic Overlay District HARCCC
Renewal of an expired Certificate of
Appropriateness
All Historic Overlay Districts HPO Historic Landmark
* Only applicable to a street facing facade
† Only applicable to fences along a street lot line or located in a street yard
‡ CLG demo delay period and Demolition SubcommiĴee review not applicable
+ Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a
similar material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and
workmanship in order to retain the original design of the structure, may be permitted by the
identified decision maker for medium and low priority resources.
***
Sec. 3.13.020. - Certificate of Appropriateness—Administrative Approval.
A. Review Process.
***
4. Responsibility for Final Action.
Page 166 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 8 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
***
b. Should the Historic Preservation Officer be unable to approve the request, the
Historic Preservation Officer may forward the request to the Historic and
Architectural Review CommissionCity Council for review and final action at the
next available meeting following a recommendation from the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission and public notification in accordance with
Section 3.03 of this Code.
***
Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval.
A. Review Process.
1. Initiation.
Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic and Architectural Review
CommissionCity Council may be made upon application by the property owner of the
affected property or their authorized agent following the established application
processes and requirements of this Chapter.
***
3. Staff Review.
a. Once a Certificate of Appropriateness has been initiated and the application deemed
complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for
consistency with any applicable criteria for approval.
b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall prepare a report to the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission and City Council.
c. The Historic Preservation Officer's report shall include a recommendation for final
action.
4. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Review.
Following notice in accordance with Section 3.03 of this Code, the Commission shall
hold a Public Hearing in accordance with its rules and State law and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
45. Responsibility for Final Action.
Page 167 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 9 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
a. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission City Council shall review the
application, the Historic Preservation Officer's report, and the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation, conduct a hearing and in
accordance with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's City
Council’s established procedures and State law, and take final action on the
application within 35 days of the application hearing unless the applicant agrees to
extend the time.
b. An application before the Historic and Architectural Review Commission City
Council shall be considered approved by a majority vote of all members of the
Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council.
B. Criteria for Approval.
The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall determine whether to
grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the following criteria:
***
2. Compliance with any applicable design standards of this Code;
***
C. Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height ExceptionsModification.
1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section
4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC the City Council that the following
standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved:
***
3. HARC City Council may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set
forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will
still be achieved:
***
D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback ExceptionModification.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council may grant a Certificate
of Appropriateness, per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards
Page 168 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 10 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
of the underlying base zoning district for residential properties located within the Old
Town Overlay District.
2. HARC City Council may take in consideration the following in determining whether to
approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a setback exception:
***
i. Reserved.
ji. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same
block;
kj. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining
properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
lk. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new
structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or
ml. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features
of the lot to be preserved.
E. Additional Requirements for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark
or Contributing Historic Structure.
In addition to the staff review process established in Section 3.13.030.A, applications for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or
structure designated as a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure shall be
subject to the following additional review:
1. Demolition Delay Period Certified Local Government (CLG) Program.
a. Upon deeming the application complete, requests for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic
structure shall be subject to a 60-day demolition delay period. The Historic and
Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall not take action on a request for
demolition until the 60-day demolition delay period is complete.
***
d. The Historic Preservation Officer shall present the findings and resolution, if
applicable, to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and City Council
with the request.
Page 169 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 11 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
***
3. Responsibility of Final Action.
a. In addition to the application, andthe Historic Preservation Officer's report, and the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation, the City
Council shall review the recommendation by the Demolition Subcommittee,
conduct a hearing in accordance with the HARC's Historic and Architectural
Review Commission and City Council’s established procedures and state law, and
take final action on the application within 35 days of the application hearing unless
the applicant agrees to extend the time.
b. As conditions of approval, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may
recommend and the City Council may require historic materials to be salvaged,
archival-quality photo-documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the
building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated similar to those
required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Historic
Preservation Officer.
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Historic Structure.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall use circumstances
or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed
or demolished when reviewing the application.
2. The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council shall make the
following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a
structure:
***
Sec. 3.13.040. - Relocation, Removal or Demolition Prior To Approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
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 CommissionCity
Council, 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
CommissionCity Council has granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of
the remaining building or structure, if applicable.
Page 170 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 12 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
B. The permit delay period shall be determined by the Historic and Architectural Review
CommissionCity Council, but in no case shall it exceed 365 days.
C. The Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure,
if applicable, shall be reviewed and final action taken by the Historic and Architectural
Review CommissionCity Council concurrently with the determination of the longevity of the
permit hold period.
***
Sec. 3.13.050. - Certificate and Compliance Inspections.
A. It shall be the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Officer to issue the actual Certificate
of Appropriateness following approval by the Historic Preservation Officer or the HARCCity
Council, with any designated conditions, and to maintain a copy of the Certificate of
Appropriateness, together with the proposed plans. The certificate shall be forwarded to the
Building Official. These shall be public documents for all purposes.
***
Sec. 3.13.060. - Limits on Resubmission.
No application for the same project shall be considered within 180 days of the rejection or
disapproval by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council or Historic
Preservation Officer, as applicable, of an application. The applicant may submit a design for an
entirely new project or a revised design that substantially responds to the reasons for denial as
set forth by the Historic and Architectural Review CommissionCity Council or Historic
Preservation Officer, as applicable, at any time.
***
Sec. 3.13.080. - Appeals.
A person aggrieved by a final action of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on a
Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures set
forth below. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days
of the final action.
Appeals from an administratively issued Certificate of Appropriateness will be processed
through the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, subjectHistoric Preservation Officer
on a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal to the City Council pursuant to the procedures
established for new applications and set forth below. Such appeal shall be submitted to the
Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the administrative action.
Page 171 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 13 of 13 Chapter 3
Deleted language is strikethrough
A. Appeal Hearing.
The hearing shall be set for the next available City Council or HARC meeting, subject to the
provision of public notification. Notification shall be provided in the same manner as the
initial certificate of appropriateness.
B. Burden of Proof in Appeals.
When an appeal is considered by the appellate bodyCity Council, the final action by the
original reviewing authority is presumed to be valid. The person filing the appeal shall
present sufficient evidence and have the burden to justify a reversal of the action being
appealed.
C. Findings and Conclusions.
All findings and conclusion necessary to the appeal decision shall be based upon reliable
evidence. Competent evidence (evidence admissible in a court of law) will be preferred
whenever reasonably available, but in no case may findings be based solely upon
incompetent evidence unless competent evidence is not reasonably available, the evidence
in question appears to be particularly reliable, and the matter at issue is not seriously
disputed. In exercising its authority, the appellate bodyCity Council may reverse or affirm,
in whole or in part or modify the original order, requirement, decision, or determination
from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision, or
determination, and for that purpose the appellate body has the same authority as the
original reviewing authority.
D. Decision on Appeal.
The appellate bodyCity Council shall review the application, the staff report and meeting
minutes, conduct a hearing in accordance with established procedures and state law, and
take final action on the appeal. It shall require a concurring vote of by a majority of the
appellate body's members to overturn a decision on a certificate of appropriatenessvote.
***
***
Page 172 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 1 of 2 Chapter 4
Deleted language is strikethrough
Chapter 4 - ZONING DISTRICTS
***
SECTION 4.08. - HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS
***
Sec. 4.08.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness Required.
All new buildings and changes to existing buildings located in a Historic Overlay District , or
designated as a Historic Landmark, or located in a National Register of Historic Places of the US
National Park Service are subject to the Certificate of Appropriateness provisions of Section 3.13
of this Code. Any activity requiring review of a Certificate of Appropriateness per Section 3.13 of
this Code will be subject to the Design Guidelines adopted by the City of Georgetown.
Sec. 4.08.040. - Applicability of Historic Overlay District Standards.
***
D. Any regulations for a specific Historic Overlay District shall apply to all properties or
structures wholly contained within that district and to those portions of any property or
district located within the districtReserved.
E. All uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zoning districts shall
continue to be permitted or conditionally permitted, respectively, unless otherwise specified
in the specific standard for the overlay district. HARC shall not have the authority to approve
the specific use of a site.
Sec. 4.08.050. - General Guidelines Applicable to All Historic Overlay Districts.
***
J. Maintaining and repairing features is preferred over replacing features as to maintain the
high-quality materials, character, and embodied energy of historic buildings and to reduce
the amount of waste that goes to a landfill. However, if features are deteriorated beyond
repair in-kind replacement using new components that match the original in form, finish,
and materials is favored. Substitute materials should be used only on a limited basis and only
when they will match the appearance and general properties of the historic material and will
not damage the historic resource.
***
Page 173 of 198
Historic District Requirements *** DRAFT ***
UDC Amendment No. 2 Printed on Mar. 8, 19
Added language is underlined Page 2 of 2 Chapter 4
Deleted language is strikethrough
Sec. 4.08.070. - Standards Specific to the Downtown Overlay District.
This Section contains specific development and design standards applicable to properties located
in the Downtown Overlay District of the City of Georgetown.
A. Building Height.
1. Building height in the Downtown Overlay District shall not exceed 40 feet, unless a
Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by HARC in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code.
2. Buildings located along the portion of Austin Avenue that lies within the boundaries
of the Downtown Overlay District shall be at least two usable stories in height with an
overall building height of not less than 20 feet, subject to compliance with the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay District of Section 4.10. However, HARC may
approve a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code.
***
***
Page 174 of 198
From:firthmail@suddenlink.net
To:GRP_UDC
Cc:Sofia Nelson
Subject:[EXTERNAL] UDC Advisory Committee Comments
Date:Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:14:11 AM
Attachments:March 13 2019 UDC Adv Comm Comments.pdf
Good morning.
Please find attached my comments regarding the proposed UDC amendment changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Susan
Susan Firth
1403 Olive Street
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
Page 175 of 198
From:Allan Barnes
To:Sofia Nelson
Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC Amendments re Certificates of Appropriateness
Date:Friday, March 08, 2019 9:54:20 AM
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Sofia Nelson,
City of Georgetown Planning Department
Sofia,
Thank you for providing the March 6th Workshop for citizens to learn more about the
proposed changes in administering Certificates of Appropriateness. My three concerns follow:
HARC SHOULD BE RETAINED AS FINAL DECISION MAKER rather than switching that
responsibility to the City Council. There are many reasons for this.
The approval process will necessarily be delayed for every application by requiring the extra
time to go through the next City Council meeting. I have heard that it is important to maintain
consistency with all other City Commissions which simply submit recommendations to City
Council for approval. I have also heard that The Most Beautiful Square in Texas is the Golden
Egg that attracts people to Georgetown. When you have a Golden Egg it should be treated as
special rather than being forced into the carton with all the other eggs. Delaying every
application in the interest of consistency is putting form over substance rather than providing
exemplary service to applicants and in the process nurturing our Golden Egg.
Furthermore, the plan to approve HARC’s recommendations via the Consent Agenda will lead
to problems. If an application is moved from the Consent Agenda to the Public Agenda early
in a meeting, how will the public and the applicant know in order to participate in the public
discussion? Will discussion be postponed until a subsequent meeting (a further delay) in order
to provide adequate notice? Who decides to move an item from the Consent Agenda? Will an
Applicant who disagrees with a HARC recommendation have to find a City Council member
advocate on the day of the meeting to get a hearing? Can a City Council member pull a
favorable recommendation off the Consent Agenda and make a case to deny it? The present
approval procedures provide an earlier decision and a clear avenue for prompt appeal if
requested, all with adequate public notice. City Council should be retained as the avenue for
prompt appeal for the few rather than an extra delay for every applicant.
HARC Commissioners are selected and trained to have expertise in the areas of historic
preservation, architecture, and City guidelines; City Council members are not. Accordingly,
more consistent and appropriate decisions will flow from HARC. And City Council
Members’ broader perspective and compromising skills will be available for the appeals.
Furthermore, the supermajority requirement to overturn a HARC decision should be retained
to reinforce HARC’s authority, but that should be coupled with a new provision that a
majority of City Council may refer an appealed decision back to HARC for further discussion
without triggering the penalty of a 6 month delay before re-submission. Such a provision
would likely have resulted in better outcomes for two recent cases; the former Eats on Eighth
property and the structure at Main and 6th. In the latter case, the existing High Priority
Structure will certainly be downgraded to Medium or Low when the next Inventory of Historic
Page 176 of 198
Resources is done by a preservation professional applying state-wide accepted standards, and
that is unfortunate.
In summary, I submit retaining the present approval provisions which have worked well for
years will provide quicker more consistent decisions for applicants and adhere closer to
accepted historic preservation standards than will the proposed change, which may have
unexpected consequences that only surface over time.
LOW PRIORITY STRUCTURES WITHIN A HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT SHOULD
CONTINUE TO BE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES at least as relates to consideration for
demolition. Structures attain historical significance not only due to architectural attributes but
also due to association with historically significant people or events. Those who do the
Inventory of Historic Resources see the physical attributes but may not have access to the
historic significance of a particular structure which would dictate it should be preserved in the
interest of the culture, prosperity, education and welfare of the people. Consequently, what
should be categorized as High Priority may unintentionally be rated Low. By definition a
historic structure has stood for 50 years or more and neighborhood memories may have faded,
but a public notice, review by HARC, and the 60 day window before approval (which should
be retained) may provide the spark to produce forgotten evidence of historic importance which
could lead to re-categorization as a High Priority and thus preservation or relocation.
Therefore, I submit that HARC should be the decision-making party for all demolitions of
historic structures within a Historic Overlay District. I did not hear anyone say an objective of
these proposed changes was to hasten demolitions. Once gone a structure cannot be brought
back, so public review is appropriate to avoid mistakes.
CONFLICTING GUIDELINES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THIS REVIEW. When the
subject of “Concerns about HARC” was raised last Spring there was much discussion about
apparently arbitrary decisions by HARC and confusion among applicants, possibly related to
inconsistent guidelines, which together diminished the attractiveness of Georgetown as a place
to invest. Now with these historic preservation issues on the table it would be remiss not to
take the opportunity to identify and resolve conflicting guidelines and criteria. There are
complex issues of compatibility, relating to mass, shape and setbacks of proposed new
buildings in the Historic Overlay Districts, which require prioritization, trade-offs and
compromises, particularly in transition areas. Given that one stated duty of HARC is “to act
and assist City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials
relevant to historic preservation or design review” and given that these guidelines and criteria
are within the UDC, I submit that while dealing with these UDC Amendments, the UDC
Advisory Committee should solicit advice from the current HARC Commissioners. Most of
the current members have at least one year of experience on HARC and who better to bring
forward suggestions for guideline improvements that would help resolve conflicting
objectives, and render the sometimes difficult decisions they must make more easily reached
and explained? It is clear from the signs around town that HARC has community support and
it should be important for City Council to do whatever can be done to maximize the credibility
of HARC. Accordingly, I request that advice on guidelines should be solicited from HARC
with a view to making this review process as thorough and comprehensive as possible, before
these proposed amendments are moved forward. If the UDC Advisory Committee is not in a
position make that request perhaps City Staff or the City Council would do so.
Sofia, thank you again for your efforts and transparency on this process. I hope you will treat
this as though it was submitted on your comment form and share it with everyone appropriate.
Page 177 of 198
I plan to share it with others also.
Respectfully,
Allan Barnes
512 917 6711
Allanrbarnes@gmail.com
611 S. Elm St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Sent from my iPad
Page 178 of 198
Page 179 of 198
Page 180 of 198
Page 181 of 198
Page 182 of 198
Page 183 of 198
Page 184 of 198
From:Jimmy Johnson
To:GRP_UDC
Subject:Proposed changes to UDC Sect 2.50.040
Date:Thursday, March 7, 2019 5:34:56 PM
It is unbelievable that the initial proposal to streamline the approval process for the historical district could
possibly end up with an additional step for Council approval. This is not streamlining the process. This is
merely removing HARC from the process. It has become very clear in previous appeals that the council
will vote their will regardless of HARC or P & Z recommendations. In other words, we are about the
create a process that allows the council to ignore the UDC process entirely. This is an unbelievable
recommendation. It is a major step back for all of Georgetown and a travesty for the citizens of
Georgetown. The Council is supposed to be the representatives of the citizens, not a higher authority
with no regard for the wishes of the citizens. The HARC was created to provide a knowledgeable body to
review and approve projects in the historical district. This proposal takes that authority away and allows a
group of unqualified politicians to make critical decisions without any real understanding of the codes
approved by the citizens of Georgetown.
This proposal is a travesty. It is rivaled only by the underhanded way the council and city handled the
energy contracts.
Jim Johnson
3005 Parker Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
Caution: This email is not from the City of Georgetown.
Page 185 of 198
UDC Public Comments
Name :*
Addre ss *
Email:
Phone Numbe r:
Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts:
Larry Brundidge
City
Georgetown
State / Province / Region
Texas
Postal / Zip Code
78626
Country
US
Street Address
908 Pine St
Address Line 2
brundidges@suddenlink.net
5126355832
Certificate of Appropriateness I diagree with City Council making final decisions on COAs. HARC
has effectively made these decisions over the last four years with
only three appeals, two of which were upheld. Taking away this
authority from HARCwill remove any incentive for applicants to
adapt their projects to objections voices by HARC. This is a
powerful tool in HARC arsenals. Pre-City Council adaptations
prior to approval are a major source of improvement change.
Lastly, and importantly, changes made at the City Council review
process must be submitted for citizen approval via publication.
Last minute "shoot from the hip" changes without thorough visual
review will destroy citizen rights.
Page 186 of 198
UDC Public Comments
Name :*
Addre ss *
Email:
Phone Numbe r:
Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts:
Lee Bain
City
Georgetown
State / Province / Region
Texas
Postal / Zip Code
78626
Country
US
Street Address
120 W 8th
Address Line 2
5126355977
Certificate of Appropriateness If the council desires to have veto power over HARC, my
recommendation is for it to require a 5-2 and not 4-3 decision --
this would be consistent with P&Z decisions
Page 187 of 198
UDC Public Comments
Name :*
Addre ss *
Email:
Phone Numbe r:
Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts:
Ross Hunter
City
Georgetown
State / Province / Region
Texas
Postal / Zip Code
78626
Country
US
Street Address
908 S. Walnut Street
Address Line 2
ross@hunterhost.com
5129300542
Certificate of Appropriateness I think it important to specify the process when a recommended
denial from HARC comes to the consent agenda.
How does an applicant trigger the matter to be pulled from the
consent agenda to become an legislative agenda item? It's easy
to say "ask a council member" but this seems like something we
could actually write into the code so the mechanism can be made
dependable and independent of needing a council member.
Furthermore, when an item is pulled from consent, council can
review it that same evening, under current protocols. I advocate
tabling such an item (a HARC decision) to the following council
session. This way, the expense and effort required to attend a
council public hearing need only occur on a known date. Having
to show up for the consent agenda, and then waiting for the item
to be pulled, and seeing where on the agenda it will be dealt with,
is not very efficient. It would be better to give public notice, so
that everyone knows clearly when to show up and what the issue
is.
This proposal from council is taking away the right of appeal from
a HARC decision, and turning a legal decision into a political
decision. The maximum process we can write into the code, the
better.
Page 188 of 198
UDC Public Comments
Name :*
Addre ss *
Email:
Phone Numbe r:
Comme nt Cate gorie s Comme nts:
Sherwin Kahn
City
Georgetown
State / Province / Region
Texas
Postal / Zip Code
78626
Country
US
Street Address
908 E University Ave
Address Line 2
drkahn@chiropractice.com
9188161660
Certificate of Appropriateness The current further castration of HARC is literally killing the
unicorn. No one in Old Town favors these changes. They were
proposed by men who do not live or care about the historic
character of our city.
They are corrupt men coopted by bankers and developers. They
want to make money. Period. They have no regard for
preservation. This change will destroy Old Town. It will become
East Austin or worse as backyards are redefined as infill
locations and historic homes of low history are demolished. We
will take large historic home backyards and fill them with high
density inappropriate modern condos and townhouses.
Our leaders have failed this city. They should all be removed and
someday this will be seen as the worst of times. Sadly the
developers will be long gone like the plague of locusts they are.
And certain politicians will be very rich.
I strongly opposed the changes to HARC two years ago. The
same two Councilmen wanted its complete elimination. Here we
are two years later and through the stroke of pen that is exactly
what they are getting.
AS A PROPERTY OWNER I STRONGLY OPPOSE THESE
CHANGES. SADLY THEY ARE NOT UP FOR A VOTE BECAUSE
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
Page 189 of 198
From:firthmail@suddenlink.net
To:GRP_UDC
Cc:Sofia Nelson
Subject:[EXTERNAL] UDC Advisory Committee Comments
Date:Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:14:12 AM
Attachments:March 13 2019 UDC Adv Comm Comments.pdf
Good morning.
Please find attached my comments regarding the proposed UDC amendment changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Susan
Susan Firth
1403 Olive Street
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
Page 190 of 198
March 12, 2019
Please find below my comments regarding the proposed UDC changes.
Review Authority Change
o Recommend approval of authority change from HARC to CC
With the assurance that City Council approvals require a public hearing (not consent
agenda) to allow applicants and community to address pending COAs
With the understanding by Council/explanation to Council that the timeline for COA
approvals will be significantly longer (not ‘a faster turnaround’ per Mr. Pitts original
statement) and result in a lengthened process and additional financial burden to the
applicant
Clarify the Appeal Process of a Council decision
Review of Low Priority
o Restore oversight of Demolition of Low Priority structures to HARC
Require Demolition of any Low Priority structure within the Downtown and Old
Town Overlay district or properties on the Historic Resource Survey to COA HARC
review
o Request/require the University-Elm National Register Historic District expand its boundaries
per recommendation of 2017 Historic Resource Survey consultants Cox-McClain allowing
maximum protection of the integrity of the District
Review of Demolition Process Outside of Historic District
o Require public notification of Demolition of structures outside historic district
o Properties listed on the Historic Resource Survey would be subject to HARC approval
Use of In-Kind Materials
o Approve with the stipulation that the physical appearance of the structure is not altered; for
example, if using Hardi board the size & profile of the material must match the original
siding material
In addition, please consider recommending
Expansion of the Old Town Overlay boundaries
o West (to the river); East (to Southwestern Blvd); South (to 1460/Quail Valley); North (to the
river)
o Allows for awareness of historic properties
TRG/The Ridge (Scenic Drive)
Haven (south of 17th Street)
San Jose area (south of 17th Street)
Nolen Addition (east of Hutto Road, south of 17th Street)
Require Public Notification of HARC COA Conceptual Reviews
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
Susan Firth
1403 Olive Street
Page 191 of 198
From:Chelsea Irby
To:Sofia Nelson; Nathaniel Waggoner; Madison Thomas
Cc:Andreina Davila
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Comments on HARC Proposal
Date:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:35:06 AM
FYI
Chelsea Irby
Senior Planner
City of Georgetown
512-931-7746
From: Grace Josey [mailto:gjosey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:25 AM
To: GRP_UDC <UDC@georgetown.org>
Cc: District1 <district1@georgetown.org>; District2 <district2@georgetown.org>; District3
<district3@georgetown.org>; District4 <district4@georgetown.org>; District5
<district5@georgetown.org>; District6 <district6@georgetown.org>; District7
<district7@georgetown.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on HARC Proposal
Thank you for considering my comments regarding the proposed UDC amendments pertaining to HARC,
as listed in the March 10 issue of the Williamson County Sun.
I am a lifelong Georgetown resident, and have been a homeowner in the historic overlay district for the
past nine years. I have been through HARC and have remodeled my home.
First and foremost, I would like to remind the members of the Council that Old Town is not only an asset
to our community, it is also our neighborhood. This is the place where we live, work, and send our
children to school. It is not just a place for the City of Georgetown to market itself, attract out-of-towners,
and encourage development. I ask this question to members of the Council who live outside of my
neighborhood: How would you feel if individuals from other neighborhoods could sit on your HOA Board
and make decisions about your neighbors installing above ground pools, sheds, additions, etc.? Would
you feel like those individuals could have the same invested interest as you? Probably not. I am incredibly
grateful for the service of my neighbors on HARC. It is a major time commitment, and they do their very
best to make decisions in the interest of their neighbors within the parameters of the process. I think that
giving the power to the Council to approve/deny Certificates of Appropriateness is bad for our
neighborhood. Not only would those decisions be left in the hands of individuals living outside our
neighborhood, but it will mean that the decisions are less informed. The members of HARC spend
tremendous amounts of time reviewing the documents for each project and reviewing the UDC. Will
members of Council have the same time to give? I doubt it.
Second, while I do agree that changes could be made for non-contributing and low-priority structures,
they are still located near medium- and high-priority homes. It would propose that these structures be
reviewed by staff, but only by HARC if the owner is requesting variances or demolition.
Lastly, I agree with the proposal to allow low- and medium-priority structures to be remodeled with similar
replacement materials.
I understand that realtors and developers stand to profit in the short run from lower standards in my
neighborhood. Maybe some of those developers have appealed to members of the Council to make these
changes. I think that is unfortunate. There is always room to improve a process, and I believe there are
Page 192 of 198
ideas that have been mentioned that would significantly improve the HARC process. In fact, I sat in a
focus group where homeowners and one home builder proposed lots of great enhancements while still
placing the COA decision in the hands of the HARC members. Let's look at those ideas and find ways to
improve without undermining those who choose to live in the district.
With appreciation,
Grace Pyka
1318 East Universtiy Ave.
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Page 193 of 198
From:Chelsea Irby
To:Nathaniel Waggoner; Sofia Nelson; Madison Thomas
Cc:Andreina Davila
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Super majority
Date:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 1:58:13 PM
FYI
Chelsea Irby
Senior Planner
City of Georgetown
512-931-7746
-----Original Message-----
From: Karalei Nunn [mailto:kmnunn@1113architects.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 1:52 PM
To: GRP_UDC <UDC@georgetown.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Super majority
I support a super majority from the council to overturn HARC decisions. This aligns with the Planning and Zoning
body decisions and makes sense. It does not make sense to further reduce HARC’s authority.
Karalei Nunn
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
Page 194 of 198
From:Michael Walton
To:Sofia Nelson; GRP_UDC; Preservation Georgetown
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Preservation Georgetown Comments on UDC
Date:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:27:28 PM
Sofia --
I respectfully submit the following comments from Preservation Georgetown:
======================
As the President of Preservation Georgetown, I have had the opportunity
to meet with and hear from a variety of people about this proposal.
In general, the preference is to leave things as they are, but it is
clear that is not a likely option.
So, after significant review & discussion … and as the representative of
the 300+ members of Preservation Georgetown, I offer the following
recommendations and requests:
1 - Adjust the proposal in Sec. 3.13.010. - Applicability, to restore
the review of LOW priority structures for demolition.
While there are certainly structures in Old Town that are beyond repair
and are legitimate candidates for demolition, not all of those
classified as LOW priority are.
The concern is that removing all review will result in widespread
demolition in favor of new construction that may not maintain the
character, personality, and historic interests of Georgetown.
2 - Review Section Sec. 3.03.020. - Required Public Hearing
The table in the proposal indicates a special symbol under the City
Council column for COA applications, but the specification of that
symbol has been removed.
The requirements for this section are not clear and thus should be updated.
3 - Clarify SECTION 16.02. - DEFINITIONS for Historic Structure,
Contributing and Historic Structure, Non-Contributing
The historic survey rates structures as LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH based upon
the historic significance of the structure and its level of alterations
or adjustments.
It is our opinion that while a LOW priority structure may not retain its
original appearance, it may still be a CONTRIBUTING structure.
It is important that this definition is written in a way to recognize
all structures that add value to the community, independent of their
level of historic rating.
Page 195 of 198
4 - Remove or edit conflicting language from the UDC
It has been said that part of the problem is ambiguity and the level of
subjectivity that may be applied to HARC decisions. This should be
addressed as part of this effort.
For example, chapters 6 (residential development standards) & 7
(non-residential development standards) of the UDC have caused issues
for property owners within the historic overlays.
As written, they are easily applied to properties outside of these
districts, but cause problems when applied to properties subject to HARC
review.
The proposed changes to the UDC that you have been asked to review do
not include updates to these or any other chapters that may introduce
challenges.
We ask that you recommend that a review and update of these sections be
included in this proposal.
Finally, we support the updates related to in-kind materials.
--
Michael J Walton Georgetown, TX
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
Page 196 of 198
From:Liz Weaver
To:GRP_UDC
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed changes to HARC
Date:Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:32:40 AM
I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the UDC which will affect the workings of HARC. In
particular, I object to the removal of the provision that requires a supermajority vote in order for the
Council to override a HARC decision. This supermajority provision is in place for the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and I think it is reasonable for HARC to also have this provision. Both bodies are
appointed in the same manner, and both are made up of citizens of the town. To give one superior
power than the other is not warranted; it sends the message that one body is trusted more than the
other.
I also object to the proposed removal of the demolition of low-priority structures from the review of
HARC. HARC serves as an important check on interests which strive to tear down and replace
historic structures. As a researcher for Preservation Georgetown, I’m constantly surprised at the
richness of history that lies within all the structures in town. Removing HARC’s oversight of
demolition of these structures is not in the interest of maintaining and celebrating that richness.
The number of low-priority structures within the overlays is relatively small in comparison with all
the property in Georgetown, and it deserves to be protected.
Thanks,
Liz Weaver
1221 S Main Street
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Caution: This email originated from outside the City of Georgetown. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Page 197 of 198
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 19, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Discussion Items:
Updates and Annoucements (S ofia Nelson)
U pdate from other Board and C ommission meetings.
Q ues tions or comments from Alternate Members about the actions and matters c onsidered on this
agenda.
R eminder of the April 2, 2019, P lanning and Zoning C ommis s ion meeting in the C ounc il C hambers
located at 510 W 9th S t, starting at 6:00pm.
IT E M S UMMARY:
G TAB Update
R eport to the P lanning & Z oning C ommission from the 3/8/19 G TA B M eeti ng
Item D: Industry/C AM P O/T xD O T /Transit Updates
Item E: Airport Monthly R eport
Item F : Marc h 2019 G TAB Updates
Item K: R eview of engineering bid for S W Bypass from Wolf R anch P arkway to S H 29
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
NA
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 198 of 198