HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.27.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
September 27, 2018 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the
Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the
recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A Co nsideration of the Minutes from the Augus t 23, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Secretary
B Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential reno vatio n o f a p ro p erty loc ated at 804 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.1443
ac .Shell Additio n Resub , Blo ck 14, Lo t 3. – Madis on Tho mas , AICP, His toric & Do wntown Planner
C Public Hearing and possible actio n o n a req ues t for a Certific ate o f App ro p riatenes s (COA) fo r a
proposed infill develo p ment for the prop erty loc ated at 109 2nd Street b earing the legal d es criptio n of
0.704 ac . Georgetown, City of, Bloc k 2, Lot 5-7 (Pt)8 & Ab andoned Rd., and 0.582 ac. Georgetown,
Page 1 of 110
City of, Blo c k 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt Aband o ned R d ., (COA-2018-041). Mad is o n T homas, His toric and
Do wntown P lanner
D Co nc ep tual Review fo r the commerc ial ad d ition and reno vatio n at the p ro p erty loc ated at 101 E. 7th
Street, b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.14ac . Geo rgeto wn, City o f, Bloc k 39, Lot 2-39 (W/PTS), (CO A-
2018-046). Madis on Tho mas , Downto wn and His to ric Planner
E Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f the p ro ces s and proc ed ures related to the review of a Certific ate o f
Ap p ro p riatenes s (CoA), inc luding Unified Develo p ment Co d e and the Do wntown Design Guideline
implementation. Mad is o n Thomas, AICP, His to ric and Downto wn Planner.
F Up d ates, Commis s ioner ques tions and c omments . Sofia Nelson, Planning Directo r
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 110
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the Augus t 23, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _Augus t 23, 2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 110
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: August 23, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Terri Assendorf-Hyde; Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice-
Chair; Karl Meixsell; Catherine Morales; Amanda Parr (alternate); Kevin Roberts (Alternate);
and Lawrence Romero.
Absent:
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown
Planner; and Nat Waggoner, Recording Secretary.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm. Commissioner Hood read the meeting procedures.
A. Consideration of the Minutes from the July 26, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Bain, second by Parr, to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7 – 0.
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential renovation for the replacement of the existing wood siding with hardie siding
located at 1407 S. Myrtle St., bearing the legal description of 0.09 ac. Hughes Second Addition
(Part Blk C Resub), Lot 1. (COA-2018-035) Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown
Planner
Thomas presented the item. Commissioner Hood asked Thomas about the intent to replicate the
appearance, Thomas responded that the guidelines first recommend repair then replacement. If
replacement is sought that it be in like form.
Applicant addressed the Commission, asked them to consider the recommendations from the
installer; installer can provide 4” reveal. Focused on going with hardie given the sturdy nature
of the material given the lack of overhang and the desire for the property owner to get a 30 yr.
warranty, unsure if that warranty comes with the wood product.
Commissioner Parr asked the applicant, other than the warranty, why not replace with a 3”
wood product. Applicant responded that lack of eaves causes maintenance issues.
Commissioner Romero asked the applicant if they would be interested in maintaining the wood
around the windows if approved for hardie. Applicant would consider. Hood asked applicant if
they would consider downspouts.
Bain asked what the effect of the denial would be on the application. Thomas responded that
the applicant could choose a wood product of similar form which would be considered
maintenance.
Page 4 of 110
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: August 23, 2018
Parr commented that replacing with like material is important and the applicant should
consider gutters and downspouts.
Motion to deny by Romero, based on 5.01, 5.02, 5.04, 5.05, second by Parr. The application
was denied 7-0.
C. Presentation and discussion of a conceptual review for a proposed infill development for the
property located at the 109 and 101 2nd Street bearing the legal description of 0.704 ac.
Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 5-7 (Pt)8 & Abandoned Rd., and 0.582 ac. Georgetown, City
of, Block 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt Abandoned Rd., (COA-2018-041). Madison Thomas, Historic and
Downtown Planner
Morales asked about the south elevation and if there was a structure in front of the building as
you are driving north along Austin Ave.
Hood asked about future phasing on the east side of the building. Applicant shared that future
phasing considers extension of buildings along Austin Ave and 2nd Street. Sam Pfiester
addressed the Commission, sharing that the eastern lot is a city water detention pond.
Parr suggested that additional modulation is needed on the north elevation. Hood
recommended creating material/texture differentiation similar to those on the ends of the
building.
Chair Browner recognizes that the project generally complies with the UDC and Design
Guidelines.
Hood asked how future additions southward toward 2nd Street.
Hood inquired about applicant would be supportive of a mural along the south elevation.
Romero offered that the project has generally met the Design Guidelines.
D. Presentation and discussion on the process and standards related to the Rehabilitation Plan for
a historic structure. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Parr, this is a step forward. Parr asked Thomas if staff is compiling a list of properties.
Romero asked about previous COA. Thomas remarked that property ownership has changed.
Hood welcomes training, Bain 2nd comments.
Parr, asked for consideration of additional training for Commissioners in Training as well as
onsite training.
E. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson answered questions previously posed by the Commission.
CLG Status and two meetings a month, will be presented to Council during the 8/28/2018
workshop. Nelson is working on the CLG status answer for next meeting.
Three (3) questions from Hood; (1) Is there an expectation from Council that HARC be able to
complete a review in a certain timeline? Nelson responded that it has not been vocalized
directly, it may become a topic for discussion during the October workshop. (2) What barriers
Page 5 of 110
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: August 23, 2018
can HARC place with staff to ensure that projects that come to HARC can be approved? Nelson
explained review process beginning with pre-application meetings to conceptual review to
formal submission. (3) Has P&Z been invited to the continuing education? Nelson answered no,
they do not have purview of COAs.
Romero case review is not comparable between HARC and P&Z; HARC does a different job
and provides a different service than P&Z.
Assendorf-Hyde - Is there a process how applications are packaged? Nelson, we can prioritize
moving forward and separate demolition and additions, have discussed this internally.
Assendorf-Hyde – Why were they able to appeal to Council? Nelson, UDC outlines appeal
process.
Chair asked that September HARC agenda include an item to consider participation in the
October workshop.
Parr asked for a copy of the roster for HARC.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Bain, second by Romero. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 6 of 110
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s (COA) fo r a
res id ential renovation of a property lo cated at 804 E. 4th S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion of 0.1443
ac.Shell Addition R es ub, Bloc k 14, Lot 3. – Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His to ric & Downto wn P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The applic ant is p ro p o s ing to renovate the existing his toric home, the front p o rch and c ons truct a new
carport. The applic ant p ro p o s es to remo ve all existing wind o ws, mos tly vinyl and rep lace with vinyl
wind o ws. The applic ant is p ro p o s ing to remove siding (n on-historic and h istoric) and replac e with hardie
s id ing. The applic ant would like to remove an exis ting windo w o n the fro nt façade whic h faces E. 4th
Street. The portio n of the faç ad e to the left o f the fro nt door currently has three wind o ws, the ap p licant is
p ro p o s ing to red uc e it to two . The ho me currently has a p ro jecting porc h with a shed overhang, the
ap p licant wo uld like change the roo f style while keeping the p o rch the same s ize. The applic ant has no t
s p ecified why they intend to change the porc h style. T he additio n of a carport o ff of the s ide faç ad e will
extend the s truc ture ab out 12’ to the west. T he c arport will b e c o nstruc ted o ut o f 6x6 wo o d en p o s ts and
have a s hed room with as p halt shingles .
HARC:
· Replac ing a histo rical architec tural feature with a non-histo ric arc hitec tural feature, s treet fac ing:
p o rch
· To c reate or ad d to an exis ting s treet fac ing façade: carport
Staff:
· Remo val o f exterior non-histo ric arc hitectural features , s treet fac ing facades: non-histo ric s iding
change
· Removal of exterio r no n-his toric arc hitec tural features, street facing fac ad es : window c hange
· Removal of exterio r no n-his toric arc hitec tural features, street facing fac ad es : door change
· Changes to paint color o n p revious ly painted s urfac es
Direc tion p ro vided by the Downto wn Design Guid elines, s taff has fo und that the proposed replac ement
materials for the siding and windows do not meet, therefore HAR C will hear the p ro p o s ed materials and
render a final d ec is ion.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Page 7 of 110
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4- 2016 His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 8 of 110
EL
M
ST
E 7 TH ST
R
O
C
K
S
T
E U N I V ER S IT Y AV E
A
SH
STS
M
A
I
N
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 5 TH ST
E 4 TH ST
E 2 N D S T
E 6 TH ST
S A
U
S
TIN
AV
E
PIN
E
ST
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
W 9T H S T
W 8T H S T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 11T H ST
W 10T H S T
FOR
E
S
T
S
T
T H O M A S C T
W 7T H S T
N
C
O
L
LE
GE
S
T
W 3R D S T
E 1 0T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
M
A
R
T
IN
L
UT
HER
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
SOUT H W E STERNBLVD
E 8 T H S T
S M I T H C R E E K R D
N
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
W M O R R O W S T E M O R R O W S T
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
W 5 T H S T
W U N I V E R SI TY AV E
P I R A T E D R
H
A
V
E
N
L
N
SO U LE D R
E 3 R D S T
S E R VI C E R D
S C E N I C D R
P
I
R
A
T
E
C
V
B R E N D O N L E E L N
W 2 N D ST
B E R G I N C T
BLUE HOLE PARKR
D
E R U TERSVIL
L
E
D
R
E 9 TH ST
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
M C K E N Z I E D R
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
WE
S
T
S
T
R E T R E A
T
P
L
E 9 TH 1 /2 S T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
P
E
A
C
H
T
R
E
E
L
N
E 3 R D S T
E 9 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 1 0T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 8 T H S T
PIN
E
ST
W 2N D S T
COA-2018-036Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 9 of 110
August 10, 2018
City of Georgetown
Wehring Family Investments and
Chance Leigh Custom Homes
Project: 804 E 4th Street
Letter of Intent
This project is an exterior and interior remodel of an existing house located at 804
E 4th Street Georgetown, Texas that was purchased by Wehring Family
Investments from Ric Spencer on June 28, 2018. A copy of the Warranty Deed has
been uploaded to MPN. The mechanicals including electric and plumbing will be
upgraded to meet current code requirements. SEER 14 HVAC will be added as will
new insulation, Hardie Plank siding, MI 5500 Series White Vinyl Single Hung
windows and GAF Timberline Weathered Wood asphalt shingles.
The existing North side of the structure is covered in 4X8 Hardie sheets to the left
of the entry and ½” plywood to the right. The East and West sides of the original
structure (approximately 24 LF) are covered in the existing 8” lap siding. These
walls are in poor condition due to a lack of maintenance and paint and will be
covered with new plywood and Hardie 8” lap siding. The South side of the
structure and the East and West wall additions are covered in ½ “plywood and will
be covered in new Hardie 8” lap siding. This will provide uniformity throughout
the existing structure and conform to the original appearance. All the existing
wood windows except one were removed prior to our acquisition of the property
and replaced with a mix of lower quality aluminum windows to the left of the
entry and vinyl windows from different manufacturers throughout the rest of the
house. The remaining wood window was walled in and cut to accommodate a
window A/C unit and is unusable. All replacement windows will be the MI 5500
Series shown above. We are proposing reducing the three-window pattern to two
on the front façade to the left of the entry to promote balance and additional
Page 10 of 110
useable space in the living area. Also based on the existing framing we do not
believe the three-window pattern to the left of the entry is original to the house.
I have uploaded pictures of existing siding, windows and general condition of the
structure to MPN.
A site plan has been added to MPN as well as a side view of the proposed carport
addition on the West side of the existing structure over an existing concrete pad.
The carport addition would be attached to the house with a flat roof and three
open sides.
Siding color SW 9126 Honed Soapstone, Trim facia and post SW 6169 Sedate Gray
would be used throughout the project.
The exterior perimeter of the existing structure shown in a plat dated 4-5-2007
will not change. This plat does show a cover over the front porch that we would
like to replace.
Interior construction will consist of drywall, new wood or tile floors, new cabinets
and appliances and new interior doors.
This address is listed by the City of Georgetown as within the Old Town Overlay
with a 2016 Low Priority rating. When complete this house will conform to all
current codes and standards while from the street appearing much as it did when
originally built.
Page 11 of 110
Page 12 of 110
Page 13 of 110
Page 14 of 110
Page 15 of 110
Page 16 of 110
Page 17 of 110
Page 18 of 110
Page 19 of 110
Page 20 of 110
Page 21 of 110
Page 22 of 110
Page 23 of 110
Page 24 of 110
Page 25 of 110
Page 26 of 110
Page 27 of 110
Page 28 of 110
Page 29 of 110
Page 30 of 110
Page 31 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:804 4th St 2016 Survey ID:124682
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address SPENCER, RIC, 29538 S LEGENDS BEND DR, , SPRING,TX 77386-2020
Latitude:30.639879 Longitude -97.669757
Addition/Subdivision:S5426 - Shell Addn Resub
WCAD ID:R317248Legal Description (Lot/Block):S5426 - Shell Addn Resub, BLOCK 14, Lot 3, ACRES 0.1443
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 5/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1945
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: South
Page 32 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:804 4th St 2016 Survey ID:124682
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story Minimal Traditional house clad in wood panels and wood siding with an irregular plan, side-gabled roof, and a
partial-width, projecting porch with a shed overhang and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Some windows resized and replaced, door replaced, sidelights added, cladding replaced,
addition to rear
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood panels
Vinyl, Wood
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 33 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:804 4th St 2016 Survey ID:124682
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: siding replaced)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:50
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 34 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:804 4th St 2016 Survey ID:124682
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Page 35 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: 9/27/2018
File Number: COA-2018-036
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Discussion and possible action on a COA for the residential renovation of a property located at 804 E.
4th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.1443 ac., Shell Addition Resub, Block 14, Lot 3. – Madison
Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 804 E. 4th St. Residential Renovation and Addition
Applicant: Chance Leigh
Property Owner: Billy Wehring, Wehring Family Investments
Property Address: 804 E. 4th St., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.1443 acres, lot 3, block 14 of the Shell Addition Resub.
Historic Overlay: Old Town
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1945
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded
2007 - Low
2016 - Low
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing historic home, the front porch and construct a new
carport. The applicant proposes to remove all existing windows, mostly vinyl and replace with vinyl
windows. The applicant is proposing to remove siding (non-historic and historic) and replace with hardie
siding. The applicant would like to remove an existing window on the front façade which faces E. 4th
Street. The portion of the façade to the left of the front door currently has three windows, the applicant
is proposing to reduce it to two. The home currently has a projecting porch with a shed overhang, the
applicant would like change the roof style while keeping the porch the same size. The applicant has not
specified why they intend to change the porch style. The addition of a carport off of the side façade will
extend the structure about 12’ to the west. The carport will be constructed out of 6x6 wooden posts and
have a shed room with asphalt shingles.
HARC:
Replacing a historical architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature, street facing:
porch
Page 36 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 2 of 9
To create or add to an existing street facing façade: carport
Staff:
Removal of exterior non-historic architectural features, street facing facades: non-historic siding
change
Removal of exterior non-historic architectural features, street facing facades: window change
Removal of exterior non-historic architectural features, street facing facades: door change
Changes to paint color on previously painted surfaces
Direction provided by the Downtown Design Guidelines, staff has found that the proposed replacement
materials for the siding and windows do not meet, therefore HARC will hear the proposed materials and
render a final decision.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Background:
The structure is a one-story, identified in the Historic Resource Survey as a one-story minimal
traditional house clad in wood panels and wood siding with an irregular plan, side -gabled roof, and a
partial-width, projecting porch with a shed overhang and a single front door. This resource is estimated
to have been built in 1945 and is identified on the historic resources survey as a low priority structure .
The applicant has already modified much of the exterior of the structure, including the removal of the
siding and the front porch prior to approval. The Downtown Design Guidelines reinforce the
importance of maintaining historical integrity through the preservation of key character-defining
features of the property and the repair of deteriorated historic features, and replacement of only those
elements that cannot be repaired. The sequence of preservation actions should be to replace those
features beyond repair while ensuring compatibility of any new features.
Porch:
The proposed porch will be the same size as the original porch, but will have handrails and balusters.
The applicant is requesting to change from a shed style porch roof to a gabled roof. The design
guidelines recommend the retention of original porches, however, the style of porch proposed is
typical of minimal traditional homes based on the book A Field Guide to American Houses.
Downtown Design Guidelines, Chapter 6, page 45 states that HARC should take the following into consideration
when asked to approve the alteration or addition of a historic porch:
1. If the existing porch has deteriorated or become badly damaged such that repair is
technically infeasible.
2. The proposed new porch is similar to the historic porch in regards to size, style, detail, and
shape and will be constructed from historic or appropriate new materials.
3. If inadequate documentation of original porches exists, a new porch should be typical of
those built in the style of the historic building. A simplified adaptation may be allowed if
Page 37 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 3 of 9
physical evidence of the original is non-existent or if the design is prohibitively expensive to
recreate.
4. Whether the existing porch materials are being retained, unless it is technically infeasible to
do so.
5. If proposed new railings and balusters on an existing or new porch use historic or
appropriate new materials, are designed in a style similar in appearance to historic balusters,
and whether railings are characteristic of the style of the historic building.
6. The porch floor is of a type characteristic of the style of the historic building. Spaced planks
shall not be used where painted tongue-and-groove boards would have been used
historically.
7. New and existing wood visible from the right-of-way is painted unless it can be documented
that the original wood was unpainted or stained (generally, unpainted pressure treated
wood will not be allowed).
8. Concrete steps and porches are allowed if it can be shown that they existed on the building
historically or if they are characteristic of the style of building.
Carport
The proposed carport will extend off of the west façade of the home, extending 12’ and covering
approximately 300 sq.ft. The addition of the carport will extend a shed style roof under the existing roof
out to multiple posts, it will not damage the existing home’s façade and the roofing materials will be
the same that are on the home. The Design Guidelines recommend placing carports on side or rear
facades and using materials that can be found on the main home.
Replacement of street facing siding:
The structure is currently covered in a mix of wood siding, plywood and hardie sheets. The 8” wood
lap siding is located on the east and west facades, with plywood on the front and rear facades. The
north façade currently has both hardie sheets and plywood, with the south façade also covered in
plywood. The applicant is proposing to remove all existing siding and replace with hardie siding. The
building official has identified the existing wood siding as beyond repair and cannot be reused as
siding, but could be removed and possibly repurposed. The proposed hardie siding does not comply
with the Design Guidelines’ direction to not use a synthetic material. However, if substitute material is
considered, it should be similar in color, design, composition and texture to the original. The existing
wood siding on the side of the home is 8” lap siding, the proposed Hardie siding is also 8” lap siding
and could produce a very similar visual effect that a wood siding would offer.
Windows:
Per the applicant, all but one of the windows on the house are made of vinyl or aluminum, with one
wooden window that has been cut to accommodate a window unit. The front, or north façade currently
has a set of three windows to the left of the front door. The applicant is requesting to reduce the
number of windows from three to two. Based on the applicants research and included photograph,
framing found on the interior, it seems that three windows were not original and that there was only
Page 38 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 4 of 9
one large window originally. Reducing the number of windows will achieve a look closer to what was
built originally based on the photograph provided by the applicant that shows the interior framing.
The current windows have been resized and are a different material. The applicant would like to
replace them with new vinyl windows that retain the 1/1 style. Typical homes built during this time
have a mixture of number of window and window styles however, wood windows were appropriate to
homes of this era were built with wood windows.
Downtown Design Guidelines, Chapter 6, page 52 address how HARC should assess the following when evaluating
proposals to replace non-original windows:
1. Whether the proposed replacement windows and/or doors are based on the documented
configuration of the building’s original windows and/or doors.
2. Whether historic window and door openings are proposed to be altered to accommodate
windows or doors of different sizes, proportions, views, or configurations.
3. A historic window or door opening should not be enclosed, altered in its dimensions, or
obscured.
4. Whether the non-original windows and/or doors have taken on historic significance and now
contribute to the history of the building.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 5 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC BUILDING MATERIALS
5.1 Maintain existing wall materials and textures.
Avoid removing materials that are in good condition or that
can be repaired in place.
Remove only those materials that are deteriorated and must
be replaced.
Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that
could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building
that is no longer historic.
In many cases, original building materials may not be
damaged beyond repair and do not require replacement.
Repainting wood, ensuring proper drainage, and keeping the
material clean may be all that is necessary. N/A
Complies
The hardie sheets and
plywood are not
appropriate materials and
should be removed and
replaced. Two facades
currently have wood
siding that have been
identified by the building
official to be beyond repair
and reuse. This wood
could be salvaged and as
the applicant desires,
repurposed elsewhere in
the structure.
5.2 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching,
piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials.
Complies
Page 39 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 5 of 9
Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be
repaired.
Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using
consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for
wood repair. Also, special masonry repair components
may be used.
Two facades currently
have wood siding that
have been identified by the
building official to be
beyond repair and reuse.
This wood could be
salvaged and repurposed,
but is no longer
appropriate as a siding
material.
5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when
replacing it on a primary surface.
If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then
the replacement material should be wood as well. It should
match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap, and
finish.
Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are
damaged beyond repair, then only replace them and not the
entire wall.
Does not comply
The applicant is proposing
to use hardie siding. Based
on the construction date of
this home and evidence of
existing wood siding, the
original siding was wood
therefore the proposed
siding should match in
composition (wood).
5.5 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum, vinyl siding, or
panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials on an
historic structure.
Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick may
not be replaced with synthetic materials.
See also Preservation Briefs #16: The Use of Substitute
Materials on Historic Building Exteriors, published by the
National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/16-substitute-
materials.htm
Does not comply
The applicant is proposing
to use hardie siding, a
synthetic siding material.
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic
windows and doors in a building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining
facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening.
Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a
smaller window. Restoring original openings which have been
altered over time is encouraged.
Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The
proportions of these windows contribute to the character of
each residence and commercial storefront.
Complies
The applicant is proposing
to remove one window
located on the front façade.
Based on the framing that
exists, it is believed that
the three-window pattern
is not original to the home.
The resource survey also
Page 40 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 6 of 9
notes that windows have
been resized and replaced.
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the
replacement to the original design as closely as possible.
• Preserve the original casing, when feasible.
If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window
should also be double hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so.
Match the replacement also in the number and position of
glass panes.
Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to the
building’s architectural style are inappropriate.
• Using the same material (wood) as the original is preferred.
A new screen door added to the front of a visible door should
be “full view” design or with minimal structural dividers to
retain the visibility of the historic door behind it- N/A
A screen door should be sized to fit the original entrance
opening and the design should be of the appropriate style and
period of the building- N/A
Security doors are non-historic additions. If installed, they
should follow the guidelines for screen doors. N/A
Partially Complies
The proposed window
replacement is vinyl, not
wood, but it will be the
same 1/1 style. The existing
door is not original, and is
a metal clad door, the
applicant proposes to
replace with a similar type
door, but without
windows.
6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings to
solid wall.
Significantly increasing (or decreasing) the amount of glass
will negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
On traditional storefronts, first floors should be more
transparent than upper floors. N/A
Upper floors should appear more solid than first floors. N/A
- Avoid a blank wall appearance that does not provide interest
to pedestrians. Note, however, that the side wall of a historic
building located on a corner will have fewer openings. N/A
Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate on residential
structures and on the upper floors and sides of commercial
buildings.
If necessary, divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows
that are in scale with those seen traditionally
Complies
The applicant is proposing
to remove one window
located on the front façade.
Based on the framing that
exists, it is believed that
the three-window pattern
is not original to the home.
The resource survey also
notes that windows have
been resized and replaced.
6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing.
• Do not remove original details from a porch. These include the
columns, balustrade, and any decorative brackets that may
exist.
Maintain the existing location, shape, details, and columns of
the porch.
Does not comply
The house previously had
had an extended overhang
of the roof that is used to
make a porch. The
applicant demolished the
existing overhang. There is
Page 41 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 7 of 9
Missing or deteriorated decorative elements should be
replaced with new wood, milled to match existing elements.
Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when
replacing missing ones. N/A
Unless used historically, wrought iron porch posts and
columns are inappropriate- N/A
Where an historic porch does not meet current code
requirements and alterations are needed or required, then
retrofit it to meet the code, while also preserving original
features. Do not replace a porch that can otherwise be
modified to meet code requirements- N/A
A missing porch and its steps should be reconstructed, using
photographic documentation and historical research, to be
compatible in design and detail with the period and style of
the building- N/A
Most precast concrete steps are not acceptable alternatives for
primary façade porches- N/A
• Construction of a new non-original porch is usually
inappropriate.
The construction of a non-original second or third level porch,
balcony, deck, or sun porch on the roof of an existing front
porch is inappropriate- N/A
no information to show
that this is not the original
design, and this style
porch is present in other
minimal traditionalist
homes. A different style
porch is not historically
accurate, but the porch
proposed can typically be
found on other minimal
traditionalist homes
CHAPTER 8 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.36 A new parking pad, carport, or garage should be located to the
side or rear of a lot, and detached from the main structure.
Consider providing only ribbon paving. This will reduce
visual impacts—as well as allow more drainage through soils.
N/A
Consider sharing a single drive and curb cut where multiple
driveways are needed. N/A
A driveway should lead directly from the street to the parking
area.
A parking pad located in the front of a residence is
inappropriate.
Partially Complies
They will be adding the
carport to the west façade
of the home, but it will be
attached to the home.
8.37 Preserve an historic garage or outbuilding structure when
feasible.
Use the garage for parking. It may be appropriate to alter an
historic garage to accommodate contemporary vehicles. N/A
Garage doors visible from the street:
Complies
The carport will utilize
wood posts and the same
roofing material as the
home.
Page 42 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 8 of 9
o Repair rather than replace original or historic doors
that are significant to the character of the garage, if
technically feasible.
o If repair of historic garage doors is not technically
feasible, new replacement doors may be approved if
they duplicate the existing size, shape, proportion,
profiles, hardware, details, glazing, panel type and
design, and operation, and fit within the existing
opening.
New garages or carports must be compatible in style, size,
material, roof profile, and details with the historic principle
building on the lot.
Siding on garages should match the cover material on houses,
except that wood siding is acceptable in cases where the house
is constructed of masonry.
Avoid demolition. See UDC Section 3.13 for any proposed
demolition in the Overlay Districts. N/A
In some cases, it may be appropriate to reposition the historic
garage on its original site in order to accommodate other
needs. N/A
Also incorporate on-street parking spaces in calculations for
parking needs, where allowed by HARC. See UDC Section
9.02.060. N/A
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1.The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
Complies
2.Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3.Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
4.Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
5.The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the
building, structure or site is preserved;
Complies
Page 43 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-036] – 804 E. 4th Street Page 9 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
6.New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with
surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7.The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is
protected; and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay
district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed addition of the porch does not comply with the Design Guidelines,
specifically section 6.25, “construction of a new non-original porch is usually inappropriate, and maintain the
existing location, shape, details, and columns of the porch.” However, the proposed porch is contextually
appropriate and is a typical porch seen historically in similar style homes.
The Design Guidelines specifically say to not use synthetic siding materials, however replacing the
existing siding with hardie would be an improvement from the current materials and would be more
visually appealing. Removing the existing non-historic siding meets the guidelines, and the proposed
hardie material could create the same visual effect that a wood siding would have.
The request to alter the non-original window openings to allow for fewer windows is a change to closer
to what was original, and would not significantly impact the historic character of the façade. The
applicant has shown that three windows in that location were most likely not original to the home. The
replacement of the vinyl windows will not reduce the integrity of the structure, and the guidelines call
the use of wood “preferred”. The Design Guidelines prioritize wood windows, however fibrex composite
windows would provide a similar profile and be an improvement from vinyl windows.
Staff recommends approval of the alteration of the porch, the removal of one window, the addition of
wood windows, the replacement of siding using original material, and the addition of the carport.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 44 of 110
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Ap p ropriatenes s (COA) for a
p ro p o s ed infill d evelopment fo r the p ro p erty lo c ated at 109 2nd Street b earing the legal desc rip tion of
0.704 ac. Geo rgeto wn, City o f, Blo ck 2, Lot 5-7 (P t)8 & Aband o ned Rd., and 0.582 ac . Geo rgeto wn, City
o f, Blo ck 2, Lo t 2-4 & P t Ab andoned Rd ., (C OA-2018-041). Mad is o n Tho mas , His to ric and Downto wn
Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to c o nstruc t a three s to ry mixed-us e build ing on the empty lo ts at 109 and 101
2nd St. Thes e lo ts are zoned Mixed -Use Downtown, and loc ated in Area 2 o f the Downto wn Overlay. The
p ro p o s ed us es inc lude tenant (c o mmercial) s pac e and c o vered p arking o n the firs t flo o r, sec o nd flo o r
o ffice s p ace and multi-family on the third flo o r.
Per the ap p licant, the design is meant to be reflective of his to ric warehous e s truc ture, us ing rec laimed b ric k
and s teel framed arc hed windows . A sto refront is p laced on the firs t faç ade ad jacent to Aus tin Ave., with a
three sto ry entry to wer, and a rec es s ed third floor.
HARC Review:
-New build ing c ons tructio n (infill d evelopment)
HP O/Site Plan Review
-Site layo ut
-Land s caping
-Sidewalk d es ign
-Parking
The Histo ric and Arc hitectural Review Commis s io n reviewed a conceptual vers io n o f this p ro ject in Augus t
2018. The Co mmis s io n p ro vided feed b ack o n the s outh elevation and 2nd S treet faç ad es . Bec ause the
ap p licant intend s to exp and the south faç ade in future p hases, the ap p licant did not provid e arc hitectural
elements or create mo d ulatio n o n the entry tower faç ad e. T he Commission and ap p licant d is cus s ed the
p o tential o f us ing a mural to meet Do wntown and Old Town Design Guidelines p o licy 13.6, c reating a
b uilding mo dule that is 30’ in wid th. As desc ribed in further d etailed in the Unified Development Code
(UDC), Chap ter 7, this can be acc o mp lis hed through s etb acks of the building p lane, material c hanges
and/o r us e of arc hitectural elements .
The Commiss io n and ap p licant als o disc ussed des ign cons id erations for both the eas t and no rth fac ad es
given their orientation to the San Gabriel River Park trails . T he ap p licant has revis ed the eas t façade to
inc lude mo re b ric k material at the ed ges o f the faç ad e to help break up the exp ans ive stuc co façade, the
eas t façade no w has an exterio r staircase, to rep lic ate typic al his toric al wareho us e elements , p er the
ap p licant.
Staff reviewed and provid ed an analysis o f the plans and spec ificatio ns p rovid ed by the ap p licant fo llo wing
the c o nc ep tual review whic h are attac hed to this rep o rt as Exhib it 3.a. – Plans and S p ecific ations (original).
In this report you will find analysis o f the o riginal s ubmission. Since completing this s taff report, the
ap p licant p rovid ed up d ated d rawings, attac hed as Exhibit 3.b. –P lans and S p ec ific ations (up d ated). The
updates include mo d ificatio ns to the south and north facades to ad d res s artic ulatio n req uirements not
ad d res s ed in the original s ubmission. Staff has not reviewed the up d ated drawings but will b e prepared to
ad d res s those up d ates at the Co mmis s io n meeting.
Page 45 of 110
Staff rec o mmend s approval of the projec t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 3.a - Plans and Speifications (original)Exhibit
Exhibit 3.b.- Plans and Speifications (updated)Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Staff Report Exhibit
Page 46 of 110
Page 47 of 110
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 NBS IH 35 FWY SB
S IH 35 FWY NB
EL
M
ST
E 7 T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
A
IN
S
T
A
SH
ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
SCENIC DR
E 5 TH ST
E 4 TH ST
E 2 N D S T
WE
S
T
S
T
N
C
O
L
LE
GE
S
T
E 6 TH ST
S
A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
E U N I V ER S IT Y AV E
W 8T H S T
PIN
E
ST
W 1 0 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11T H ST
N AUSTIN AVE
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
ENTR 262 SB
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
EMORRO W ST
T H O M A S C T
W 7T H S T
L O W ER PARKRD
W 3R D S T
PVR
ENTR 261 NB
WOLFRA N C H P K W Y
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
EXIT 261 S B
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
TH
E
R
K
I
N
G JR
S
T
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
N
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
WILLIAMS DR
N
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
SOUTHWESTE R N BLVD
R I V E R O A K S C V
E V A LL E Y S T
E 8 T H S T
W M OR R O W S T
A LLY
S M I T H C R E E K R D
C
H
A
M
B
E
R
W
A
Y
HINTZ RD
WE
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
W 5T H S T
R I V E R HILLSDR
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
N
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
N
MA
IN
S
T
W U N I V E RSI TY AV E
SO ULE D R
E 3 R D S T
W 9T H S T
R
I
V
E
R
YDRIVEWAY
BLU E HOLE PARK RD
RIV E R SID E D R
WSPRI N G S T
B R E N D ON L EE L N
RAILROADAVE
W 2 N D S T
J
O
H
N
C
A
R
T
E
R
D
R
W O O D L A WNAVE
E R U T ERSVIL
L
E
D
R
E 9 TH ST
R
U
C
K
E
R
S
T M C K E N Z I E D R
S A N G A B R I E L V I L LAG
E
B
L
V
D
R E T R E A
T
P
L
WATE R S E D G
E
C
I
R
E 9 TH 1 /2 S T
HERSHEY AVE
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
E 9 T H S T
E 3 R D S T
PIN
E
ST
WE
S
T
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 8 TH ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 2N D S T
COA-2018-041Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Page 48 of 110
150 E. Main St., Suite 201 Fredericksburg, TX 78624 t. 830.997.7024 f.830-990-8424 www.mustarddesign.net
July 20, 2018
City of Georgetown, Planning and Development Services
Historic and Architectural Review Commission- (CoA)
Regarding: Riverplace Georgetown - Certificate of Appropriateness
101 2nd street (Northeast corner of S. Austin Ave. & 2nd Street)
Georgetown, TX
Owner Information: WAAPF Properties
Austin Pfiester
Email: austinpfiester@yahoo.com
Project Summary:
We are proposing the design of a new three story mixed use building on the town lot located at
the northwest corner of Austin avenue and 2nd street. The lot is undeveloped, has some existing
trees and is bordered by the South San Gabriel River Trail on the north, Austin avenue on the west,
2nd street on the south and residential area to the east.
The design vision for the new three-story building is that of a reclaimed brick warehouse structure
that includes a street level storefront with decorative awnings, steel framed windows on the
second story for the office occupants and multi-family units set back off the building façade
resting on the third floor. The entry tower will include the vertical circulation, commons lobby and
be clad in a reclaimed brick of an accent color range to signify entrance. The main building
entrance is proposed to be a dark storefront with vision glass, decorative awning for shading and
protection and steel framed windows for the upper stories to complete the warehouse style of the
building.
The second floor of the main building along Austin avenue is proposed to be a reclaimed brick
veneer, steel framed windows with arched tops and arched brick work to provide detailing and
articulation for the scale of the building façade.
The third floor is designed to be a modern top to the reclaimed brick veneer building and will be
clad with a horizontal ribbed pre-finished metal panel. A limited number of multi-family units will
be set back from the building façade to allow for private outdoor patios, a public rooftop patio
and covered steel canopies.
The material selection of the building will coordinate well with existing buildings, El Monumento
restaurant is to the west of our building site and provides for a similar aesthetic with brick veneer
and a steel framed window appearance. The scale of the building meets with the development
code guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our project for your review.
Andrew Bray, AIA
Principal Architect
Texas Registered Architect #18754
Page 49 of 110
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s
Cover Sheet - HARC Submittal
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
PERSPECTIVE VIEW ALONG AUSTIN AVENUE
Page 50 of 110
696
697
6
9
8
699
701
702
703
704
699
6
9
9
699
698
697
696
6 9 4
6 9 3692
6 9 4
696
697
6 9 9
701
701
7 0 2
7 0 3 704
7 0 6
7 0 1
6 9 9
698
6 9 7
694
693692691
689688
6876
8
7
6
8
8
6
8
9
6
9
1
6
9
2
6
9
3
6
9
4
UP
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
G
G
G G G
G
GGG
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
G
G
G G G G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGG
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
O H E
O H E
O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E
S
S
S S S S S S S S SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
G GGGG
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
2 N D S T
1
0
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
PHASE 1
1st FLOOR: COVERED PARKING FACILITY
2nd FLOOR: OFFICE
3rd FLOOR: MULTI-FAMILY
SCREENED DUMPSTER
ENCLOSURE
14
EXTEND SIDEWALK
W
W
W
W
W
W
FINISH FLOOR
699.00
21 PARKING SPACES
100 YEAR FLOOD
PLAIN EXTENT
10'X20' WASTEWATER EASEMENT,
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
N 88°48'19"E 140.02'
S
0
1
°
14
'
3
5
"
E
1
7
9
.
9
3
'
S 88°46'00"W 240.00'
N
0
1
°
13
'
0
8
"
W
2
4
0
.
8
4
'
S
0
1
°
15
'
5
1
"
E
6
0
.
0
4
'
N 88°34'29"E 14.95'
N 7 7 °1 8 '0 2 "E 5 0 .8 9 '
N
0
1
°
03
'
1
8
"
W
4
4
.
8
8
'
S 89°55'16"E 34.88'
138
137
132
131
133
134
135136
140
9
SIDEWALK
139
REMOTE
FDC
ACCESSIBLE
CROSSWALK
FIRE
67' - 0"5' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
11
6
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
5
"
15
0
'
-
0
"
TYP
9' - 0"
SIDEWALK
121' - 0 1/2"
EGRESS
FI
R
E
L
A
N
E
FI
R
E
L
A
N
E
PAD MOUNTED
TRANSFORMER
OUTDOOR MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
PATTERN INDICATES
PERVIOUS PAVERS
136' - 8"
99' - 0"
136' - 8"
NO OFFSET REQUIRED
116' - 0"
20' - 8"
NO OFFSET REQUIRED
56' - 8"
NO OFFSET REQUIRED
59' - 4"
20' - 8"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
35' - 0"
ZONING:
ZONED:
PROPOSED USE:
MIN. ALLOWABLE LOT AREA:
TOTAL LOT AREA:
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:
STREET SIDE YARD:
INTERIOR SIDE YARD:
REAR SIDE YARD:
MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
LOT SIZE
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
BUILDING
PAVING / WALKS
PERVIOUS COVERAGE:
LANDSCAPE AREA:
*IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE AT THIS PHASE
AXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:
MAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:
MU - DT
OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NO MINIMUM REQUIRED
56,142 SF (1.29 ACRE)
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
70% = (56,142 *.70) = 39,299 SF ALLOWABLE
OF GEORGETOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
17,591 SF
56,142 SF (1.29 ACRE)
17,591 SQFT (31%)
BUILDING 10,386 SQFT
PAVING / WALKS 7,205 SQFT
38,551 SQFT (69%)
LANDSCAPE AREA:34,815 SQFT
PERVIOUS PAVERS 3,736 SQFT
40' - 0"
3 STORY - 40'-0"
PARKING ANALYSIS: BUILDING 1
2 STORY OFFICE BUILDING
9,800 / 500 GFA OFFICE = 20 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
9,800 / 333 GSF OFFICE = 29 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER OWNER REQUIREMENT
3RD STORY RESIDENTIAL
7 1-BEDROOM UNITS
7 * 1.5 = 11 PARKING SPACES AND 1 ACCESSIBLE SPACE REQUIRED + ADDITIONAL 5% =13
SPACES REQUIRED
OFFICE BUILDING: 20 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL: 13 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
TOTAL: 33 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL: 42 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER OWNER REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 44 SPACES
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
Conceptual Site Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
N
0'20'50'100'SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
SITE PLAN
Page 51 of 110
UP
UP
03
04
05 05
02
06
A
AB
BC
C
D
D
13
14
15
16
F
F
E
COVERED PARKING
STRUCTURE
TENANT SPACE
RR
STAIR #2
STAIR #1ELEV
FIRE
LOBBY
MECH / ELEC
MISC
01 01
5
1
/
2
"
20
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
6"
29
'
-
6
"
28
'
-
0
"
28
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
6
"
6"
13
6
'
-
8
"
6"28' - 2"14' - 2"2' - 10"29' - 0"17' - 0"6"
99' - 0"
6"
19
'
-
1
0
"
18
'
-
8
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
3'
-
0
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
35' - 0"64' - 0"
TYP
9' - 0"
TYP
18' - 0"
HC
HC
17' - 0"29' - 0"17' - 0"
116' - 0"
20' - 8"
56' - 8"
59' - 4"
20' - 8"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
99' - 0"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual First Floor Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
N
4'08'16'
Page 52 of 110
DW
UP
03
04
05 05
02
06 06
A
AB
BC
C
D
D
13
14
15
16
F
F
E
01
LARGE OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
WORKROOM
CONFERENCE
OPEN OFFICE
CORRIDOR
BREAKROOM
MEN'S
WOMEN'S
2-MW
RE
F
TENANT
SPACE
STAIR #1
LOBBY
STOR.
LARGE OFFICE
STOR / ELEC / MISC
TEMPORARY
PARTITIONS
FUTURE
PARTITION
RECEPTION
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
20
'
-
8
"
11
6
'
-
0
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
6"6' - 4"6"28' - 2"14' - 2"2' - 10"29' - 0"17' - 0"6"
99' - 0"
20
'
-
8
"
6"
19
'
-
1
0
"
18
'
-
8
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
6"
26
'
-
8
"
30
'
-
0
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
17' - 6"29' - 0"17' - 6"
ELEV
LARGE OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
6"
29
'
-
6
"
28
'
-
0
"
28
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
6
"
6"
20
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
5
1
/
2
"
35' - 0"64' - 0"
56
'
-
8
"
59
'
-
4
"
20
'
-
8
"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
99' - 0"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Second Floor Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
DASHED LINES INDICATE FUTURE
TENANT FINISH OUT
N
4'08'16'
Page 53 of 110
LOBBY
OFFICE ROOF
DECK
PRIVATE
PATIO
STAIR #2
RESIDENTIAL ROOF
DECK
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
STUDIO UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
STUDIO UNIT
7' - 0"28' - 0"5' - 6"6' - 0"5' - 6"36' - 0"
1'
-
0
"
19
'
-
3
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
4'
-
3
"
1'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
16
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
1'
-
0
"
1' - 0"17' - 0"36' - 0"10' - 0"
11
6
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
8
"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
99' - 0"
20
'
-
8
"
59
'
-
4
"
56
'
-
8
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
TY
P
.
9'
-
0
"
64' - 0"
99' - 0"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Third Floor Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
DASHED LINES INDICATE FUTURE
TENANT FINISH OUT
N
4'08'16'
Page 54 of 110
34' - 0"
44' - 0"44' - 0"
34' - 0"
34' - 0"
39' - 2"
44' - 0"
44' - 0"
48' - 0"
48' - 0"
48' - 0"
44' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
40' - 7"
40' - 7"
46' - 0"
34' - 0"48' - 0"
40' - 8"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Roof Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
N
4'08'16'
Page 55 of 110
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
FIRST FLOOR
0"
SECOND FLOOR FF
15' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
FF=699.0
44' - 0"
T.O.PLATE=739.0
48' - 0"
34' - 0"
01
03
02
030405
02
06
06
05
0205
07
08
06
02
06
09
10
11
05 1213
10
13
16
19 18
FIRST FLOOR
0"
SECOND FLOOR FF
15' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
48' - 0"
01
03
02
02
06
06
05
10
06
11
06
10
02
06
08
07
14
120513 151216
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
Conceptual Elevations
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
4'08'16'
13 WINDOWS AND DOORS AT RESIDENTIAL
UNITS EQUAL TO PELLA ARCHITECT SERIES
CONTEMPORARY LINE, BLACK FINISH
14 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND
STUCCO, COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN
WILLIAMS WORLDLY GRAY SW7043
15 STEEL AND WOOD SLAT PATIO DIVIDER
16 METAL PANEL REVEAL
17 BRICK EXPANSION JOINT
18 STRUCTURAL STEEL EXTERIOR EGRESS
STAIR, PAINTED
19 4" x 4" WELDED WIRE MESH SCREEN
FENCING ON STEEL FRAME
20 PROPOSED MURAL/BANNER. IMAGE TO BE
DETERMINED
09 BRICK RECESSED DETAIL
10 CAST STONE BANDING
11 STRUCTURAL STEEL TRELLIS, PAINTED.
COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS
URBANE BRONZE SW7048
12 PRE-FINISHED METAL WALL PANEL, EQUAL
TO BERRIDGE HR-16 EXPOSED FASTENER
METAL WALL PANEL, COLOR SHALL BE
CHARCOAL GREY
04 BREAK METAL PANELED STOREFRONT
SYSTEM
05 STRUCTURAL STEEL AWNING, PAINTED.
COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS
URBANE BRONZE SW7048
06 BRICK BANDING
07 CHEROKEE BRICK CHICAGO USED HC GA
08 4" x 4" WELDED WIRE MESH SCREEN FOR
OPEN AIR VENTILATION TUBE STEEL
FRAME
01 CHEROKEE BRICK OLD WAREHOUSE 77 HC
MS MODULAR BRICK
02 ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM. RAM S800
HEAVY PICTURE WINDOWS WITH
SIMULATED DIVIDED TRADITIONAL LITES IN
BLACK FINISH
03 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM EQUAL
TO OLD CASTLE BUILDING ENVELOPE
FG-3000 STOREFRONT (2" X 4 1/2" ) W/1"
INSULATED GLAZING
FINISH: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Page 56 of 110
FIRST FLOOR
0"
SECOND FLOOR FF
15' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
48' - 0"
34' - 0"
44' - 0"
01
06
10
06
07
02
09
06
10
06
08
07
10
17
15
12
20
FIRST FLOOR
0"
SECOND FLOOR FF
15' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
48' - 0"
44' - 0"
02
09
06
10
15
12
11
06
08
06
06
06
05
05
07
07
10
12
17
17
19
18
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
44' - 0"
1205 13
11
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
1205 13 16
15
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
1211
15
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
Conceptual Elevations
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST RESIDENTIAL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST RESIDENTIAL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH TERRACE ELEVATION\
13 WINDOWS AND DOORS AT RESIDENTIAL
UNITS EQUAL TO PELLA ARCHITECT SERIES
CONTEMPORARY LINE, BLACK FINISH
14 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND
STUCCO, COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN
WILLIAMS WORLDLY GRAY SW7043
15 STEEL AND WOOD SLAT PATIO DIVIDER
16 METAL PANEL REVEAL
17 BRICK EXPANSION JOINT
18 STRUCTURAL STEEL EXTERIOR EGRESS
STAIR, PAINTED
19 4" x 4" WELDED WIRE MESH SCREEN
FENCING ON STEEL FRAME
20 PROPOSED MURAL/BANNER. IMAGE TO BE
DETERMINED
09 BRICK RECESSED DETAIL
10 CAST STONE BANDING
11 STRUCTURAL STEEL TRELLIS, PAINTED.
COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS
URBANE BRONZE SW7048
12 PRE-FINISHED METAL WALL PANEL, EQUAL
TO BERRIDGE HR-16 EXPOSED FASTENER
METAL WALL PANEL, COLOR SHALL BE
CHARCOAL GREY
04 BREAK METAL PANELED STOREFRONT
SYSTEM
05 STRUCTURAL STEEL AWNING, PAINTED.
COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS
URBANE BRONZE SW7048
06 BRICK BANDING
07 CHEROKEE BRICK CHICAGO USED HC GA
08 4" x 4" WELDED WIRE MESH SCREEN FOR
OPEN AIR VENTILATION TUBE STEEL
FRAME
01 CHEROKEE BRICK OLD WAREHOUSE 77 HC
MS MODULAR BRICK
02 ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM. RAM S800
HEAVY PICTURE WINDOWS WITH
SIMULATED DIVIDED TRADITIONAL LITES IN
BLACK FINISH
03 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM EQUAL
TO OLD CASTLE BUILDING ENVELOPE
FG-3000 STOREFRONT (2" X 4 1/2" ) W/1"
INSULATED GLAZING
FINISH: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM
Page 57 of 110
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s
Conceptual Perspectives
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
Street View
View to ParkingView From Street
Page 58 of 110
09.11.18
01
Tower Brick
Cherokee Brick - Old Warehouse 77 HC MS
07
Primary Field Brick
Cherokee Brick - Chicago Used HC GA
05, 08, 11
Typical paint color for painted steel.
Sherwin Williams
Urbane Bronze SW7048
12
Berridge
HR-16 Metal Wall Panel
Charcoal Grey
14
Stucco Color
Sherwin Williams
Worldly Gray SW7043
Typical Color for Stucco
04
Pre-finished Break Metal at Austin
Avenue storefront
08
Parking Structure Ventilation Screen
4x4 Welded Wire Mesh on PaintedTube Steel Frame
Page 59 of 110
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s
Cover Sheet - HARC Submittal
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
PERSPECTIVE VIEW ALONG AUSTIN AVENUE
Page 60 of 110
696
697
6
9
8
699
701
702
703
704
699
6
9
9
699
698
697
6
9
6
6 9 4
6 9 369
2
694
696
697
6 99
701
701
7 0 2
7 0 3 704
7 0 6
7 0 1
6 9 9
698
6 9 7
694
693692691
689688
6876
8
7
6
8
8
6
8
9
6
9
1
6
9
2
6
9
3
6
9
4
UP
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
G
G
G G G
G
GGG
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
G
G
G G G G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGG
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
O H E
O H E
O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E
S
S
S S S S S S S S SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
G GGGG
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
2 N D S T
1
0
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
PHASE 1
1st FLOOR: COVERED PARKING FACILITY
2nd FLOOR: OFFICE
3rd FLOOR: MULTI-FAMILY
SCREENED DUMPSTER
ENCLOSURE
14
EXTEND SIDEWALK
W
W
W
W
W
W
FINISH FLOOR
699.00
21 PARKING SPACES
100 YEAR FLOOD
PLAIN EXTENT
10'X20' WASTEWATER EASEMENT,
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
N 88°48'19"E 140.02'
S
0
1
°
14
'
3
5
"
E
1
7
9
.
9
3
'
S 88°46'00"W 240.00'
N
0
1
°
13
'
0
8
"
W
2
4
0
.
8
4
'
S
0
1
°
15
'
5
1
"
E
6
0
.
0
4
'
N 88°34'29"E 14.95'
N 7 7 °1 8 '0 2 "E 5 0 .8 9 '
N
0
1
°
03
'
1
8
"
W
4
4
.
8
8
'
S 89°55'16"E 34.88'
138
137
132
131
133
134
135136
140
9
SIDEWALK
139
REMOTE
FDC
ACCESSIBLE
CROSSWALK
FIRE
67' - 0"5' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
11
6
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
5
"
15
0
'
-
0
"
TYP
9'
- 0"
SIDEWALK
121' - 0 1/2"
EGRESS
FI
R
E
L
A
N
E
FI
R
E
L
A
N
E
PAD MOUNTED
TRANSFORMER
OUTDOOR MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
PATTERN INDICATES
PERVIOUS PAVERS
136'
- 8"
99' - 0"
136'
- 8"
NO OFFSET REQUIRED
116'
- 0"
20'
- 8"
NO OFFSET REQUIRED
56'
- 8"
NO OFFSET REQUIRED
59'
- 4"
20'
- 8"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
35' - 0"
ZONING:
ZONED:
PROPOSED USE:
MIN. ALLOWABLE LOT AREA:
TOTAL LOT AREA:
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:
STREET SIDE YARD:
INTERIOR SIDE YARD:
REAR SIDE YARD:
MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
LOT SIZE
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
BUILDING
PAVING / WALKS
PERVIOUS COVERAGE:
LANDSCAPE AREA:
*IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE AT THIS PHASE
AXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:
MAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:
MU - DT
OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NO MINIMUM REQUIRED
56,142 SF (1.29 ACRE)
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
70% = (56,142 *.70) = 39,299 SF ALLOWABLE
OF GEORGETOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
17,591 SF
56,142 SF (1.29 ACRE)
17,591 SQFT (31%)
BUILDING 10,386 SQFT
PAVING / WALKS 7,205 SQFT
38,551 SQFT (69%)
LANDSCAPE AREA:34,815 SQFT
PERVIOUS PAVERS 3,736 SQFT
40' - 0"
3 STORY - 40'-0"
PARKING ANALYSIS: BUILDING 1
2 STORY OFFICE BUILDING
9,800 / 500 GFA OFFICE = 20 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
9,800 / 333 GSF OFFICE = 29 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER OWNER REQUIREMENT
3RD STORY RESIDENTIAL
7 1-BEDROOM UNITS
7 * 1.5 = 11 PARKING SPACES AND 1 ACCESSIBLE SPACE REQUIRED + ADDITIONAL 5% =13
SPACES REQUIRED
OFFICE BUILDING: 20 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL: 13 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
TOTAL: 33 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL: 42 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER OWNER REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 44 SPACES
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
Conceptual Site Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
N
0'20'50'100'SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
SITE PLAN
Page 61 of 110
UP
UP
03
04
05 05
02
06
A
AB
BC
C
D
D
13
14
15
16
F
F
E
COVERED PARKING
STRUCTURE
TENANT SPACE
RR
STAIR #2
STAIR #1ELEV
FIRE
LOBBY
MECH / ELEC
MISC
01 01
5
1
/
2
"
20
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
6"
29
'
-
6
"
28
'
-
0
"
28
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
6
"
6"
13
6
'
-
8
"
6"28' - 2"14' - 2"2' - 10"29' - 0"17' - 0"6"
99' - 0"
6"
19
'
-
1
0
"
18
'
-
8
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
3'
-
0
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
35' - 0"64' - 0"
TYP
9'
- 0"
TYP
18' - 0"
HC
HC
17' - 0"29' - 0"17' - 0"
116'
- 0"
20'
- 8"
56'
- 8"
59'
- 4"
20'
- 8"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
99' - 0"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual First Floor Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
N
4'08'16'
Page 62 of 110
DW
UP
03
04
05 05
02
06 06
A
AB
BC
C
D
D
13
14
15
16
F
F
E
01
LARGE OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
WORKROOM
CONFERENCE
OPEN OFFICE
CORRIDOR
BREAKROOM
MEN'S
WOMEN'S
2-MW
RE
F
TENANT
SPACE
STAIR #1
LOBBY
STOR.
LARGE OFFICE
STOR / ELEC / MISC
TEMPORARY
PARTITIONS
FUTURE
PARTITION
RECEPTION
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
20
'
-
8
"
11
6
'
-
0
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
6"6' - 4"6"28' - 2"14' - 2"2' - 10"29' - 0"17' - 0"6"
99' - 0"
20
'
-
8
"
6"
19
'
-
1
0
"
18
'
-
8
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
6"
26
'
-
8
"
30
'
-
0
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
17' - 6"29' - 0"17' - 6"
ELEV
LARGE OFFICE
LARGE OFFICE
6"
29
'
-
6
"
28
'
-
0
"
28
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
6
"
6"
20
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
5
1
/
2
"
35' - 0"64' - 0"
56
'
-
8
"
59
'
-
4
"
20
'
-
8
"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
99' - 0"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Second Floor Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
DASHED LINES INDICATE FUTURE
TENANT FINISH OUT
N
4'08'16'
Page 63 of 110
LOBBY
OFFICE ROOF
DECK
PRIVATE
PATIO
STAIR #2
RESIDENTIAL ROOF
DECK
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
PRIVATE
PATIO
STUDIO UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
1-BEDROOM
UNIT
STUDIO UNIT
7' - 0"28' - 0"5' - 6"6' - 0"5' - 6"36' - 0"
1'
-
0
"
19
'
-
3
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
4'
-
3
"
1'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
1
1
/
2
"
16
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
1'
-
0
"
1' - 0"17' - 0"36' - 0"10' - 0"
11
6
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
8
"
6' - 10"42' - 10"49' - 4"
99' - 0"
20
'
-
8
"
59
'
-
4
"
56
'
-
8
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
13
6
'
-
8
"
TY
P
.
9'
-
0
"
64' - 0"
99' - 0"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Third Floor Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
DASHED LINES INDICATE FUTURE
TENANT FINISH OUT
N
4'08'16'
Page 64 of 110
34' - 0"
44' - 0"44' - 0"
34' - 0"
34' - 0"
39' - 2"
44' - 0"
44' - 0"
48' - 0"
48' - 0"
48' - 0"
44' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
40' - 7"
40' - 7"
46' - 0"
34' - 0"48' - 0"
40' - 8"
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s 1/8" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Roof Plan
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
N
4'08'16'
Page 65 of 110
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
FIRST FLOOR
0"
SECOND FLOOR FF
15' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
FF=699.0
44' - 0"
T.O.PLATE=739.0
48' - 0"
34' - 0"
01
03
02
030405
02
06
06
05
0205
07
08
06
02
06
09
10
11
05 1213
10
13
16
19 18
FIRST FLOOR
0"
SECOND FLOOR FF
15' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR FF
30' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
40' - 0"
48' - 0"
01
03
02
02
06
06
05
10
06
11
06
10
02
06
08
07
14
120513 151216
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
Conceptual Elevations
Riverplace Georgetown
09.11.18
4'08'16'
13 WINDOWS AND DOORS AT RESIDENTIAL
UNITS EQUAL TO PELLA ARCHITECT SERIES
CONTEMPORARY LINE, BLACK FINISH
14 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND
STUCCO, COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN
WILLIAMS WORLDLY GRAY SW7043
15 STEEL AND WOOD SLAT PATIO DIVIDER
16 METAL PANEL REVEAL
17 BRICK EXPANSION JOINT
18 STRUCTURAL STEEL EXTERIOR EGRESS
STAIR, PAINTED
19 4" x 4" WELDED WIRE MESH SCREEN
FENCING ON STEEL FRAME
20 PROPOSED MURAL/BANNER. IMAGE TO BE
DETERMINED
09 BRICK RECESSED DETAIL
10 CAST STONE BANDING
11 STRUCTURAL STEEL TRELLIS, PAINTED.
COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS
URBANE BRONZE SW7048
12 PRE-FINISHED METAL WALL PANEL, EQUAL
TO BERRIDGE HR-16 EXPOSED FASTENER
METAL WALL PANEL, COLOR SHALL BE
CHARCOAL GREY
04 BREAK METAL PANELED STOREFRONT
SYSTEM
05 STRUCTURAL STEEL AWNING, PAINTED.
COLOR SHALL BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS
URBANE BRONZE SW7048
06 BRICK BANDING
07 CHEROKEE BRICK CHICAGO USED HC GA
08 4" x 4" WELDED WIRE MESH SCREEN FOR
OPEN AIR VENTILATION TUBE STEEL
FRAME
01 CHEROKEE BRICK OLD WAREHOUSE 77 HC
MS MODULAR BRICK
02 ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM. RAM S800
HEAVY PICTURE WINDOWS WITH
SIMULATED DIVIDED TRADITIONAL LITES IN
BLACK FINISH
03 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM EQUAL
TO OLD CASTLE BUILDING ENVELOPE
FG-3000 STOREFRONT (2" X 4 1/2" ) W/1"
INSULATED GLAZING
FINISH: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Page 66 of 110
Page 67 of 110
Page 68 of 110
SCALE:
mustardD E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
ANDREW BRAY
18754
a r c h i t e c t s
Conceptual Perspectives
Riverplace Georgetown
09.17.18
Street View
View to ParkingView From Street
Page 69 of 110
09.11.18
01
Tower Brick
Cherokee Brick - Old Warehouse 77 HC MS
07
Primary Field Brick
Cherokee Brick - Chicago Used HC GA
05, 08, 11
Typical paint color for painted steel.
Sherwin Williams
Urbane Bronze SW7048
12
Berridge
HR-16 Metal Wall Panel
Charcoal Grey
14
Stucco Color
Sherwin Williams
Worldly Gray SW7043
Typical Color for Stucco
04
Pre-finished Break Metal at Austin
Avenue storefront
08
Parking Structure Ventilation Screen
4x4 Welded Wire Mesh on PaintedTube Steel Frame
Page 70 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 1 of 11
Meeting Date: 8/23/2018
File Number: COA-2018-041
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Conceptual Review for a proposed infill development for the property located at 109 and 101 2nd Street
bearing the legal description of 0.704 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 5 -7 (Pt)8 & Abandoned Rd.,
and 0.582 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt Abandoned Rd., (COA-2018-035). Madison
Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Riverplace Georgetown
Applicant: Austin Pfiester, Dtown Gtown, LLC
Property Owner: WAAPF Properties, LLC
Property Address: 101 2nd Street
Legal Description: 0.704 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 5-7 (Pt)8 & Abandoned Rd., and 0.582
ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt Abandoned Rd
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay, Area 2
Case History: 8/23/2018 Conceptual Review
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to construct a three story mixed-use building on the empty lots at 109 and
101 2nd St. These lots are zoned Mixed-Use Downtown, and located in Area 2 of the Downtown
Overlay. The proposed uses include tenant (commercial) space and covered parking on the first floor,
second floor office space and multi-family on the third floor.
Per the applicant, the design is meant to be reflective of historic warehouse structure, using reclaimed
brick and steel framed arched windows. A storefront is placed on the first façade adjacent to Austin Ave.,
with a three story entry tower, and a recessed third floor.
HARC Review:
-New building construction (infill development)
HPO/Site Plan Review
-Site layout
-Landscaping
-Sidewalk design
-Parking
Page 71 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 2 of 11
HARC Conceptual Review Summary
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission reviewed a conceptual version of this project in
August 2018. The Commission provided feedback on the south elevation and 2nd Street façades.
Because the applicant intends to expand the south façade in future phases, the applicant did not
provide architectural elements or create modulation on the entry tower façade. The Commission and
applicant discussed the potential of using a mural to meet Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines policy 13.6, creating a building module that is 30’ in width. As described in further detailed
in the Unified Development Code (UDC), Chapter 7, this can be accomplished through setbacks of the
building plane, material changes and/or use of architectural elements.
The Commission and applicant also discussed design considerations for both the east and north
facades given their orientation to the San Gabriel River Park trails. The applicant has revised the east
façade to include more brick material at the edges of the façade to help break up the expansive stucco
façade, the east façade now has an exterior staircase, to replicate typical historical warehouse elements,
per the applicant.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed and provided an analysis of the plans and specifications provided by the applicant
following the conceptual review which are attached to this report as Exhibit 3.a. – Plans and
Specifications (original). In this report you will find analysis of the original submission. Since
completing this staff report, the applicant provided updated drawings, attached as Exhibit 3.b. –Plans
and Specifications (updated). The updates include modifications to the south and north facades to
address articulation requirements not addressed in the original submission. Staff has not reviewed the
updated drawings but will be prepared to address those updates at the Commission meeting.
According to the Downtown and Old Town Guidelines, Area 2 “should continue to develop with a mix of
uses and improvements should occur in a manner that enhances the experience for pedestrians and to build a
sense of visual relatedness among properties. Development should include a mix of building types, including older
structures and more contemporary ones. Each should reflect the design trends of its own time, while also
contributing to a sense of visual continuity and strengthening the pedestrian experience. In addition, a
combination of uses is encouraged, including residential, office, and retail.”
As described in Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines, the design goals for Area 2 are:
• To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians.
• To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscape design that can be understood by
pedestrians.
• To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles.
• To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths.
• Retain native vegetation with project design.
• Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately converted
residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain.
Page 72 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 3 of 11
• To utilize similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks.
Siting and General Design
The proposed structure will be located in the northwest corner of a 1.29 acre lot, with potential for
future phases to be located in the southwest and southeast corners The height of the structure reflects
typical historic two-story commercial buildings, seen in area 1 of the Downtown Overlay as well as
design aspects reflective of historic warehouse structures including arched windows, brick materials
and exposed metal stairwells. The building has a three story entry tower at the northwest corner of the
building, as well as a smaller, recessed third floor.
The west façade runs parallel of Austin Ave. and the southern bridge section. The design creates a
pedestrian friendly façade of the portion of Austin Ave. through the incorporation of varying building
materials and height (3rd floor), window designs, and architectural elements which include metal
screens, multiple window designs, canopies and storefronts. The first floor includes a storefront façade
to support retail use, with the northeast portion of the façade stepped back, following the lot line which
is adjacent to the bridge. The proposed building front is aligned at the property edge and is visible
from both Austin Ave and 2nd Street. Where the building runs along the bridge and isn’t located
adjacent to the sidewalk, landscaping and a physical setback has been used to create a barrier between
the pedestrian area and vehicle area to guide pedestrians down the street. The west and south facades
share a stairwell/elevator tower which measures 48’ (includes a required 2’ parapet), which is allowable
under the Unified Development Code Sec. 7.02.030. Bulkheads, elevator, water tanks or any other
similar structure extending above the roof of any building where such structure does not occupy more
than thirty-three percent (33%) of the area of the roof are exempt from height requirements. e. The 3rd
floor residential component, measures 44’ (40’ 7” at the top of the roof, 3’5” of parapet). The applicant
has been advised to seek an Administrative Exception for compliance.
Materials
The design has incorporated multiple materials which are common in the Downtown Overlay and in
particular Area 1. These materials also reinforce a sense of human scale. The development includes
makes us of two different types of brick, metal framed storefronts, aluminum windows, steel stairs,
metal screens, etc. helping create a historic warehouse appearance. The placement of materials on the
structure help express a traditional building and lot width.
West Elevation
The west elevation which faces Austin Ave. is approximately 135’ in length. The façade is broken up in
three separate sections by the two different heights provided along the same plane, then eight modules
expressed through the incorporation of architectural elements and material changes (glass and steel).
The building has been recessed twice at different distances, and the architectural elements of large
storefront windows are used to visually define additional modulation. The primary entrance is located
on this façade, designed to encourage pedestrian activity with the storefronts.
East Elevation
Page 73 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 4 of 11
The east elevation, the rear of the building, faces property owned by the City of Georgetown which is
used for water detention and park access. It is also 135’ in length and has two footprint changes. The
main portion of the structure is restricted in two ways (1) use as a parking garage, and (2) the layout of
the property, which is stepped back adjacent to the Austin Ave. Bridge with the rear portion of the
structure narrowing to 65’ in width. Approximately 116’ of this portion of the structure is on a single
horizontal and vertical two-story plane. An approximate 50’ setback occurs to accommodate the entry
tower. The long portion of the structure uses windows, the steel parking frames and a stucco design to
create columns and promote a modulation affect. During the conceptual review, the Commission
requested additional modulation to this façade. The applicant responded by adding brick columns at
the edges of the façade and expanding them.
South Elevation
The south elevation faces 2nd street, is significantly setback from the street. This façade is broken into two
portions, the brick entry tower and a slightly recessed portion which houses the proposed parking garage
and its entrance. The recessed portion has the metal scree ns, windows, brick detail, brick banding and
stone banding. The brick entry tower also has brick banding, but does not meet Design Guidelines 13.3
or 13.6 which seek a traditional lot width modular effect and avoidance of a plain wall. Staff and the
Commission expressed concerns for this lack of modulation and detail, however the applicant did share
plans for a future structure which may attach to this facade. Because of the high visibility of this façade
from the street, the Commission suggested and since the conceptual review, the applicant has expressed
some concern about using a mural on the south façade. Staff and the applicant have discussed the criteria
outlined in UDC Sec. 7.03.070. and the applicant has been advised to seek conformance through the
Administrative Exception (Alternative Building Design).
North Elevation
The north elevation faces the San Gabriel river and park and will be visible from Austin Ave. This façade
has two distinct parts, the portion closer to the bridge which houses the parking garage and office space,
and the recessed portion where the staircase is located. The entire façade will be solid brick, with brick
banding and details. The façade closer to the park will have metal screens at the parking garage level,
windows on the second floor. The recessed portion will have an exterior metal staircase. This park and
arterial oriented façade includes multiple architectural features including an open staircase, two window
types and brick banding. Modulation occurs 1/3rd along the plane.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to the style
of the building is encouraged.
Complies
Page 74 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 5 of 11
Operable awnings are encouraged on historic buildings. N/A
Use colors that are compatible with the overall color scheme
of the facade. Solid colors or simple, muted-stripe patterns
are appropriate.
The awning should fit the opening of the building.
Simple shed shapes are appropriate for rectangular
openings.
Odd shapes, bullnose awnings, and bubble awnings are
inappropriate on most historic structures.
The new metal awnings are
compatible with the structure
and reflect the design of
awnings typically found on
commercial historic
structures.
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-mounted
brackets, chains, and posts.
Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those
canopies seen historically.
Complies
The metal canopies are
proposed over the entry
doors and some of the
ground floor windows.
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining
features.
It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be
found above the storefront and should not hide character-
defining features.
Its mounting should not damage significant features and
historic details.
Complies
Multiple metal canopies are
used to enhance the
pedestrian scale.
CHAPTER 13 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION IN AREA
2- DOWNTOWN OVERLAY HISTORIC DISTRICT
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line.
Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.
A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property shall
have a building wall at the sidewalk edge.
Where no sidewalk exists one should be installed that aligns
with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
Sidewalks will be required at
the site plan stage of the
project. Potential future
phases will place additional
structures on the property
along street edges.
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back, define the edge
of the property with landscape elements.
For example, define the edges of a lot with landscaping, such
as low-scale urban street trees or shrubs.
Landscaping elements should be compatible with the
character of the area in size, scale, and type. Free-form,
suburban type landscaping is inappropriate in this setting.
Also consider using a fence, or other structural element, that
reflects the position of typical storefront elements. These
elements should align with nearby traditional commercial
building types. N/A
Complies
Landscaping elements used
where the building has inset,
and additional landscaping
will be required during the
site plan phase.
Page 75 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 6 of 11
13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as
expressed by the following:
Variation in height at internal lot lines.
Variation in the plane of the front façade.
Variation in architectural detailing and materials to
emphasize the building module.
Variation in the façade height to reflect traditional lot width.
Complies
The structure has three
changes in the facade plane
along the Austin Ave. The
materials on the structure
were used to express a
traditional lot width by how
they were varied. Height is
varied on all facades, with the
main portion two-stories, the
recessed third floor and the
three-story entry tower
element. The building
materials are also used to
create a modular effect, using
design to create columns,
cornices, arch details, with
repeating window elements.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.
A larger development should step down in height towards
the street or smaller, surrounding structures.
Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot
width.
Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s)
and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the
building.
Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
Complies
The 3rd floor setback mimics
the appearance of historic
commercial buildings in Area
1.
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings,
rather than a single structure.
This will help reduce the perceived size of the project.
The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot
width.
Complies
The total lot size is 1.29 acres,
instead of developing a
single, large structure, the
applicant is proposing
multiple structures.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into
modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings.
A typical building module should not exceed 30 feet in
width. The building module should be expressed with at
least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet
- A change in primary facade material for the extent of the
building module - A vertical architectural element or trim
piece
Partially Complies
The design has utilized
material changes, insets,
height variation, setbacks,
architectural detailing to
create a modular effect on the
building. The majority of the
structure is two-stories, with
a recessed third. As requested
Page 76 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 7 of 11
Variations in facade treatment should be continued through
the structure, including its roofline and front and rear
facades.
If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be
expressed three-dimensionally throughout the entire
building. Variation in height should occur where the site is
larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce
overall scale of the building.
by the Commission, the
applicant has added
additional details to create
modulation on the east façade
(park facing). The south
façade does require
additional architectural
components to meet Design
Guidelines 13.3 and 13.6
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.
In certain circumstances views to the courthouse shall be
taken into consideration when designing a new building.
A new building shall not be so tall as to block views of the
courthouse.
Complies
At multiple locations the
proposed height of the
structure meets the
courthouse view corridor.
There is one perspective
where the proposed height
exceeds the height permitted
however, Tamiro plaza
currently exceeds this height,
already blocking the
courthouse view.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred.
Brick and stone are preferred for new construction.
New materials should appear similar in character to those
used traditionally. For example, stucco, cast stone, and
concrete should be detailed to provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated durability for the
Central Texas climate. For example, some facade materials
used in new construction are more susceptible to weather
and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
Complies
Brick will be used on the two
floors of the two street facing
facades, as well as one the
park facing façade. The
recessed third floor will have
a modern, metal wall panel.
The stucco used on the non-
street facing façade will have
details that are similar to the
brick pattern to create
columns and modulation.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of
wall plane.
A matte, or non-reflective, finish is preferred.
Polished stone and mirrored glass, for example, are
inappropriate and should be avoided as primary materials.
Complies
The brick, stucco and
proposed matte charcoal gray
metal wall panel are
appropriate.
Page 77 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 8 of 11
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone
are encouraged.
Horizontal lap siding of traditional dimensions is
appropriate in most applications. N/A
Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions are
encouraged. N/A
Brick or stone, similar to that used traditionally, is also
appropriate.
Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
New materials that are similar in character to traditional ones
may be considered. Alternative materials should have a
proven durability in similar locations in this climate.
Complies
Use of multiple, but
complimentary brick type
and cast stone banding.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage
pedestrian activity.
Provide at least one of the following along primary
pedestrian ways:
A storefront
Display cases
Landscaping
o A courtyard or plaza
Include traditional elements such as display windows,
kickplates, and transoms on commercial storefronts.
Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
Complies
The building is located along
Austin Ave. and the façade
along the adjacent street line
and has been designed with
traditional style storefront
with doors and large
windows that are inviting for
pedestrians. The back portion
of that façade is not adjacent
to the sidewalk, as it is
blocked by the bridge. This
portion still has modulation,
and parking structure
ventilation screening. This
portion of the façade is not
meant for pedestrian access
and should not encourage it.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street.
A building should have a clearly-defined primary entrance.
The building entrance should be recessed.
A primary building entrance also should be at or near street
level.
Complies
The main entry is easily
identifiable and located
adjacent to Austin Ave. The
entry is recessed.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both
automobiles and pedestrians.
Use landscaping and lighting accents to identify entrances.
Complies
The road edge adjacent to the
street façade and driveway
entrance has been
landscaped.
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. Complies
Page 78 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 9 of 11
Sharing ingress and egress points with neighboring projects
is strongly encouraged with consideration to safety.
One entrance will serve this
site.
13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or
disburse throughout the site.
See also the Design Guidelines for Parking found in Chapter
8.
Complies
Covered parking is located at
the rear of the lot, with teaser
parking located along the
drive aisle.
13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensi ons seen
in the block.
The front yard setback of a new building should match the
established range of adjacent buildings.
Where the setbacks are uniform, the new building should be
placed in general alignment with its neighbors.
In those areas where setbacks vary slightly, but generally fall
within an established range, the new building should be
within 10 feet of the typical setback in the block.
Complies
This property is not adjacent
to any type of development
however, typically
commercial properties are
developed parallel to the
street and with minimal
setbacks. There are existing
residential properties in the
nearby area that exhibit
traditional yard space and
dimensions, with this
proposed design not
developing the entire site, but
leaving some yard space is
appropriate.
13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale.
Use building materials that are of traditional dimensions.
Provide a one-story entry element that is similar in size to
those seen traditionally.
Use a building mass that is similar in size to those seen
traditionally.
Use elements that provide a sense of scale.
Complies
The building has been
designed with a traditional
style storefront with doors
and large windows that are
inviting for pedestrians. The
structure has been modulated
using building materials,
architectural elements, as
well as a stepped back third
floor help to provide a sense
of scale.
13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.
A larger development should step down in height towards
the street or smaller, surrounding structures.
Complies
13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate
for primary roof forms.
A blending of sloping roof forms and flat roofs may be
appropriate for larger projects.
Partially Complies
Flat roof forms are provided
and are typically found on
Page 79 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 10 of 11
historic commercial buildings
in the area.
13.22 New interpretations of traditional building styles are
encouraged.
A new design that draws upon the fundamental similarities
among commercial and residential buildings in the
community without copying them is preferred. This will
allow them to be seen as products of their own time yet
compatible with their historic neighbors.
Complies
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
N/A
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the project.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 80 of 110
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-041] – 101 2nd Street Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans and Renderings
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner
Page 81 of 110
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
Conceptual R eview for the c o mmercial ad ditio n and renovation at the p ro perty lo cated at 101 E. 7th Street,
b earing the legal des c rip tion of 0.14ac. Georgeto wn, City o f, Blo ck 39, Lot 2-39 (W/PTS ), (COA-2018-
046). Madison T homas , Do wntown and Historic P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The o ne-sto ry, rec tangular, c o mmercial b uild ing loc ated at 101 E 7th is identified as a low priority s tructure
in the 2016 His toric R es o urc es S urvey. The s urvey des c rib es the b uilding as c lad in rusticated sto ne b lo cks
with a c o rner entrance lo cated in a d o med ,stuc c o -clad tower; fixed, sto refront wind o ws with cleresto ries ;
ro und ed , wrap -aro und c anopy sup p o rted by tens ion rods.
The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing a 2nd sto ry ad ditio n and minor mo d ificatio ns to the wes t and no rth fac ad es
(converting wind o ws to d o o rs ).
Staff find s that the proposed ad d itions and mo d ificatio ns generally comply with the Do wntown and Old
Town Design Guid elines . S taff and the applic ant are s eeking feedbac k fro m the C o mmis s io n o n s everal
guid elines related to :
· Creation or additio n to an existing street fac ing faç ad e of a c o ntrib uting struc ture
· Rep lacing a his to ric architec tural feature with a non-histo ric architec tural feature of a, s treet fac ing of a
contributing s truc ture
Spec ifically:
4.2 Avo id add ing elements o r details that were not part of the original b uilding.
7.3 An ad d itio n s hall b e c o mp atible in s cale, materials , and c harac ter with the main b uilding.
7.5 An ad d itio n may b e made to the roof o f a c o mmercial b uilding if it does the fo llo wing:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4- His toric Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit
Page 82 of 110
Exhibit 5- Applicable Des ign Guidelines Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Pers pective Drawings Exhibit
Page 83 of 110
EL
M
S
T
R
OC
K
S
T
SCENIC DR
S
MA
I
N
S
T
A
S
H
S
T
E 7 T H S T
E 5 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 4 T H S T
E 2 N D S T
WE
S
T
S
T
E 6 T H S T
W 8 TH ST
PI
N
E
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
W 1 0 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
ST
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11TH ST
WALNUT ST
FO
R
E
ST
S
T
H
O
L
LY
S
T
W 7TH ST
W 3RD S T
E 1 0T H S T
E 11T H S T
E 3 R D S T
MAR
T
IN
LU
T
H
E
R
K
IN
G
J
R
S
T
E U N IV E R S I T Y AV E
W 5 T H S T
W 2ND ST
W 9THST
RAILROAD AVE
E 9 T H S T
R
U
C
K
E
R
S
T
E 9 T H 1 /2 S T
TI
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
RIVEROAK
S
C
V
MONTGOMERY ST
E 9 T H S T
W 5 T H S T
E 1 0T H S T
W 9 T H S T
E 3 R D S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
PI
NE
S
T
FO
R
E
ST
S
T
E 11T H S T
W
ES
T
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 2 N D S T
E 9 T H S T
COA-2018-046Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 84 of 110
1
JAB ENGINEERING, LLC.4500 Williams Drive, Ste. 212-121
Georgetown, TX 78633
512-619-5655
michelle.baran@jabeng.com
August 31, 2018
City of Georgetown
Planning Dept.
Nathaniel Wagner
RE: Letter of Intent for 101 E 7th Street
To Whom It May Concern,
We are applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition to two street facing facades,
the addition to two non-street facing facades, and a new fence. Owner of the facility is the City of
Georgetown, and application is made on behalf of the developer, Benchmark Properties. The property is
located at 101 E. 7th Street in Georgetown, TX. The proposed improvements include the addition of a
second story to the existing structure and a small addition on the east (non-street facing façade). The
existing wall structures and rotunda are proposed to remain as-is, with the exception of the replacement
of two sets of windows with entry doors. The following items are proposed for the additions:
·Cast limestone wall cap to match existing turret profile
·2nd floor - Copper colored metal wall panel of varying widths with standing seam profile
·2nd floor - Hardie wall panel – iron gray with extruded aluminum trim, painted to match.
·Standing seam metal at high slope (>2:12) roof; TPO roof at low slope (<1:12) roof
·Storage walls – Copper colored metal wall panel at South and North walls. CMU at abutting
east property wall.
Including in our submittal are the following:
A.Site Design (Plot) Plan – Prepared by developer’s architectural consultant.
B.Architectural Elevations – All four sides; prepared by developer’s architectural consultant.
C.Specifications and Details – These will be provided after the completeness review
D.Photographs/Renderings – Current Photos of Structure
E.Material Samples – These will be provided after the completeness review
F.Fee – Due Upon Submittal $265
Best wishes,
Michelle Baran
Office Manager
Page 85 of 110
101 EAST 7TH ST
SITE PLAN
EXISTING EXIT
AND ADA RAMP
EXISTING 6'-6" WIDE
ALLEY
EXISTING COVERED SIDEWALK
S MAIN ST.
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
ENTRY
ADJACENT BUILDING
E.
7
T
H
S
T
.
CO
V
E
R
E
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
NORTH
EXISTING ENTRY
TO BE
RELOCATED;
GLASS TO
REMAIN
ELECTRICAL
MAIN
EXISTING ROOF
ACCESS
LADDER
TENANT 1
TENANT 2
EXPANSION
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
TBD
PROPOSED TRASH
ACCESS AND
KITCHEN DELIVERY
ENTRANCE
NEW LOADING
ENTRY
SCALE: 1:20
COMMON
NEW 8' TALL
FENCING AND
GATE
NEW WALK UP
WINDOW
NEW ENTRY NEW ENTRY
PROPOSED EXIT
AND ADA RAMP
FIRE
RISER
Page 86 of 110
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
ADJACENT
BLDG
ADJACENT
BLDG
Page 87 of 110
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
Page 88 of 110
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
ADJACENT
BUILDING
ADJACENT
BUILDING
Page 89 of 110
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
CMU WALL ADJACENT TO
EXISTING BUILDING
(NOT VISIBLE)
Page 90 of 110
ZINC METAL FLASHING
18 GA
METAL COLUMN
KAWNEER MILITARY BLUE
EXTRUDED METAL TRELLIS
KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
DOVE GRAY
CAST STONE CORNICE
ADVANCED CAST STONE CLASSIC WHITE
SHERIDAN 3034L (13) STUCCO
PAREX USA LAHABRA
EXISTING LIMESTONE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING METAL CANOPY (TRIM ONLY)
TO BE REPAINTED MILITARY BLUE
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
7 5
METAL WINDOW FRAME
KAWNEER ANONDIZED BRONZE
10
9
10
8
METAL WALL PANEL8
PAGE 1 OF 4
1 X 2 WOOD SLAT ON STL FRAME W/ 1/2"
SPACING. SLATS PAINTED MILITARY BLUE11
MISC. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING
KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY12
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
ADJACENT
BUILDING
ADJACENT
BUILDING
37
'
-
2
"
T.
O
.
R
I
D
G
E
Page 91 of 110
PAGE 2 OF 4
REFERENCE PAGE 1 FOR
MATERIALS LEGEND
1
2
3
7 85
8
5
10 10
1
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
Page 92 of 110
PAGE 3 OF 4
1 7
5
3
7
15
2
8
ZINC METAL FLASHING
18 GA
METAL COLUMN
KAWNEER MILITARY BLUE
EXTRUDED METAL TRELLIS
KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
DOVE GRAY
CAST STONE CORNICE
ADVANCED CAST STONE CLASSIC WHITE
SHERIDAN 3034L (13) STUCCO
PAREX USA LAHABRA
EXISTING LIMESTONE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING METAL CANOPY (TRIM ONLY)
TO BE REPAINTED MILITARY BLUE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
METAL WINDOW FRAME
KAWNEER ANONDIZED BRONZE
10
METAL WALL PANEL8
11
12
1 X 2 WOOD SLAT ON STL FRAME W/ 1/2"
SPACING. SLATS PAINTED MILITARY BLUE
MISC. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING
KAWNEER PERMAFLUOR DOVE GRAY
10
11
8
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
ADJACENT
BLDG
ADJACENT
BLDG
9
6
37
'
-
2
"
T.
O
.
R
I
D
G
E
Page 93 of 110
PAGE 4 OF 4
10
12
3
REFERENCE PAGE 3 FOR
MATERIALS LEGEND
7 8 85
1
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING
101 E 7th Expansion
SCALE 1:20 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1
2
CMU WALL ADJACENT TO
EXISTING BUILDING
(NOT VISIBLE)
11
37
'
-
2
"
T.
O
.
R
I
D
G
E
Page 94 of 110
Page 95 of 110
Page 96 of 110
Page 97 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address CITY OF GEORGETOWN, PO BOX 409, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78627-0409
Latitude:30.637746 Longitude -97.676823
Addition/Subdivision:S3667 - Georgetown City Of
WCAD ID:R391754Legal Description (Lot/Block):GEORGETOWN CITY OF, BLOCK 39, LOT 2-3(W/PTS),
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:"UF Hopes to Give Library $2000," The
Sunday Sun, September 15, 1974, 14.
Construction Date:1970
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Downtown District
Current/Historic Name:Georgetown Municipal Court and Council Chambers/Georgetown Library
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 98 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, commercial building clad in rusticated stone blocks with a corner entrance located in a domed,
stucco-clad tower; fixed, storefront windows with clerestories; rounded, wrap-around canopy supported by tension rods.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Not visible
Vinyl
Canopy
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 99 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:The building underwent a major exterior renovation c2000.
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:121
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 100 of 110
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NorthPhoto Direction
Page 101 of 110
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
4.2 Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the
original building.
For example, details such as decorative millwork or
cornices should not be added to a building if they were
not an original feature of that structure.
Partially complies
The proposed changes to add
dentils along a cornice is typical
for other historic structures
along the square.
4.11 Avoid adding decorative elements, unless thorough
research indicates that the building once had them.
Conjectural “historic” designs for replacement parts that
cannot be substantiated by documented evidence are
inappropriate.
Dressing up a building with pieces of ornamentation that
are out of character with the architectural style gives the
building a false “history” it never had, and is
inappropriate.
Complies
This structure is not historic, but
incorporated elements that were
compatible with the adjacent
historic structures.
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING
ELEMENTS
6.7 Preserve the character of the cornice line.
An original cornice moulding should be preserved.
Most historic commercial buildings have cornices to cap
their facades. Their repetition along the street contributes
to the visual continuity on the block.
Many cornices are made of sheet metal. Areas that have
rusted through can be patched with pieces of new metal.
Complies
The existing cornice will be
enhanced with dentils.
6.8 Reconstruct a missing cornice when historic evidence is
available.
Use historic photographs to determine design details of
the original cornice.
Replacement elements should match the original in every
detail, especially in overall size and profile. Keep sheet
metal ornamentation well painted.
The substitution of another old cornice for the original
may be considered, provided that the substitute is similar
to the original.
Complies
The existing cornice will be
enhanced with dentils. The
existing structure is not historic,
but this architectural feature is
and can be seen on other
structures around the square.
Page 102 of 110
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of
historic windows and doors in a building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining
facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening.
Do not close down an original opening to accommodate
a smaller window. Restoring original openings which
have been altered over time is encouraged.
Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The
proportions of these windows contribute to the character
of each residence and commercial storefront.
Complies
This structure was built in the
1970’s and does not represent a
specific stylistic influence. The
applicant is retaining the
majority of the west façade and
is proposing to add a small
window to the ear of the west
elevation and change out two
existing windows for doors.
6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront
openings to solid wall.
Significantly increasing (or decreasing) the amount of
glass will negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
On traditional storefronts, first floors should be more
transparent than upper floors.
Upper floors should appear more solid than first floors.
N/A
Avoid a blank wall appearance that does not provide
interest to pedestrians. Note, however, that the side wall
of a historic building located on a corner will have fewer
openings.
Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate on residential
structures and on the upper floors and sides of
commercial buildings. N/A
If necessary, divide large glass surfaces into smaller
windows that are in scale with those seen traditionally.
N/A
Complies
The proposed changes to the
facades will convert two existing
sets of windows to doors and
adding a small window on the
west elevation. Again, the
structure itself is not historic,
but the surrounding buildings
are. The existing ratio of
windows to doors will be
respectful of what is existing.
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS
& ALTERATIONS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to
interpret the design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than
that of the building are inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed second story
addition does not impact the
existing structure.
7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and
form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the
main structure.
Does Not Comply
Page 103 of 110
An addition to the front of a building is inappropriate.
However, where a building in the Downtown Overlay is
set back from the front property line and the structure
does not have historic significance, the first consideration
for the placement of an addition should be to fill the gap
between the existing building and sidewalk. This will
maintain the consistent “street wall” desired in the
downtown.
For example, mounting a sign panel in a manner that
causes decorative moldings to be chipped or removed
would be inappropriate.
7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a cornice line should be
avoided.
Complies
The new addition does not
damage any features of the
existing structure.
7.5 An addition may be made to the roof of a commercial building
if it does the following:
An addition should be set back from the primary,
character-defining facade, to preserve the perception of
the historic scale of the building.
Its design should be modest in character, so it will not
attract attention from the historic facade.
The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a
subtle way.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the
original roof form by changing its basic shape and should
have a roof form compatible with the original building.
Does Not Comply
CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to the
style of the building is encouraged.
Operable awnings are encouraged on historic buildings.
N/A
Use colors that are compatible with the overall color
scheme of the facade. Solid colors or simple, muted-stripe
patterns are appropriate.
The awning should fit the opening of the building.
Simple shed shapes are appropriate for rectangular
openings.
Odd shapes, bullnose awnings, and bubble awnings are
inappropriate on most historic structures.
Complies
The new metal trellis will be on
the new second floor and will
have a contemporary feel and
will be compatible with the
existing metal canopies on the
first floor.
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-mounted
brackets, chains, and posts.
Complies
Page 104 of 110
Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those
canopies seen historically.
The new metal trellis will be on
the new second floor and will
have a contemporary feel.
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining
features.
It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be
found above the storefront and should not hide character-
defining features.
Its mounting should not damage significant features and
historic details.
Complies
The new awning will be on the
second floor over the some of
the windows on the west and
south elevations.
Page 105 of 110
Page 106 of 110
Page 107 of 110
Page 108 of 110
Page 109 of 110
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of the proc es s and p ro cedures related to the review o f a Certificate of
Appropriatenes s (C o A), includ ing Unified Development Code and the Downto wn Des ign Guid eline
imp lementatio n. Madis on Tho mas , AICP, His toric and Do wntown Planner.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will provide the Co mmis s io n an o verview of the regulatio ns related to Do wntown and Old To wn
d evelopment as well as the p ro cedures an ap p lic atio n fo llo ws b eginning with s ub mittal through the
ap p ro val p roc es s es .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
Page 110 of 110