HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.09.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
May 9, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at City Council Chambers - 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
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:
S taff P resentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the
Commission.)
Questions from Commission to S taff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative P rocess
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.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons ideration of the minutes of the F ebruary 28, 2019 legis lative regular s es s ion. Nat Waggoner,
R ec ording S ec retary
B C ons ideration of the Minutes from the Marc h 28, 2019 S pec ial S ession. Nat Waggoner, R ec ording
S ec retary
C C ons ideration and possible appointment(s ) of C ommis s ioner(s) to the Demolition S ubc ommittee. Nat
Waggoner, R ecording S ecretary
D P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for a C ommerc ial
R enovation at the property located a 806 S . Myrtle S t.., bearing the legal desc ription of .07ac . G lassc ock
Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4 (P T S ), (2019-14-C O A). Madis on T homas , Downtown and His toric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for a R esidential
Page 1 of 101
R enovation at the property located a 1304 E. University Ave., bearing the legal desc ription of .43ac .
O utlot Division B, Bloc k 11 (P T ), (2019-20-C O A). Madison T homas, Downtown and Historic P lanner
F P resentation and dis cus s ion of the Downtown and O ld Town Des ign G uidelines . F ocus ing on the review
and polic ies for the Downtown, Area 1 and Area 2. Madis on T homas , AI C P, His toric & Downtown
P lanner
G Updates , C ommis s ioner questions and comments. S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 101
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 9, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration of the minutes of the F ebruary 28, 2019 legislative regular session. Nat Waggoner,
R ecording S ecretary
IT E M S UMMARY:
Minutes attac hed.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes of the 2.28.2019 Legislative Regular Ses s ion Backup Material
Page 3 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, February 28, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain; Art Browner; Amanda Parr Lawrence Romero (arrived at 6:10);
Shawn Hood, and Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Catherine Morales
Absent: none
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner;
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action of the Minutes from the January 24, 2019 HARC
meeting. Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner
Sofia made an announcement that the minutes included in the packet were in error and a vote is
not being requested at this time.
No action taken
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Residential Addition for the property located a 1501 Church Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.22 ac. Hughes 2nd Addition, Block D(PT), (COA-2018-032). Madison Thomas,
Downtown and Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner presented the staff report prepared for the
request.
The applicant identified they were present to answer any questions.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing.
Phil Brown, 1602 S. Austin Avenue, spoke in support of the request.
Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, stated the proposed siding strongly reflects the addition is an
addition rather than matching the existing siding in place. He asked the commission review
this element of the request and support a condition that would require the applicant to match
the existing siding on the current house.
Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Parr asked Ms. Thomas which design guideline were used to support the use of
the requested siding.
Page 4 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Ms. Thomas shared that guidelines discussing additions are specifically called out in the
design guidelines and in the staff report.
Motion by Commissioner Parr to approve the project as submitted. Second by
Commissioner Hood. Approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
following:
1) a 20’ setback encroachment along the north property line of the required 30’ setback, allowing
for a residential structure 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.D;
2) a 10’ setback encroachment along the west property line of the required 15’ setback to allow
for a residential structure 5’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.D;
3) a building height exception along the north property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot
maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at 10-feet
from the property line per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C;
4) a building height exception along the west property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot
maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at the 5-
feet from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.C;
5) a building height exception along the south property line of 8-feet 1-inches from the 15-foot
maximum building height requirement to allow a building height of 23-feet 1-inches, at the 20-
foot side setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.C,
for proposed residential infill development on the property located at 1310 Maple Street, bearing
the legal description of 0.66 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 33, S 1/2 (COA-2018-058). Madison
Thomas, AICP, Downtown and Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner, presented the staff report for the case.
Commissioner Hood asked if this case is subject to a 30 foot setback.
Madison Thomas stated that Commissioner Hood is correct.
Ms. Thomas indicated that by definition of residential district within the UDC, the side 30’
setback is required within residential single-family and multi-family district zoning.
Commissioner Hood inquired about whether a 15 foot setback was appropriate considering the
single family homes surrounding the property.
Ms. Thomas stated considering the definition of a multi-family residential district and due to an
apartment complex near the property, they were required to have a 30 foot setback.
Page 5 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the height of the surrounding buildings and what the
height of the previous building concepts.
Madison Thomas stated the height of the setback is not compliant, thus the applicant requested
a modification.
Commissioner Parr asked whether any adjacent, medium-density properties were two-story
structures.
Ms. Thomas stated that the structure to the north is two stories, and the two adjacent multi-
family buildings are also two stories.
Ms. Thomas presented that seven letters of opposition were submitted for this project.
Gary Wang, applicant’s representative, presented the request to the commission. He shared
some background and outreach he conducted with the surrounding property owners. Mr.
Wang shared the changes that were made between conceptual review and the rendering
proposed as part of the request.
Chair Browner opened the public hearing.
Jake French, 901 E. 13th Street, stated he believes that the applicant is trying to squeeze too much
square footage on the site. He is opposed to the request.
Phil Brown, 1602 S. Austin Avenue, stated the project was too contemporary with the
surrounding neighborhood. He encouraged the commission to oppose the request.
Gary Warmick, 1406 Olive Street, expressed concern regarding parking, landscaping, and the
assurance the existing historic structure will not be removed. He stated he was opposed to the
request.
Tony Fusco, 1404 Maple Street, expressed that he was supportive of the changes made between
the first design proposed at the time of conceptual and now. However he shared he believe that
too many units were being added and has concerns about parking, emergency access as the lot
is developed.
Susan Firth, 1403 Olive Street, shared a portion of the letter she submitted to the city. The
proposed infill project is noncompliant in five areas of the design guideline, partially compliant
in two, and noncompliant in four practices with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the
COA should not be approved. Firth then listed the measures she found to be noncompliant,
mainly stating that the traditional character of the neighborhood and surrounding street would
be compromised if the project was to continue.
Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, shared support for the commission. He expressed the concern
regarding the conceptual review process. Mr. Brundidge supported the comments expressed
Page 6 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
by Susan Firth the previous speaker. Mr. Brundidge asked for the commission to postpone
action on this case to allow for additional work.
Chair Browner closed the public hearing.
Chair Browner invited the applicant to speak in response to the comments stated in the public
hearing process.
Gary Wang indicated he was present to answer any specific questions the commission has.
Commissioner Hood asked the applicant to provide the commission and the audience an
explanation of floor to area ratio (FAR).
Mr. Wang explained the concept of floor to area ratio and expressed that the development did
not maximize the FAR as permitted in the UDC.
Commissioner Parr asked the applicant to speak to compatibility, rhythm and balance of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Wang shared an explanation of his use of modulation and shared with the commission the
different use of roof pitches in order to try to find a roof pitch that would be compatible with
the surrounding structures.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked about how the applicant tested massing and scale.
Mr. Wang expressed that he did the best job he could to meet goals for massing and scale.
Commissioner Bain asked Madison Thomas asked about the cohesion of the height and
materials on the property.
Madison Thomas expressed that the design guidelines does not encourage the use of replicating
the existing development.
Commissioner Parr asked for further clarification on the criteria for the setback modifications.
Madison Thomas presented the requested criteria.
Commissioner Bain asked if we were aware of any other setback modifications made by the
commission.
Sofia Nelson expressed that there have been single family residential development in the time
she has been with the city that have received setback modifications.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked if the project must be compliant with Design Guidelines
for additions.
Page 7 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Madison Thomas shared that this application was reviewed as infill development rather than an
addition.
Motion by Romero to approve the application as presented. Second by Commissioner Hood.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde shared that she supported the changes in design but had
concerns about the compatibility of the design with the surrounding structures.
Commissioner Morales shared that she supported the reduction in height. She was concerned
with compatibility.
Commissioner Bain supported the reduction in height and moving the structures to the rear of
the lot. He expressed concern regarding compatibility. Commissioner Bain does not identify a
basis for denial.
Commissioner Parr supported the design improvements made to the concept. She expressed a
concern regarding the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding structures. She does
believe that the project meets the design guideline.
Commissioner Hood supported the design improvements made to the concept. He shared that
infill developments are guided by design guideline and those are the requirements in which the
projects are evaluated.
Commissioner Romero shared his support of Mr. Hood’s statements.
Motion by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Hood to approve the
project as submitted. Approved with a vote of 5-2 (Commissioners Asendorf-Hyde and
Commissioner Morales voted in opposition to the request).
The commission recessed for 10 minutes.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
residential addition and renovation for the property located at 705 E. 3rd Street, bearing the legal
description of 1.32ac. Shell Addition, Block 4, (COA-2018-061). Madison Thomas, Downtown and
Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner, presented the staff report.
The applicant was present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Parr asked what options were considered when selecting windows.
Ms. Thomas cited that those that would be replaced would be already existing within the
structure, or that would look similar to the structure.
Page 8 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
Meeting: February 28, 2019
Commissioner Hood asked if there was an opportunity to repurpose existing windows into the
proposed addition.
The applicant stated she was unsure if the repurposing of the windows could happen but is
striving to preserve as much as possible.
Commissioner Hood asked for Madison Thomas to present on the use of the wood siding
proposed for the addition.
Commissioner Romero asked if the rating of a high priority will be reduced if the addition is
made.
Ms. Thomas shared the criteria that the state historic commission utilizes to evaluate resources.
Chair Browner opened the public hearing.
Larry Olson, 9th street property owner, commended the amount of restraint in mind with the
plans for the property yet shared his concern regarding the use of a gable roof. Mr. Olson
asked the roof like be simplified so that the addition does not take away from the primary
structure.
Chair Browner closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parr asked if the applicant can work with staff on the repurposing of the
existing windows without returning to HARC.
Ms. Thomas confirmed Commissioners Parr’s statements.
Motion by Commissioner Hood with the condition that the repurposing of the windows
(working with staff direction and approval) and simplification removal of the gable roof on the
Master addition consistent with the addition.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Parr.
The commission asked the applicant for her thoughts of the simplification of the gable roof.
The applicant believed the roof line was purposefully included but was open to working with
Ms. Thomas to explore options.
All commissioners were in favor.
E. Updates, questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
UDC amendments were posted at www.historic.georgetown/udc. The Public Open House for
the UDC Amendments on March 6, 2019 at 4 pm at the Library was promoted.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Romero, second by Bain. Meeting adjourned at 8:35pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 9 of 101
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 9, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration of the Minutes from the March 28, 2019 S pecial S es s ion. Nat Waggoner, R ecording
S ecretary
IT E M S UMMARY:
S taff provided an overview of the C ommis s ion function inc luding a brief training on the Des ign G uidelines .
No ac tion was taken.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Meeting Minutes Backup Material
Page 10 of 101
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 1
Meeting: February 28, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Session
Minutes
March 28, 2019, 2019 at 5:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Josh Shroeder; Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Lawrence Romero
(arrived at 5:30);
Absent: Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and
Downtown Planner;
The meeting began at 5:00 pm.
Policy Development/Review Workshop
A. A Presentation and discussion of Historic and Architectural Review Commission procedures
and supporting materials. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
No action taken
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Shroeder, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 11 of 101
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 9, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible appointment(s) of C ommissioner(s ) to the Demolition S ubcommittee. Nat
Waggoner, R ec ording S ec retary
IT E M S UMMARY:
At the 3/28/2019 meeting, the C ommission moved to approve the nomination of Amanda P arr as a
member. Karalei Nunn was recommended as 1 s eat, Lawrenc e R omero offered to serve as a 2nd s eat. T he
C ommis s ion did not want to appoint Karalei without her pres enc e at the meeting. At the 4.25.2019 meeting,
the C ommission disc ussed Karalei's service but the item was not agendized for ac tion.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
Page 12 of 101
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 9, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for a C ommercial
R enovation at the property loc ated a 806 S . Myrtle S t.., bearing the legal des cription of .07ac. G las s coc k
Addition, Bloc k 9, Lot 3-4 (P T S ), (2019-14-C O A). Madison T homas, Downtown and Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Acc ording to the 2016 Historic R es ourc es S urvey, this s tructure, known as the C as well G arage was built
in 1903 as a c arriage hous e, later converted into a residential s tructure. In late 2016 the property was sold
and zoned for mixed us e. T his struc ture is located off of S . Myrtle S treet between E. 8th S treet and E. 9th
S treet in Area 2 of the Downtown O verlay. It is a one-story wood frame c ommercial building with wood
s iding, s tepped wood parapet and a shed roof over the entrance. T he 2016 survey identifies the struc ture as
an exc ellent or rare example of its s tyle and or has s ignificant as s ociations and it retains sufficient integrity.
It is als o noted as a good example of an early twentieth century frame c ommercial building and one of the
city’s firs t auto garages. T he s urvey notes that the overhead door, porch posts and siding replaced between
the 1984 and 2007 surveys . T he applic ant is requesting to replac e the wood s iding on all facades of the
home with hardie s iding. It is unknown if wood s iding was the original siding material used for this
s tructure, as it was originally a auto body s hop however, the 1984 His toric R esource S urvey identifies
wood s iding on the s tructure.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3-Supporting Documents Exhibit
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 13 of 101
EL
M S
T
ASH ST
E 7 TH S T
E 8TH S T
E 6TH S T
E 5TH S T
PINE ST
ROCK ST
S M
AIN S
T
S
M
Y
R
TLE
S
T
S CHUR
CH ST
S AUS
TIN AVE
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WALNUT
ST
W 9TH S T
W 8TH ST
W 7TH ST
W 6TH S T
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
E 10TH S T
E 11TH ST
W 11TH ST
W 10TH ST
W 5 TH S T
W UNIVERSIT Y AV E
FOREST ST
E 9 T H S T
M
A
R
TI
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
JR
ST
E 9TH 1/2 ST
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
E 11TH ST
PINE ST
FORE
S
T
S
T
WALNUT
ST
E 10TH ST
E 9 TH S T
E 9 T H S T
2019-14-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 14 of 101
806 S Myrtle St
Georgetown, TX 78626
512-382-4052
2/29/19
RE: Caswell Carriage House HPO Review
To whom it may concern:
I am writing for the approval to replace our windows and front doors that are not original to the
building. The new windows are a double hung with one divider on the upper sash. This would be closer
to the original look of that time era. They are fiberglass clad on the exterior and pine on the interior.
The current windows are a mix match of aluminum clad with pine interior and aluminum clad on
exterior and interior. The front doors will be a wooden French Door setup with ¾ glass.
In addition to the windows and front doors, we would also like to replace the wooden siding on the non-
street facing façade with 6” Hardi Plank siding. Each plank will have an exposure of 5”. This would have
a similar look to the Caswell House behind us and numerous others in the surrounding area. The
existing siding is rotting and has gaps from the weather. Due to the age of the siding, they no longer
make the same size, so replacing boards here and there is not really an option. A good majority of the
siding has rotted, due to not being maintained by previous owners. Pictures are included below.
Please advise if you need any other information.
Respectfully,
Rob Skelton
512-460-9963
rskelton@thirdcoastlogistics.com
Page 15 of 101
Page 16 of 101
Page 17 of 101
Page 18 of 101
Page 19 of 101
Page 20 of 101
Page 21 of 101
Page 22 of 101
Page 23 of 101
Page 24 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-14-COA] – 806 S. Myrtle Street Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: 5/9/2019
File Number: 2019-14-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Commercial
Reconstruction at the property located at 806 S. Myrtle St., bearing the legal description of .07ac.
Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4 (PTS), (2019-14-COA). Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic
Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Caswell Carriage House
Applicant: Rob and Natalie Skelton
Property Owner: Rob and Natalie Skelton
Property Address: 806 S. Myrtle St., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4(PTS)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1903
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
2016 - High
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood siding on all facades of the structure with hardie
siding.
STAFF ANALYSIS
According to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey, this structure, known as the Caswell Garage was
built in 1903 as a carriage house, later converted into a residential structure. In late 2016 the property
was sold and zoned for mixed use. This structure is located off of S. Myrtle Street between E. 8th Street
and E. 9th Street in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay. It is a one-story wood frame commercial building
with wood siding, stepped wood parapet and a shed roof over the entrance. The 2016 survey identifies
the structure as an excellent or rare example of its style and or has significant associations and it retains
sufficient integrity. It is also noted as a good example of an early twentieth century frame commercial
building and one of the city’s first auto garages. The survey notes that the overhead door, porch posts
and siding replaced between the 1984 and 2007 surveys. The applicant is requesting to replace the
Page 25 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-14-COA] – 806 S. Myrtle Street Page 2 of 5
wood siding on all facades of the home with hardie siding. It is unknown if wood siding was the
original siding material used for this structure, as it was originally a auto body shop however, the 1984
Historic Resource Survey identifies wood siding on the structure.
The changes to the street-facing facades are HARC’s purview.
Staff completed a site visit with the applicant and a representative from the building department and
inspected the condition of the siding on the structure. The current siding is single v tongue and groove.
This type of siding is only available in wood, and is not offered in the hardie material. The siding on
the rear (west) façade had been recently replaced by the previous owner, and a portion of the siding on
the south side was being replaced but work was stopped in order to complete the COA process.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation and maintenance of the
existing historic materials. “The best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-
planned maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of
paint. In some cases, historic building materials may be deteriorated. When deterioration occurs,
repairing the material rather than replacing it is preferred.” Frequently, damaged materials can be
patched or consolidated using special bonding agents. Preservation Principal #5 calls for the:
Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. Maintain the
existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for
repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing
configuration.
For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be
replaced. The guidelines call for the replacement material to match the original in appearance. The
recent revisions to the Unified Development Code now states:
Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material,
and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original
design of the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority
resources.
The request to use hardie will provide an appearance unlike the original. The profile of the requested
hardie is only available as lap siding and the existing siding is single v tongue and groove. It is
important to recognize that with the existing style of tongue and groove wood siding, if the applicant
were to replace portions of the siding with wood, there is potential for shrinking and fit issues.
Page 26 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-14-COA] – 806 S. Myrtle Street Page 3 of 5
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
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.
Does not comply
The existing siding is in
generally good condition.
Caulking is coming off of the
wall, however calking should
not be used to seal between
the boards, they should be
scraped and painted.
5.2 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching,
piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials.
• Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
• Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using
consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood
repair. Also, special masonry repair components may be used.
Does not comply
The materials that are not
damaged and that could be
retained are proposed to be
removed with the deteriorated
ones. It is important to
consider that the tongue and
groove siding is difficult to
patch as the new boards will
shrink and the fitting could
shift.
5.04 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish
when replacing it on a primary surface.
• If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the
replacement material should be wood as well. It should match the
original in size, the amount of exposed lap, and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged
beyond repair, then only replace them and not the entire wall.
Does not comply
The original material is wood
and the request is to replace
with hardie siding. The tongue
and groove wood siding that
is currently on the structure
cannot be replicated in the
hardie siding.
5.05 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum, vinyl
siding, or panelized brick, as replacements for primary building
materials on an historic structure.
• Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick may
not be replaced with synthetic materials.
• See also Preservation Briefs #16: The Use of Substitute Materials
Does not comply
Hardie is a synthetic material.
Page 27 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-14-COA] – 806 S. Myrtle Street Page 4 of 5
on Historic Building Exteriors, published by the National Park
Service.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within
the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; N/A
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Does not comply
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Does not comply
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the
building, structure or site is preserved;
Does Not Comply
The change from
wood to hardie would
reduce the historic
integrity of the
structure and the
existing visual effect
could not be
replicated in hardie.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with
surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is
protected; and
Complies
The changes will not
impact the character
of the historic district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the existing wood siding does not exhibit a significant amount of rot, damage or warping
and is not in need of complete replacement. Given the high priority rating of the structure, staff
Page 28 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-14-COA] – 806 S. Myrtle Street Page 5 of 5
recommends that a material which replicates the appearance of the existing material be used in order to
retain the architectural integrity of the resource. However, should replacement be approved, replacement
material should be wood, tongue and groove siding and the entire façade should be replaced due to the
type of siding and the potential for shrinking and fit issues in the future.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3- Supporting Documents
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 29 of 101
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 9, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for a R es idential
R enovation at the property loc ated a 1304 E. Univers ity Ave., bearing the legal des cription of .43ac. O utlot
Division B, Bloc k 11 (P T ), (2019-20-C O A). Madison T homas, Downtown and Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he home loc ated on the c orner of E. University Ave. and Vine S t is identified in the 2016 Historic
R es ourc es S urvey. T his property known as the C offee-Williams Hous e, is desc ribed as an 1890 L-plan
with a one-and-a-half-s tory wood frame dwelling with a gable roof with s hingles. T he s urvey does not
indic ate a spec ific s tylis tic influence. Until recently, the hous e had asbestos tile when the applicant removed
the tile and found existing wood siding underneath. Despite having s ome alterations (porch post
modifications and the addition of aluminum shingle siding were made prior to the 2007 survey) is
s ignificant and contributes to the neighborhood and character. T he applicant is reques ting to replace the
wood s iding on all facades of the home with hardie s iding and replac e the wood windows with fibrex
composite windows .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Supporting Documents Exhibit
Exhibit 4-Supporting Docs. Cont.Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 30 of 101
ASH S
T
EL
M
S
T
PINE ST
S MAIN S
T
MAP
LE
S
TE 15TH S T
E 7TH S T
S CHUR
CH ST
S CO
LLE
G
E S
T
E 13TH ST
E 5TH S T
E 4 TH S T
S MY
RTLE
S
T
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
E 6 TH S T
J
A
N
L
N
OLIVE ST
WALNUT
ST
A S H B E R R Y T R L
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
H
O
W
R
Y
D
R
E 10TH S T
E 11 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
P E R KINSPL
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
E 1 6 TH S T
VINE ST
E 14TH ST
W A I Z E L W A Y
QUAIL VALLEY DR
FINCH LN
E 8 T H S T
L
O
U
I
S
E
S
T
LAURE
L ST
E 2 0 T H S T
H
A
V
E
N
L
N
H
O
G
G
S
T
M
C
C
O
M
BSST
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
B
A
R
C
U
S
D
R
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
U N I V E R S IT Y PARKDR
P I R A T E D R
P
E
C
A
N
S
T
SOULE DR
E U N I V E R SITY AVE
VIVION LN
M
C
C
O
O
K
D
R
M
I
M
O
S
A
S
T
S E R VI C E R D
C A P R O C K P L
A
L
L
E
Y
T
A
Y
L
O
R
R
D
P
I
R
A
T
E
C
V
C A N D L E R I D G E T R L
JA
ME
S
ST
E 17TH ST
B E R G I N C T B O U L D E R R U N
PAIG
E ST
R O C K L E D G E D R
E R UTERSVIL
L
E
D
R
K
A
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
C
T
E 9 T H S T
M C C O Y P L
R A I N T R E E D R
A N N I E P U R L D V
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
M C K E N Z I E D R
S
M
I
T
H
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
R E T R E A
T
P
L
GEORGE ST
W 19TH ST
W 18TH ST
E 9TH 1/2 ST
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
O L I N C V
W
R
U
T
ER
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E 1 6 T H S T
E 10TH ST
HOLLY
ST
L
A
U
R
E
L
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 1 4 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 14TH S T
E 1 7 T H S T E 1 8 T H S T
E 16TH ST
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E 1 3 T H S T
E 9 TH S T
E 1 8 T H S T
PINE ST
WALNUT
ST
E 1 6 T H S T
WALNUT
ST
V
I
N
E
S
T
E 8 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 1 7 TH S T
E 1 9 T H S T
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
E 1 4 T H S T
E 16TH ST
E 1 9 T H S T
E 17TH ST
E 9 T H S T
2019-20-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 31 of 101
Page 32 of 101
Page 33 of 101
Page 34 of 101
Page 35 of 101
Page 36 of 101
Page 37 of 101
Page 38 of 101
Page 39 of 101
Page 40 of 101
Page 41 of 101
Page 42 of 101
Page 43 of 101
Page 44 of 101
Page 45 of 101
Page 46 of 101
Page 47 of 101
Page 48 of 101
Page 49 of 101
Page 50 of 101
Page 51 of 101
Page 52 of 101
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1304 University Ave 2016 Survey ID:125523
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R044853Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 4/21/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1890
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: aluminum shingles; some porch posts replaced)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:265
ID:222
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:125523 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.633064 Longitude -97.664879
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: South
Page 53 of 101
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1304 University Ave 2016 Survey ID:125523
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 54 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 1 of 8
Meeting Date: 5/9/2019
File Number: 2019-20-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Residential
Renovation at the property located at 1304 E. University Ave., bearing the legal description of .43ac.
Outlot Division B, Block 11 (PT), (2019-20-COA). Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1304 E. University: Residential Reconstruction
Applicant: Abdulwahab Makiya
Property Owner: Abdulwahab Makiya
Property Address: 1304 E. University Ave., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: Outlot Division B, Block 11(PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1890
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium
2007 - Medium
2016 - Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood (cypress and pine) siding on the home with
hardie siding and replace the existing wood windows with a fibrex composite window.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The home located on the corner of E. University Ave. and Vine St is identified in the 2016 Historic
Resources Survey. This property known as the Coffee-Williams House, is described as an 1890 L-plan
with a one-and-a-half-story wood frame dwelling with a gable roof with shingles. The survey does not
indicate a specific stylistic influence. Until recently, the house had asbestos tile when the applicant
removed the tile and found existing wood siding underneath. Despite having some alterations (porch
post modifications and the addition of aluminum shingle siding were made prior to the 2007 survey) is
significant and contributes to the neighborhood and character. The applicant is requesting to replace
the wood siding on all facades of the home with hardie siding and replace the wood windows with
fibrex composite windows.
Page 55 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 2 of 8
The changes to the street-facing facades are HARC’s purview.
Staff went on-site with the applicant and a representative from the building department to inspect the
condition of the siding and windows on the home. The windows have signs of water damage,
including peeling paint, rot, and warping. The majority of the home was covered in cypress wood
siding and with the rear addition in pine siding. Both types of siding were installed in such similar
fashions, it took looking at the wood grain (pine shows grain marks, where cypress does not) to determine
they were two different types of material. Both of the sidings were in good condition from being
protected by the elements by the tile siding that had previously been placed over it. The skirt board and
water table are beyond repair and should be replaced.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation and maintenance of the
existing historic materials. “The best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-planned
maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of paint. In some cases,
historic building materials may be deteriorated. When deterioration occurs, repairing the material rather than
replacing it is preferred.” Frequently, damaged materials can be patched or consolidated using special
bonding agents. The Basic Preservation Principal for Georgetown #5 calls for the:
Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. Maintain the
existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for
repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing
configuration.
For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be
replaced. The Design Guidelines call for the replacement material to match the original in appearance.
The recent revisions to the Unified Development Code now state:
Material that is intended to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material,
and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original
design of the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority
resources.
The replacement of the original wood with a synthetic material will not match all visual aspects,
particularly the form and workmanship. Regarding form, hardie is a lap siding, similar to what
currently exists, however the size of the hardie is typically 8” or 12” wide. The current wood siding is
approx. 5” wide. If hardie is used, the amount of exposure will be slightly different as the hardie siding
creates less horizontal lines on the facades than the current siding. As referenced above, the Design
Guidelines prioritize repair over replacement of materials. After reviewing the siding with the Building
Official, it appears only a handful of siding pieces are missing and only the skirt board and water table
need replacement. The cypress siding appears to be in good condition as it is also not as susceptible to
rot or termites and has been generally protected under the tile that was installed over it. It is important
to note that the cypress siding would have to be milled (special ordered), which can be costly and
installation requirements would require a specialized contractor.
Page 56 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 3 of 8
The applicant is also requesting to replace all of the existing wood windows with the fibrex composite
windows. The design will be the same with the two over two style and maintain a similar visual
appearance. The existing windows have a significant amount of deterioration and rot, which would
require a significant amount of investment to restore.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
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.
Does Not Comply
The existing siding is in
generally good condition,
especially the cypress which
did not show signs of termite
damage or rot.
5.2 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching,
piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials.
Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be
repaired.
Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using
consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for
wood repair. Also, special masonry repair components may
be used.
Does Not Comply
The applicant is seeking to
remove all siding including
those undamaged materials
which could be retained It is
important to note that to
reattach pieces of the cypress
siding, the applicant will have
to find a specialist.
5.04 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish
when replacing it on a primary surface.
If the original material is wood clapboard, for example,
then the replacement material should be wood as well. It
should match the original in size, the amount of exposed
lap, and finish.
Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are
damaged beyond repair, then only replace them and not the
entire wall.
Does Not Comply
The original material is wood
and the request is to replace
with hardie siding, the
exposures would be different
as well, not significantly, but
slightly.
Page 57 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 4 of 8
5.05 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum, vinyl
siding, or panelized brick, as replacements for primary building
materials on an historic structure.
Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick
may not be replaced with synthetic materials.
See also Preservation Briefs #16: The Use of Substitute
Materials on Historic Building Exteriors, published by the
National Park Service.
Does Not Comply
Hardie is a synthetic material.
However, the UDC was
recently updated to state that,
“Material that is intended to
replace a historic material or
feature that is either the same or a
similar material, and the result
will match all visual aspects,
including form, color, and
workmanship in order to retain
the original design of the
structure, may be permitted by
the
identified decision maker for
medium and low priority
resources.”
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 intends to
replace the same amount of
windows, style and design.
6.14 Maintenance of windows.
Wash windows.
Clean debris from windows.
Replace loose or broken glass in kind. This will reduce air
leaks.
• Replace damaged muntins, moldings, or glazing compound
with material that matches the original in shape, size, and
material.
• Repair window hardware or replace with materials that
match the original in scale and design. If the replacement
hardware does not match the original design it should be
simple, unobtrusive, and compatible with the style and
building’s period of significance.
Does Not Comply
The applicant is proposing to
replace wood windows which
are significantly damaged.
Page 58 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 5 of 8
• Install weather-stripping. This will enhance energy
conservation significantly.
Maintain the interior views, so that either merchandise or
furniture can be seen. N/A
6.15 Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating,
or otherwise reinforcing the wood.
• Avoid the removal of damaged wood that can be repaired.
• Rebuild or repair portions of existing window frames,
sashes, sills, or portions thereof, rather than replacing
complete windows unless it is technically infeasible to do so.
• See also Preservation Briefs #9: The Repair of Historic
Wooden Windows, published by the National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-
windows.htm
Does Not Comply
Seeking complete replacement.
6.16 Glass in doors and windows should be retained.
• If it is broken or has been removed in the past, consider
replacing it with new glass. If security is a concern, consider
using wire glass, tempered glass, or light metal security bars
(preferably on the interior).
• Replacement glass may be insulating glass, but it should
match the style and color of the original glass.
Replacement glass should match the historic glass - clear,
rolled (‘wavy”), tinted, etc.
Removal of historic leaded, art, stained, beveled, prismatic
glass, etc. should not be permitted, unless it is damaged and
is technically infeasible to repair.
Partially Complies
Windows proposed to be
completely removed, however
the glass is not the historic,
leaded, art, stained, etc. type of
glass.
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 doublehung, 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
Partially Complies
The existing windows would
take a significant amount to
repair and should be replaced
due to lack of maintenance,
however, the proposed
replacement windows are not
wood.
Page 59 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 6 of 8
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
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.
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.
If necessary, divide large glass surfaces into smaller
windows that are in scale with those seen traditionally.
Complies
No additional doors or
windows are being added.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within
the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; N/A
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Does Not Comply
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies,
Windows
Does Not Comply,
Siding
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the
building, structure or site is preserved;
Partially Complies
Page 60 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 7 of 8
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
If hardie is used, the
amount of exposure
will be slightly
different as the hardie
siding creates less
horizontal lines on the
facades than the
current siding. The
removal of the wood
materials will reduce
the integrity of the
structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with
surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is
protected; and
Complies
The change in the
material and change
in siding exposure
will not impact the
historic overlay
district
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay
district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the identified deteriorated wood windows should be replaced and that the proposed
replacement will create the same visual effect. However, the wood siding does not exhibit rot, damage
or warping should be retained and maintained. The siding should be cleaned, scraped, replace the
missing pieces and painted. The design guidelines recommend replacing with same material, however
cypress is expensive to mill. Pine is a secondary option to retaining the wood materials and visual
distinction and is more readily available. Pine could be used to fill in for the missing pieces to create
the same visual effect if painted properly, the applicant could patch with pine and it would not create a
noticeable difference.
Page 61 of 101
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[2019-20-COA] – 1304 E. University Ave. Page 8 of 8
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 &3 - Letter of Intent and Plans
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 62 of 101
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 9, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of the Downtown and O ld Town Design G uidelines. F oc using on the review
and policies for the Downtown, Area 1 and Area 2. Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown
P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
S taff will provide the C ommission an overview of the Downtown Design G uidelines C hapter 1, C hapter 12
and C hapter 13. C hapter 1 will focus on the Des ign G oals for Area 1, how the guidelines are used, and the
format of the guidelines. C hapter 12 has the guidelines for Infill C onstruc tion in Area 1 of the Downtown
O verlay and C hapter 13 is Infill C onstruc tion in Area 2 of the Downtown O verlay.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Chapter 1 Purposed of the Des ign Guidelines Exhibit
Chapter 12 Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 1 Exhibit
Chapter 13 Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2 Exhibit
Page 63 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 1
These guidelines are to be used when considering improvements to historic properties in George-town, and for new construction within the city’s historic overlay districts. These Districts include the Downtown Overlay District and the Old Town Overlay District.
The historic core of Georgetown has served as the cultural center of the community for more than 150 years and retains many buildings that convey its early character. The blocks facing the courthouse square contain structures of historic significance that have been renovated and that enhance the quality of life as well as the economy for the com-munity. Historic preservation and economic devel-opment are partners in the success of downtown. This relationship was formalized when the City established the Town Square Historic District (Area 1) in 1975, which was expanded in 2000.
In more recent years, citizens have come to rec-ognize that the character of development in those blocks that frame the historic district also are of community interest. This area contains major com-mercial streets that lead through the downtown and it also incorporates some blocks of buildings that were originally residential and have been adapted to commercial uses. While many historic properties are found in this outlying area, other sites have newer buildings or are undeveloped. This broader area is defined as Area 2.
For the purposes of these design guidelines, two areas combined form the Downtown Overlay District (see map at left):• Area 1—the Town Square Historic District• Area 2 —the remainder of the Downtown Overlay District (not including the Town Square Historic District)
Portions of these design guidelines are written to assure that those preservation efforts and property investments are protected by providing direction for future improvements in Area 1. It is also important that Area 2 serves as a frame for the historic district and that it, in its own right, is a
place of active retail uses that invites pedestrian activity and contributes to the economy of down-town. Guidelines for Area 2 are also provided that encourage development, which draws upon the basic design traditions of the commercial core. They also recognize that this outer ring should not seek to imitate the historic buildings around the courthouse square.
The guidelines are for property owners planning exterior alterations, additions to or the rehabilita-tion of existing buildings. They also apply to the design of new buildings. The guidelines will assist property owners in understanding the historic char-acter of the buildings and environment in which they are located, and assist owners when they are faced with decisions about repair, maintenance, re-habilitation, and new construction. The guidelines are not a rigid set of rules. They do not require that buildings be restored to an historical period or style. Rather, their purpose is to provide:• Guidance to property owners and tenants about buildings, their distinctive character-istics, and how to maintain them; • Various appropriate ways to address design, repair, and rehabilitation issues; • Good maintenance practices; and, • Appropriate ways to design new, compatible infill buildings and site layouts.
Chapter 1
PurPose of the Design guiDelines
The Town Square Historic District.
Page 64 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 2
Design GoalsIn order to assure that this distinction between Area 1 and Area 2 occurs in a manner consistent with traditional development patterns, a series of design goals are established for each sub-area. These design goals reflect the feelings of residents and property owners alike.
Design in Area 1The Town Square Historic District (Area 1) should continue to develop in a coordinated manner so that an overall sense of visual continuity is achieved. The dominant character of this area should be that of a retail-oriented, commercial environment, with an active street edge that is pedestrian friendly.
The design goals for Area 1 are:• To rehabilitate existing historic commercial buildings;• To continue the use of traditional building materials found in the area;• To maintain the traditional mass, size, and form of buildings seen along the street (i.e., a building should be a rectangular mass that is one- to three-stories in height.);• To design commercial buildings with store-front elements similar to those seen tradi-tionally (i.e., a commercial building should include: recessed entries, display windows, kick plates, transom windows, midbelt cor-nices, cornices or pediments, and vertically-oriented upper-story windows.);• To design a project that reinforces the retail-oriented function of the street and enhances its pedestrian character;
• To promote friendly, walkable streets (i.e., projects that support pedestrian activity and contribute to the quality of life are encour-aged.); and• To provide site amenities—such as benches, lights, waste receptacles, landscaping, etc.—to enhance the pedestrian clean, uncluttered experience.
Design in Area 2Those commercial streets in Area 2, surrounding the Town Square Historic District, should develop in a manner that is inviting to pedestrians while also accommodating automobiles. 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 experi-ence. In addition, a combination of uses is encour-aged, including residential, office, and retail.
The design goals for Area 2 are:• To develop in a compatible nature with that of Area 1; whereas the entire Downtown Overlay District is seen as a distinct commer-cial district that also allows and encourages residential development;• 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 enjoyed by pedestrians;• To minimize the visual impacts of automo-biles; and• To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths.
Area 1
Area 2
Page 65 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 3
Design for civic institutionsThe design guidelines focus on principles for re-habilitation and infill of commercial and mixed-use projects that should reinforce the historic building fabric and enhance the pedestrian environment. To do so, they draw upon principles established in traditional commercial buildings. While these are the majority of property types that will occur in the area, civic facilities also should be a part of the urban mix.
These civic facilities include churches, schools, libraries, art spaces, meeting facilities, courts, and governmental offices. Traditionally, buildings for these uses have contrasted with the framework of storefronts. The historic courthouse is an ex-ample: It stands apart from the rows of commercial buildings, framed by a lawn as a foreground. Its entrances are more prominent. While it stands apart as a structure, it clearly is a part of the down-town, with its entrances oriented to the street and walkways promoting pedestrian use. This helps to convey its civic function as a gathering place. This tradition of designing civic institutions as land-marks in the urban fabric should be continued. At the same time, the basic principles of urban design outlined in this document should still apply. Among them are these key principles:
Design principles for civic facilities:• Civic facilities should be located such that they encourage pedestrian traffic to nearby downtown businesses;• Civic facilities should be designed to rein-force the downtown fabric of streets and sidewalks;
• Convenient pedestrian connections should link abutting civic buildings;• The edges of a civic property should be invit-ing to pedestrians;• The visual impacts of automobiles should be minimized; • Primary entrances should face the street, not parking lots;• A sense of human scale should be con-veyed;• Impacts on adjacent historic resources should be minimized; and• Outdoor spaces designed for public use should be provided.
Civic institutions
Streetscape amenities including light fixtures, tree
grates, and trash receptacles enhance outdoor
spaces.
Page 66 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 4
Design in the Old Town Overlay DistrictThe Old Town Overlay District should continue to reflect the traditional character, which is predomi-nantly single-family residential.
The design goals for Old Town are:• To preserve historic structures;• To continue the use of traditional building forms and materials in new construction;• To maintain the residential character of street facing facades, streets, and front yards, and the overall residential character of the area; and,• To preserve the character of historic houses that may be adapted to new uses.
Fundamental Community ValuesWhile the guidelines in this document focus on the design character of development in the downtown area, they are based on key values the community holds about town development in general. These are:
1. Georgetown protects its historic resources and its heritage in general.2. The community maintains its unique charac-ter in the downtown area.3. Downtown is safe and inviting for visitors, residents, and workers.
4. Downtown users are diverse; economically, culturally, and in age.5. The community maintains a high quality of life and livability.6. Downtown is relatively dense in population which supports a variety of activities and enhances the efficiency of alternative modes of transportation.7. Downtown maintains its economic vitality. It is a place to work, conduct business, promote tourism, and be entertained.8. Cultural activities in a vibrant downtown, including civic buildings (library, museum), art galleries, performance venues, and event and multi-purpose sites.9. Old Town has a diverse mix of housing types and sizes.
Why Have Design Guidelines?The design guidelines provide a basis for making decisions about the appropriate treatment of his-toric resources and compatible new construction. They also serve as a planning tool for property owners and design professionals who seek to make improvements that may affect historic re-sources.
While the design guidelines are written such that they can be used by the layman to plan improve-ments, property owners are strongly encouraged to enlist the assistance of qualified design and planning professionals, including architects and preservation consultants.
The design guidelines provide a basis for making
decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic
resources.
Many of the historic structures in the city were constructed
with high quality materials and craftsmanship.
Page 67 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 5
Why Preserve Historic Resources?Across the nation, thousands of communities promote historic preservation because doing so contributes to neighborhood livability and quality of life, minimizes negative impacts on the environ-ment, and yields economic rewards.
Because Georgetown is rich in resources and of-fers an outstanding quality of life, it continues to at-tract development that challenges the community to seek creative ways of protecting its character. Preserving historic resources is a part of an overall strategy of maintaining community identity and livability. As Georgetown continues to grow the goal is to maintain its ties to the past through the preservation of its architectural heritage reflected in its historic resources.
From the 1980s, community planning efforts in Georgetown emphasized citizen concerns about the need to preserve the scale and character of the older commercial and residential neighborhoods. Preserving historic resources will help maintain the feel and way of life that makes Georgetown attractive.
Preservation of the built environment provides a fundamental link to the past. Many of the buildings tell the story of Georgetown’s unique historical de-velopment and keeping these resources creates a sense of place for those who live here and provides visitors a connection with this unique heritage.
Construction qualityMany of the historic structures in the city were constructed with high quality materials and crafts-manship. Other buildings were more modest, but even so may have used lumber from mature trees that were properly seasoned and typically sawed or milled to full dimension, which often yielded stronger framing. Masonry walls were carefully crafted to fit together, resulting in buildings with considerable stability. These structures also were thoughtfully detailed and the material finishes, including fixtures, wood floors, and trim, were generally of high-quality features that owners today appreciate and value.
AdaptabilityOwners frequently find that the floor plans of historic buildings easily accommodate modern lifestyles and support a diversity of populations. Many rooms are large, permitting a variety of uses while retaining the overall historic character of the structure. Even historic buildings that are smaller in scale are often on sites that can accommodate additions, if needed.
Livability and quality of lifeWhen older buildings occur in groups, they create a street scene that is “pedestrian friendly,” and encourages walking and neighborly interaction. Mature trees and decorative architectural features also contribute to a sense of identity that is not found in newer areas. These historic buildings therefore help create desirable places to live and work.
For more information regarding the economic
impacts of historic preservation in Texas,
consult “Historic Preservation at Work for the
Texas Economy.” This is a report prepared by a
statewide preservation partnership consisting of:
The Texas Historical Commission, Preservation
Dallas, the City of Abilene, the City of Fort Worth,
the City of Grapevine, the City of Laredo, the
City of Lubbock, the City of Nacogdoches, the
City of San Antonio and the Grapevine Heritage
Foundation.
The report was based on the study, “Economic
Impacts of Historic Preservation in Texas”
by The Center for Urban Policy Research at
Rutgers University, Texas Perspectives and The
LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas at Austin.
Page 68 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 6
Environmental benefits Preserving an historic structure is also a sound environmental conservation policy because pres-ervation and reuse saves energy and reduces the need for producing new construction materials. Four types of energy savings occur: • First, energy is not consumed to demolish a building, dispose of the resulting debris, or use more land fill space.• Second, energy is not used to create new building materials, transport them and as-semble them on site. • Third, the “embodied” energy that was used to create the original building and its compo-nents is preserved.• Finally, by “reusing” older buildings, or their salvaged materials, pressure is also reduced to harvest new lumber and other materi-als that may have negative effects on the environment of other locales where these materials are produced.
Economic benefitsNationwide studies prove that preservation proj-ects also contribute more to the local economy than do new building programs because each dollar spent on a preservation project has a higher percentage devoted to labor and to the purchase of materials available locally. By contrast, new construction typically has a higher percentage of each dollar spent devoted to materials that are produced outside of the local economy and to special construction skills that may be imported. Therefore, when money is spent on rehabilitating a building, it has a higher “multiplier effect,” keeping more money circulating in the community.
Historic preservation efforts also foster a charm and character that attracts visitors. Many small towns throughout the country have made tourism, based on their historic resources, a profitable and effective development strategy
Responsibility of ownershipOwnership of an historic property carries both the aforementioned benefits and a responsibility to respect the historic character of the resource and its setting. While this responsibility does ex-ist, it does not automatically translate into higher construction or maintenance costs. Ultimately, residents and property owners should recognize that historic preservation is a long-range com-munity policy that promotes economic well-being and overall viability of the city at large. In addition, they play a vital role in helping to implement such a policy through careful stewardship of the area’s historic resources.
Historic preservation efforts also foster a charm and
character that attracts visitors.
Page 69 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 7
The Historic and Architectural Review CommissionThe City of Georgetown appoints volunteer mem-bers to its Historic and Architectural Review Com-mission (HARC). A majority of the Commission members are chosen from: property owners within an Historic District; state licensed architects; land-scape architects, professional planners, or urban designers; historians or persons with expertise in historic preservation; and developers, contractors or Realtors. The HARC and Planning and Devel-opment Department staff will use the guidelines when considering the issuance of a Certificate of Design Compliance for projects within the Overlay Districts.
How Are Guidelines Used?Property owners, real estate agents, developers, tenants and architects should use the guidelines contained in this document when considering a project. This will help establish an appropriate direction for its design. For any project subject to review, the applicant should refer to the guidelines at the outset, to avoid planning efforts that later may prove to be inappropriate.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission will also use the design guidelines for the review of proposed projects within the Overlay Districts to determine if the design policies presented herein have been followed. It is important to recognize that in each case a unique combination of design variables is at play and, as a result, the degree to which each relevant guideline must be met may vary. In making its determination of the appropri-ateness of a project, HARC’s overall concerns are that: 1. The proposed work complies with the criteria in its ordinance.2. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved.3. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic proper-ties.4. The overall character of the Overlay Districts is protected.
The design review process is “reactive,” in that it only applies to proposed actions initiated by a property owner. While it guides an approach to certain design problems by offering alternative so-lutions, it does not dictate a specific outcome and it does not require a property owner to instigate improvements that are not contemplated.
Ordinary repair and maintenance do not require ap-proval. However, seemingly unimportant changes, like adding a driveway, fence, or enclosing a porch, can have a dramatic effect on the visual character of an historic resource and therefore are of concern to the City. Therefore, approval is necessary for any changes to the exterior of a building in the Downtown Overlay District and some buildings in the Old Town Overlay District.
The following is a list of changes that must be brought before HARC for design review:
Downtown Overlay District• The construction of a new structure. • Addition to a structure.• The alteration or restoration of any exterior features of an historic resource. • The removal or demolition, in whole or in part, of an historic resource.• The construction of a new sign or changes to an existing sign.• Applying a new exterior siding material.• Adding a new window, door, or dormer.• Creating a driveway or a parking area. • Adding a satellite dish (TV) or other mechani-cal equipment, solar panel, etc.• Building or enclosing a porch, carport, deck, fence, or garage • Adding outdoor heaters, televisions, mounted electronic equipment, and similar items.
Page 70 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 8
Applying for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)Use the following steps for an efficient application process for a CDC:
Step 1. Consider professional design assistance.Property owners are strongly encouraged to en-gage licensed architects and other design and planning professionals to assist them in developing their concepts. Doing so may facilitate a smoother review process. If a project proposal is not clear, the review may be delayed for 30 days or longer while clarifications are made. HARC is available for consultation on a conceptual review prior to making a formal application.
Step 2. Check other City regulations.The guidelines supplement other adopted City ordinances. The City of Georgetown Planning and Development Department can provide information about these regulations, which could affect the design character of a project. Examples include:• The City of Georgetown Unified Develop-ment Code (UDC)• The City’s Downtown Master Plan• The Building Code (current version, as ad-opted by the City)• The City’s Historic Resource Survey• The City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehen-sive Plan• Federal income tax credits for certified reha-bilitation of historic buildings (if applicable)
Old Town Overlay District• The construction of a new structure; how-ever, new single or two-family residential structures are exempt unless the structure exceeds the limitations set forth in UDC Sec-tion 4.09.030.B.• The alteration of any exterior features of commercial structures, non-residential structures, bed and breakfasts, or residential structures used as or changing to non-resi-dential or commercial use.• Addition, removal, or demolition to the street facing façade of single or two-family residen-tial structures.• Addition to a non-single or non-two-family structure and any addition to a residential structure that exceeds the limitations set forth in UDC Section 4.09.030.B.• The removal or demolition, in whole or in part, of an historic resource.• The construction of a new sign and changes to existing signs.• Applying a new exterior siding material to a non-single or two-family structure.• Adding a new window, door, or dormer to a non-single or two-family structure.• Creating a driveway or a parking area for a non-single or two family residential use.• Adding a satellite dish (TV) or other me-chanical equipment, solar panel, etc. to a non-single or two-family structure.• Building or enclosing a porch, carport, deck, fence, or garage for a non-single or two-fam-ily structure. • Adding outdoor heaters, televisions, mount-ed electronic equipment, and similar items to non-single and two-family uses.
Acquire and CompleteCDCApplication
Staff Review
AmendApplication(if necessary)
Proceed withBuildingPermitProcess
Resubmit Application AppealDecision
The Design Review Process
Preapplica-tion Confer-ence
HARCConductsDesign ReviewHearing
Staff Analysis and Report
Not Approved Approved:
Issue CDC
Page 71 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 9
Step 3. Become familiar with the de-
sign guidelines.Review the basic organization of this document and determine which chapter(s) will apply to a proj-ect. Contact the City of Georgetown’s Planning and Development Department with any questions.
Step 4. Review the site context.Consider immediately adjacent properties and also the character of an entire block. In many cases, the character of the district is an important consideration.
Step 5. Develop a design concept using the guidelines.The guidelines form the basis for HARC’s design review decisions.
Step 6. Pre-application Conference.Prepare a packet for preliminary review for by the Planning and Development Department prior to creating drawings for final review. This step is required prior to submitting an application for a CDC.
Step 7. Prepare and submit a complete application packet for formal review.An application packet should be prepared and submitted to the Planning and Development De-partment for staff and HARC to review. Adequate documentation is essential to provide a complete understanding of the work proposed. The City requires that sufficient information be provided to facilitate an informed review and to document conditions of approval for effective enforcement. Minimum submittal requirements are described in the City’s review procedures, which are available in the UDC Development Manual at the Planning Department. or on the web page at www.udc.georgetown.org. Applicants are required to submit the following documentation, based on application type:• Completed application checklist• Site plan/roof plan (drawn to scale)• Floor plan for each floor or level (drawn to scale)• Proposed building elevations (drawn to scale)• Photographs of building conditions (existing and historic)• Product literature or specifications• Accurate material samples and color sam-ples
Note: Historical markers at state and national levels carry varying protections and restric-tions. If a structure or site has a state level designation of Recorded Texas Historic Land-mark (RTHL) or State Archeological Landmark (SAL), the owner needs to contact the Texas Historical Commission Architecture Division to coordinate any exterior alterations being considered (www.thc.state.tx.us).
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark is a legal designation and comes with a measure of protection. Owners of RTHL-designated struc-tures must give the THC 60 days notice before any alterations are made to the exterior of the structure. Unsympathetic changes to these properties may result in removal of the designa-tion and historical marker. An owner is encour-aged to contact the THC Architecture Division for technical advice. A RTHL designation is a permanent designation that is retained with the property even upon a transfer of ownership.
State Archeological Landmarks are designated by the Texas Historical Commission and re-ceive legal protection under the Antiquities Code of Texas. SAL designation stipulates that the property cannot be removed, altered, dam-aged, salvaged, or excavated without a permit from THC. The designation of SAL is conveyed with the property when sold.
Page 72 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 10
If a drawing is to be included in the submittal pack-age, it should be drafted to scale and executed in a manner that clearly depicts the character of the proposed work. A professionally produced draw-ing is strongly encouraged as the sketches that follow illustrate.
Appropriate drawing: while in free-hand, this drawing
does adequately convey the scale and character of the
proposed work.
Inappropriate drawing: the scale and character are not
clearly conveyed, nor are there any dimensions.
Step 8. Present your application before HARC.Each project proposal will have a formal presen-tation by the applicant or agent familiar with the project, so attendance at the public meeting by the applicant is strongly encouraged. The presenta-tion should focus on how the proposed project complies with the design guidelines. The public will also have an opportunity to comment after the presentation has been made and staff recom-mendation on the application has been presented. A critique by HARC will follow, and a decision will be made.
Page 73 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 11
Step 9. Issuance of a building or sign permit.After an application has been approved by HARC, the City will issue a Certificate of Design Compli-ance. This document is the applicant’s proof that the proposed design meets the intent of the City’s adopted design guidelines. At this point, the ap-plicant can begin to acquire a building or sign permit from the City. A sign permit may be applied for prior to HARC approval, at an applicant’s own risk. Remember, the building and sign permits processes are separate from receiving a Certificate of Design Compliance.
Appropriate drawing: mechanically drafted to
scale, this drawing best conveys the character of the
proposed work.
3
A3Repoint
masonry
Reconstruct kickplates
Restore
windows
to original
character
14
’
0
”
4’
0
”
6’
6
”
5’
0
”
Page 74 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 12
What is the Format of a Guideline?A guideline contains the following components:
Pertinent subtopicsEach chapter is divided into subtopics. For ex-ample, in the chapter addressing “Site Design,” the subtopics include: public streetscape; building and street lighting; historic landscape features; mechanical equipment, service areas, and other equipment; and parking.
Policy statementFor each subtopic broad policy statements explain-ing the City’s basic approach for the treatment of the design feature being discussed may be in-cluded for reference. This statement provides the basis for the more detailed background informa-tion and design guidelines that follow. In a case in which special conditions exist that do not appear to be anticipated in the guideline, this broad policy statement serves as the basis for determining the appropriateness of the proposal.
Background informationA discussion of the issues typically associated with the specific design topic is presented next. This may include technical information as well as general preservation theories that are relevant to the topic at hand.
Design guidelinesSpecific design guidelines are presented in this document in bold face font. These are numbered to indicate their relative position within a chapter and to aid in specific reference in the design review process. Supplementary requirements that clarify the primary design guideline statement and may suggest specific methods for compliance are listed as bulleted (•) statements.
IllustrationsDesign guidelines are further explained through the use of photographs and illustrations. Examples given should not be considered the only appropri-ate options. In most instances, there are other solutions that meet the intention of the design guidelines.
If there are any questions regarding the appropri-ateness of a potential design solution contact the Planning and Development Department.
It is important to note that all of the elements of the design guidelines (i.e., including the introductory and informational sections, the policy statement, and the sub-points) constitute the material upon which the City will make its determination of the appropriateness of a proposed project.
A sample of the format of a design guideline and its components, as used in this document.
Policy: Original architectural details that have deteriorated beyond
repair should be replaced in kind.
While restoration of the original material or feature is the preferred alternative, in some situations a portion of the original building material may be beyond repair. Replacement should occur only if the existing historic mate-rial cannot be reasonably repaired. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match that being replaced in design, color, texture and other visual qualities.
4.7 Remove only that which is deteriorated and must be replaced.• Match the original in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials or
features.
Policy
Statement
Background
Information
Design
Guideline
Additional
Information
Illustration
Where replacement of a detail is required, one
should remove only those portions that are
deteriorated beyond repair.
Original
molding
Replacement
Piece
Page 75 of 101
Purpose of Design Guidelines
page 13
How do the Design Guidelines relate to the City’s Unified Development Code and Downtown Master Plan?
Unified Development CodeThe Unified Development Code (UDC) details the development standards for all properties within Georgetown. The standards that are applied to each property are based on zoning and use and include development issues such as parking, landscaping, tree protection, land use, and build-ing design.
Properties located in the Overlay Districts must meet the development standards of their specific zoning district as well as the Design Guidelines. The zoning district standards often address items that might not be included in the Design Guide-lines and vary based on zoning designation. For example, a residentially zoned historic property located in the Downtown Overlay District must meet the residential setback and parking require-ments of the UDC as well as the design standards in the Design Guidelines, while a property zoned Mixed-Use Downtown must meet different UDC parking and setback requirements as well as the Design Guidelines.
Downtown Master PlanThe Downtown Master Plan is a planning docu-ment designed to illustrate the overall vision of the downtown and enable the City, property owners, and citizens to make informed strategic decisions about future developments and enhancements. The Plan details a framework of how public infrastructure, streetscape design, way finding systems, circulation, parking, new construction, redevelopment, and preservation work together to provide a strong, viable downtown.
During site review of proposed projects in the Downtown Overlay, property owners will be asked to design public improvements, streets, sidewalks, street furniture, and other elements in conformance with the Downtown Master Plan. To help facilitate these improvements, there may be financial as-sistance or other incentives available.
Page 76 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 14 Page 77 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 1
page 121
This chapter presents design guidelines for the construction of new buildings within the boundar-ies of the Town Square Historic District (Area 1). The design guidelines are organized into a series of relevant design topics. Within each category, individual policies and design guidelines are pre-sented, which the City will use in determining the appropriateness of the work proposed.
Summary of Key CharacteristicsKey design characteristics of this area include the following:• Buildings aligned with adjacent historic build-ings at the sidewalk edge• One- to three-story, traditional commercial buildings (some buildings reach greater heights, however)• Masonry construction dominates• Transparent ground floor with smaller win-dows “punched” into predominantly solid upper floors• Flat-roof buildings• Sidewalk uses and activities
Design GoalsThe Town Square Historic District should continue to develop in a coordinated manner so that an overall sense of visual continuity is achieved. The dominant character of this area should be that of a retail-oriented, commercial environment, with an active street edge that is pedestrian friendly.
The design goals for Area 1 are:• To rehabilitate existing historic commercial buildings.• To continue the use of traditional building materials found in the area.
• To maintain the traditional mass, size, and form of buildings seen along the street (i.e., a building should be a rectangular mass that is one- to three-stories in height).• To design commercial buildings with store-front elements similar to those seen tradi-tionally (i.e., a commercial building should include: recessed entries, display windows, kickplates, transom windows, midbelt cor-nices, cornices, or parapets, and vertically-oriented upper-story windows).• To design a project that reinforces the retail-oriented function of the street and enhances its pedestrian character.• To promote friendly, walkable streets (i.e., projects that support pedestrian activity and contribute to the quality of life are encour-aged).• To provide site amenities—such as benches, lights, waste receptacles, landscaping, etc.—to enhance the pedestrian experience.• To accurately convey the history of the area by avoiding styles that are not accurate to Georgetown’s history.
Chapter 12
Design guiDelines for
infill construction in AreA 1 -
town squAre historic District
In This Chapter:Building setbacks 123Mass and scale 124Building form 125 Building materials 125Architectural character 126
See the Downtown Master Plan for specific design information related to infill development in the downtown.
Page 78 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 122
Building SetbacksIn a residential context, buildings are typically set back a uniform distance from the sidewalk. By contrast, buildings in commercial areas often are aligned immediately at the inside edge of the sidewalk. This contributes to a sense of visual continuity.
A typical building in the Town Square Historic Dis-trict also has its primary entrance oriented to the street. This helps establish a “pedestrian-friendly” quality. In most cases, similar entryways are evenly spaced along a block, creating a rhythm that also contributes to the sense of visual continuity. These entrances are also typically recessed from the sidewalk edge.
Mass and ScalePatterns are created along the street by the rep-etition of similarly-sized building elements. For example, uniform facade widths evenly spaced in downtown create a rhythm that contributes to the visual continuity of the area.
Building FormOne of the most prominent unifying elements of the Town Square Historic District is the similarity in building form. Commercial buildings are simple rectangular solids, deeper than they are wide. This characteristic is important and should be continued. Also, commercial roof forms appear flat, although there is typically a slight pitch to it for water to drain. This characteristic is important and should be preserved.
MaterialsBuilding materials of new structures should con-tribute to the visual continuity of the area. They should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. Brick and stone are the dominant materials and their use in new construction is preferred.
Architectural CharacterThe street level floors of traditional commercial buildings are clearly distinguishable from the upper floors. First floors are predominantly fixed plate glass with a small percentage of opaque materials. Upper floors are the reverse: opaque materials dominate, and windows appear as smaller, verti-cally oriented openings puncturing the solid walls. The floor-to-floor height on the street level is also generally taller than the upper floors. This feature should also be expressed in new construction.
Page 79 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 1
page 123
Policy: Maintain the line of building fronts in the block.
A building shall have a clearly-defined primary entrance.
For most commercial buildings, this should be a
recessed entry-way.
After: Simplified interpretations of traditional building
elements, including a transparent first floor with display
windows and an ornamental cornice, help this new
building fit into its context.
Before: New buildings should be compatible with the
commercial buildings seen traditionally. Creative new
design is especially encouraged that is compatible
with the design goals of the district. Here, a parking
lot awaits compatible infill. (See below.)
Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Structures in the Town Square Historic District should contribute to a strong “building wall” along the street. A new building should align at the front lot line and be built out to the full width of the parcel (i.e., to the side lot lines). Although small gaps can occur between some structures, these are exceptions.
12.1 Maintain or enhance the alignment of buildings at the sidewalk edge.• Locate the front building wall at the sidewalk line when feasible. • Where a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge
12.2 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street.• A building shall have a clearly-defined pri-mary entrance. For most commercial build-ings, this should be a recessed entry-way.• Secondary public entrances to commercial spaces are also encouraged on a larger building.
Page 80 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 124
Maintain the established building scale of one to three
stories in height.
Policy: A building should appear similar in scale to traditional commercial buildings.
Building heights vary in the Town Square Historic District and yet there is a strong sense of similarity in scale. This is in part because most buildings are one to two stories in height.
12.3 Maintain the traditional range of building heights seen in the historic core.• Traditional floor heights should be expressed with horizontal moldings, alignment of win-dows and other architectural details.• Set back portions of a third floor to empha-size the lower scale of one and two story portions of a building.
12.4 Buildings shall appear similar in width to those seen historically in the block. • Traditionally, building fronts were built in 20- to 30-foot increments. Buildings fronts should reflect this pattern.• On corner lots, the secondary side wall is traditionally longer in its “module”, and this may be appropriate for new secondary eleva-tions.
12.5 Consider dividing a larger building into “modules” that are similar in scale to buildings seen traditionally.• If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimension-ally throughout the entire building facade.
12.6 Floor-to-floor heights shall appear to be similar to those seen traditionally.• In particular, the windows in a building should appear similar in height to those seen tradi-tionally.
12.7 A building shall maintain the alignment of horizontal elements along the block.• This alignment occurs because many of the buildings are similar in height.• Window sills, moldings, and cornices are among those elements that may be seen to align.
A building shall maintain the alignment of horizontal
elements along the block.
Height varied between one and two stories, in the
center of a three-lot building.
Page 81 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 1
page 125
Policy: The form of a building should be similar to those seen traditionally.
12.8 Maintain views to the courthouse.• In certain circumstances views to the court-house should be taken into consideration when designing a new building.• A new building should not be so tall as to block views of the courthouse.
One of the most prominent unifying elements of downtown is the similarity in building form. Com-mercial buildings were simple rectangular solids, deeper than they were wide. This characteristic is important and should be continued.
12.9 Rectangular forms shall be dominant on commercial facades.• Rectangular forms should be vertically ori-ented.
12.10 Use flat rooflines as the dominant roof form.• Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.• Gable roof forms may also be considered if they are obscured by a “false front” storefront similar to those seen historically.
Rectangular forms shall be dominant on commercial
facades.
Policy: Building materials should be visually compatible with the predominate materials of this area.
Traditionally, a limited palette of building materials was used in the area—primarily brick and stone. This same selection of materials should continue to be predominant. New materials also may be ap-propriate when they relate to the scale, durability, color, and texture of the predominate materials of this area.
12.11 Materials shall appear to be similar to those used traditionally.• Brick and stone were the traditional materials and are preferred. • If alternative materials are selected they should be comparable to traditional materi-als, including in texture and color.
Materials shall appear to be similar to those used
traditionally.
Note: See UDC Section 4.12 Courthouse View Protection Overlay District.
Page 82 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 126
While it is important that buildings be compat-ible with the surrounding traditional commercial context, it is not necessary that they imitate older building styles.
12.13 New interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.• A new design that draws upon the funda-mental similarities among older buildings in the area without copying them is preferred. This will allow the building to be seen as a product of its own time and yet be compatible with its historic neighbors.• Buildings that are similar in scale and over-all character to those seen historically are strongly encouraged. • In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.• This applies to architectural details as well as the overall design of a building.
12.14 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.• The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the lower floor.• Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inap-propriate.• Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street level and upper levels through detailing, materials, and fenestra-tion. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship.
Policy: A building should be visually compatible with traditional commercial buildings.
Contemporary interpretations of traditional building
elements are encouraged. In this case, shed form
awnings are stretched across rigid frames. Transom
windows are expressed with a metal grill design.
12.12 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane.• A matte, or non-reflective, finish is pre-ferred. • Polished stone should be avoided as a primary material and mirrored glass is inap-propriate.
Maintain the distinction between the street level and
the upper floor.
Page 83 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 1
page 127
First floors should be more transparent than upper
floors. (Aspen, CO)
A new commercial storefront building should incorporate
display windows, a transom window, a kickplate, and
recessed entry.
12.15 Upper-story windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged.• A typical, upper-story window is twice as tall as it is wide. These proportions are within a limited range; therefore, upper-story win-dows in new construction should relate to the window proportions seen historically.• Windows should align with others in a block. Windows, lintels and their trim elements should align with those on adjacent historic buildings.
12.16 Windows should be trimmed with wood, painted metal, or anodized aluminum.• This trim should have dimension and shadow lines similar to those used historically.
12.17 Window dimensions that are similar to those used traditionally are encouraged.• Many windows are “one-over-one,” in that a single pane of glass is in both the upper and lower sashes. Other pane configuration also may be present, such as “two-over-one,” with two panes (or lights) in the upper sash and one is in the lower sash. These arrange-ments are preferred.
12.18 The ratio of solid-to-void surface area shall be similar to that seen traditionally on commercial storefront buildings in the district.• First floors should be more transparent than upper floors. • Upper floors should appear more solid than first floors.• Avoid a blank wall appearance that does not provide interest to pedestrians
Page 84 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 128
12.19 Building entrances should appear similar to those used historically in the block.• Clearly define the primary entrance with an awning, canopy, or other architectural or landscape feature.• A contemporary interpretation of a traditional building entry, which is similar in scale and overall character to those seen historically, may be considered. • Building entrances should be recessed. • Clearly define primary entrances.• Secondary public entrances are also encour-aged on a larger building or along an alley if there is parking in the rear of the site.
12.20 Doors should be trimmed with wood, painted metal, or anodized aluminum.• This trim should have dimension and shadow lines similar to those used historically.
A contemporary interpretation of a traditional building
entry, which is similar in scale and overall character to
those seen historically, is encouraged.
Secondary public entrances are also encouraged on a
larger building or along an alley.
Page 85 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 129
This chapter presents design guidelines that apply to Area 2, the ring of streets and blocks that en-circle the Town Square Historic District. The design guidelines are organized into a series of relevant design topics. Within each category, individual poli-cies and design guidelines are presented, which the City will use in determining the appropriateness of the work proposed.
However, if your property is located within the boundaries of the Town Square Historic District (Area 1) and you are considering a new construc-tion project, then please consult Chapter 12 for the relevant design guidelines, instead of this chapter. If your project is in the Old Town Overlay District please consult Chapter 14 for the relevant design guidelines, instead of this chapter.
This area has emerged from a heritage of residen-tial buildings and then later structures that were commercial in nature, but developed at a relatively low density, with substantial portions of land given over to automobiles. In more recent years, the area has developed with a mix of uses, including offices, retail, and some residential. While many of the buildings are relatively new, some older struc-tures survive, which contribute to a pedestrian-orientation and may in some cases have historic significance. Preserving these resources should be encouraged and, when feasible, they should be incorporated in new developments.
Chapter 13
Design guiDelines for
infill construction in AreA 2 -
Downtown overlAy historic
District
In This Chapter:Building setbacks 132Mass and scale 133Building materials 135Pedestrian-friendly character 136Transitional character 137Applying the guidelines 140
See the Downtown Master Plan for specific design information related to infill development in the downtown.
Page 86 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 130
The area 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 prop-erties. Even though automobile circulation routes significantly affect the character, it is still possible to strengthen pedestrian links and to improve the edges of properties such that a sense of human scale is conveyed.
In those portions of Area 2 that developed as residential blocks a “transitional” character—a blend between commercial and residential struc-tures—should be seen. Rather than constructing a storefront type building in these blocks with predominantly residential characteristics, a new design should relate to the traditional design characteristics of surrounding buildings while also conveying the stylistic trends of today.
Design GoalsThose commercial streets in Area 2 surrounding the Town Square Historic District should develop in a manner that is inviting to pedestrians while also accommodating automobiles. 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 continu-ity and strengthening the pedestrian experience. In addition, a combination of uses is encouraged, including residential, office, and retail.
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 automo-biles.• To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths.• Retain native vegetation with project de-sign.• Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately con-verted residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain.• To utilize similar building materials, store-front design, recessed entries, and front setbacks.
Building SetbacksA wide variety of building setbacks can be seen throughout Area 2. Much of this variety is due to the influence of the automobile and the need to provide on-site parking. This parking typically has been provided in front of the building for consumer convenience. However, this trend erodes the view of the edge of buildings located along a sidewalk as was seen historically. Therefore, it is strongly encouraged that new developments in Area 2 should build on this tradition and locate buildings at the front lot line.
Page 87 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 131
Mass and ScaleA variety of building sizes exist in this area. While contemporary design approaches are encouraged, developments should continue to exhibit a variety of in sizes, similar to the buildings seen historically and traditionally.
Building MaterialsBuilding materials of structures should contribute to the visual continuity of the area. They should ap-pear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity.
Architectural CharacterCommercial buildings throughout the Downtown Overlay District should relate to one another through the consistent use of similar building materials, storefronts, recessed entries, and the alignment of these different elements along a block. This tradition is strongly encouraged for new developments in Area 2.
One of the concerns in building design is that when national chain companies or their franchises construct buildings in Area 2 that they do so in a way that reinforces the design traditions of George-town. Some typical issues and negative impacts often associated with national chain or commercial franchise designs include:• Bright logo colors are used over large ex-panses of a building.• Large blank walls on “big box” buildings are bland and out of scale, and discourage pe-destrian activity.• Buildings are surrounded by parking lots and cars. Primary entrances are typically oriented to these parking lots, rather than to the street.• Metal panels and large areas of featureless stucco are often used and these are out of character and not of human scale.
Instead, these building types shall comply with the design guidelines that follow.
Pedestrian EnvironmentArea 2 should provide a controlled, organized automobile system which provides a safe pedes-trian environment. Streets, sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping should define the road edge and encourage walking, sitting, and other pedestrian activities.
Projects that can occur in the area also may have automobile activity associated with them. This should not, however, make it an unsafe environ-ment for the pedestrian or cyclist. Automobile circu-lation patterns, both internal and external, should be clearly identified and should not interfere with pedestrian or cyclist circulation systems.
Page 88 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 132
Policy: A new building should maintain the wall of buildings at the sidewalk edge.
Continuity of design within the Downtown Overlay District is a goal of the city, both in terms of con-necting individual projects and town blocks. Not only should a new building in Area 2 be located at the sidewalk edge, but it should be designed to provide visual interest.
13.1 Locate a new building at the front prop-erty 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.
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 compat-ible 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 struc-tural element, that reflects the position of typical storefront elements. These elements should align with nearby traditional commer-cial building types.
Also consider using fence, or other structural element,
that reflects typical storefront elements.
Define the edges of a lot with landscaping, such as
low-scale urban street trees or shrubs. (Georgetown,
Washington, DC)
A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property
shall have a building wall at the sidewalk edge.
Building
Parking
A new building should contribute to a pedestrian
friendly environment by providing an active street
edge. (2008)
Page 89 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 133
Policy: The overall mass of a new building should convey a sense of human scale.
Buildings in the downtown should appear similar in height and width to commercial structures seen traditionally in Area 1.
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 materi-als to emphasize the building module.• Variation in the façade height to reflect tra-ditional lot width.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. • A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller, sur-rounding 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.
Divide a larger building into “modules” that are similar
in scale to buildings seen traditionally.
Consider dividing a larger building into “modules” that
are similar in scale to buildings seen traditionally.
Page 90 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 134
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.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the tra-ditional 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 follow-ing: - A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet - A change in primary facade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical architectural element or trim piece• Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its roofline and front and rear facades.• If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimension-ally 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.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.• In certain circumstances views to the court-house 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.
A method of achieving height variation within a single
building is to step the building along the primary
façade.
Note: See UDC Section 4.12 Courthouse View Protection Overlay District.
Subdividing a larger building mass into smaller
“modules” that are similar in size to buildings seen
traditionally is encouraged. (Danville, CA)
Page 91 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 135
Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are
preferred. (Boulder, CO)
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 relate to the scale, durability, color and texture of the predominate materials of downtown.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred.• Brick and stone are preferred for new con-struction. • New materials should appear similar in char-acter 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.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane.• A matte, or non-reflective, finish is pre -ferred. • Polished stone and mirrored glass, for example, are inappropriate and should be avoided as primary materials.
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged.• Horizontal lap siding of traditional dimensions is appropriate in most applications. • Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions are encouraged.• Brick or stone, similar to that used tradition-ally, is also appropriate.• Highly reflective materials are inappropri-ate.• New materials that are similar in character to traditional ones may be considered. Alterna-tive materials should have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate.
Policy: Building materials for new construction should be visually compatible with the predominate materials of this area.
Page 92 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 136
Policy: A new building should contribute to a pedestrian-friendly environment by providing an active street edge.
13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally.• Metal and shingle roofs are preferred. • Clay tile is discouraged.
Consider using display cases on the ground floor where
an active storefront is not a possibility. (Boulder, CO)
A new building—such as this gas station in downtown
Boulder, CO—that draws upon the fundamental
characteristics of building in Georgetown is
encouraged.
The downtown should continue to develop as a pedestrian-oriented environment. Streets and sidewalks should encourage walking, sitting, and other outdoor activities. Buildings also should be visually interesting to invite exploration by pe-destrians. Existing pedestrian routes should be enhanced. These are important concepts because buildings are experienced at close proximity by pedestrians.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a proj-ect to encourage pedestrian activity. • Provide at least one of the following along primary pedestrian ways: - A storefront - Display cases - Landscaping - A courtyard or plaza• Include traditional elements such as display windows, kickplates, and transoms on com-mercial storefronts.• Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appear-ance.
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.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians.• Use landscaping and lighting accents to identify entrances.
Page 93 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 137
Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. Provide
a one-story entry element that is similar in size to those
seen traditionally. (Boulder, CO)
Policy: In those portions of Area 2 that developed as residential blocks a “transitional” character—a blend between commercial and residential structures—should be seen.
A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions
seen in the block. (Boulder, CO)
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge.• Sharing ingress and egress points with neighboring projects is strongly encouraged with consideration to safety.
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.
Several blocks of Area 2 were originally part of a single-family neighborhood. It is now, in essence, a place of transition between the true commercial core of the Downtown Overlay District and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Although commercial uses are expected throughout Area 2, residential-type structures still establish the architectural tone for many of the blocks. There-fore, new developments should sensitively relate to these traditions while also building upon com-mercial characteristics seen elsewhere in the downtown.
Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building.
13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block.• The front yard setback of a new building should match the established range of ad-jacent buildings. • Where the setbacks are uniform, the new building should be placed in general align-ment 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.
Page 94 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 138
13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of hu-man 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.
13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. • A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller, surround-ing structures.
Height varied between two and three stories.
Buildings on sites larger than two traditional lot widths
should be designed to reflect the traditional scale of
development.
Page 95 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 139
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.
13.21 A porch on a converted residential structure should remain in place. • Retain the original residential integrity of the building.
13.22 New interpretations of traditional build-ing styles are encouraged.• A new design that draws upon the fun -damental 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.
New interpretations of traditional building styles are
encouraged. (Boulder, CO)
Develop the ground-floor level of a project to encourage
pedestrian activity. Consider providing a courtyard or
plaza where a building’s entrance must be setback.
(Boulder, CO)
Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and
stone are encouraged (2008).
Page 96 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 140
The first case study, in Danville, California, includes the redevelopment of two blocks along a major arterial, which parallels the historic Main Street. Design standards required that new buildings be constructed at the sidewalk edge.
This row of new, double-fronted buildings defines the
sidewalk edge of a major arterial street in Danville,
California. The building is also divided into modules
that reflect the traditional building characteristics.
Seen from the interior parking lot, the “second”
storefront facade is apparent.
The edge of the infill site in Danville reveals the parking area, which is located in the interior of the lot and
accessed between the two rows of buildings.
Applying the Design Guidelines: How may the infill guidelines be applied in real situations?
The design guidelines for new commercial construction in Area 2 presented in this chapter can be combined to develop a comprehensive program of development of a property. The images on the following pages depict two infill examples from other communities and a potential infill development scenario for Georgetown. These examples all address situations where auto-oriented areas have re-developed to appeal more to pedestrians.
Page 97 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 141
Application of guidelines for a new development in Area 2In this example, the guidelines for new development in Area 2 are applied to an entire block. The as-sumption is that the entire block is developed as a single project, although similar results could occur with cooperative development among individual property owners.
The focus of the project is providing a mix of uses, including retail at the street level, and offices and residences above. The structure is divided into a series of “modules” that reflect the traditional widths of buildings constructed in the downtown.
Canopies and awnings align along the first floor level, providing a sense of visual continuity while also sheltering the sidewalk. Building heights vary among one and two story segments. This creates variety in massing and also creates some upper level balconies and decks. A corner plaza contributes to the open space; this could be outdoor seating for a café. While “notches” such as this are provided along the street, the majority of the street wall is defined with storefronts, to define the pedestrian zone.
A limited amount of parking is provided in the interior of the
lot, in an auto court. The remainder of the parking would be
provided off-site, preferably in a civic parking structure.
corner plaza
canopies & awnings buildin
g
m
o
d
u
l
e
s
Canopies and awnings align along the first floor
level, providing a sense of visual continuity while
also sheltering the sidewalk.
interior of block
parking
shared
loading
facility
building
entrances
building
entrances
Page 98 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 142
Application of guidelines for a new development in Area 2In this example, the guidelines for new development in Area 2 are applied to an entire block. The assumption is that the entire block is developed as individual projects that adhere to one overall de-velopment plan.
Compared with the development scenario on the opposite page, this particular infill scheme includes a lower density of buildings with a landscaped street edge. The key to this scenario is the use of “anchor” buildings at the corner of all lots. Such a development could include commercial uses (such as retail) on the ground levels of buildings and office space or residential units on upper floors.
primary auto
access from
alley
landscaping buffers
parking lots
buildings anchor
corners
outdoor activity
space
commercial buildings
align at sidewalk
edge
Page 99 of 101
Design Guidelines for Infill Construction in Area 2
page 143
Application of guidelines for a new “transitional character” developmentIn this example, the guidelines for a new “transitional” development in Area 2 are applied to an entire block. The assumption is that the entire block is developed as a single project, although similar results could occur with cooperative development among individual property owners.
This mixed-use project would provide neighborhood-oriented commercial and residential units. This building complex complements the nearby single-family residential neighborhood in that it steps down in height on the block face nearest the residences and incorporates sloping roof forms. The residential units also incorporate one-story porches and small front yards. The parking is located to the interior of the lot and would be buffered along the street edge. Commercial uses - which include office and retail space - are mostly located on the ground floor and several residential units are located on the second floor.
residential units
front porches
interior parking lot
commercial ground
floor uses
sloping roof forms
residential and
office uses on upper
floors
mixed-use buildings
residential units
interior parking lot
Page 100 of 101
City of Georgetown
page 144 Page 101 of 101