Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.24.2017Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown August 24, 2017 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building, 101 E 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. REVISE D AGENDA Public Wishing to Address the Board On a sub ject that is pos ted on this agend a: Pleas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the Bo ard meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which yo u wis h to s p eak, and present it to the Staff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board cons id ers that item. On a sub ject not pos ted on the agend a: Pers ons may add an item to a future Bo ard agenda b y filing a written req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the p ublic . For Board Liais on c o ntact info rmatio n, pleas e lo gon to http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /. A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. Legislativ e Regular Agenda B Co nsideration of the Minutes from the July 27, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replac e Page 1 of 183 exis ting windows and ins tall an awning on a build ing loc ated within the downto wn overlay d is tric t and loc ated at 706 Austin Avenue . So fia Nels on, CNU-A, Planning Direc to r D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of property loc ated at 705 E. University, b earing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.11 ac . being remnant N 40' of Lot 6, Blo ck 52 o ut o f the Clement Stub blefield S urvey. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner E Public Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) fo r reno vations of property loc ated at 705 E. University, b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.11 ac. being remnant N 40' o f Lo t 6, Blo c k 52 o ut of the Clement S tub b lefield S urvey.- - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner F Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new c o nstruc tio n within the d o wntown o verlay d is tric t lo cated at 810 Ro ck Street. (C OA-2017-014)-- So fia Nels o n, Planning Direc tor G Public hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t fo r a variation in height from the s tand ards s et fo rth in Sectio n 4.08.020.A o f the Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC ) to allo w a s ingle four s tory struc ture that is approximately 56 feet in height at its highes t point fo r a p ro perty loc ated in the downtown overlay dis tric t and loc ated at 810 Rock Street.-- Sofia Nels o n, P lanning Directo r H Public Hearing and possible actio n o n a req ues t for a Certific ate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) fo r new c o nstruc tio n o f property lo cated at 815 S. Main S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion of 0.11 ac. being remnant N 40' of Lot 6, Blo ck 52 o ut of the Clement Stubblefield Survey. I Public Hearing and possible actio n o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations to a histo ric fo r property loc ated at 1811 S. Main St., b earing the legal d es cription of 0.25 ac. Lo t 10, Blo ck 4 out o f the Eubank Ad d ition. Nat Waggoner, P MP, AIC P J Co nsideration and possible actio n to reco mmend ad o p tion of the 2016 His toric Res o urc es S urvey Rep o rt and Data. S o fia Nels o n, P lanning Director K Up d ates of Downto wn P ro jects and up co ming meetings . Next Regular HARC Meeting,September 28,2017 Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 2 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the July 27, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC_Minutes _07.27.2017 Backup Material Page 3 of 183 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3  Meeting:  July 27, 2017   City of Georgetown, Texas  Historic and Architectural Review Commission  Minutes  Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.  Council and Courts Building  101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX  78626  Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Assendorf‐Hyde (alternate); Justin Bohls; Art Browner;  Shawn Hood, Vice‐Chair; Karl Meixsell; and Catherine Morales (alternate).  Absent: Lawrence Romero  Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager and  Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.  Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:04 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.    Regular Session  A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures  Legislative Regular Agenda  B. Consideration of the Minutes from the June 22, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording  Secretary  Motion by Bohls, second by Hood to approve the minutes.  Approved 7‐0.  C. Conceptual Review for a proposed Infill Project located at 810 South Rock Street ‐ Sofia Nelson,  Planning Director  Nelson explained the review criteria that the commission should use for their comments. They  should consider building materials, massing and compatibility with the district.  The commission  will not be taking action, but are asked to provide comments to the applicant.  Parking is not a  concern for this discussion.  She also explained the Courthouse View Corridor and how that was  calculated.  She showed maps and diagrams to show that only a small corner of the building and  property were located within the view corridor and that the courthouse was not seen from the  angle of Hwy 29, regardless of the building.    Matt Synatschk, representing the developer, spoke about the project.  He explained they were  trying to maximize the site usage by adding the additional floor. He noted the mix of materials  and how that provided articulation and pedestrian scale, using compatible materials that are used  in adjacent properties.  The first floor will contain a restaurant or retail use.  The upstairs will be  condominiums or apartment units.    Commissioners asked questions and discussed the height, trying to determine what other  buildings would be this height.  The developer is proposing a height of 52 feet.  It was noted that  by the top floor being recessed that it was only covering approximately 33% of the footprint of the  building and therefore not completely visible from the street, not affecting the pedestrian scale.   The Commission also discussed the use of black metal work versus a dark bronze.  Hood and  other Commissioners expressed that they would prefer a dark bronze instead of the stark black  finish, which would give it a “warmer” feel.    Page 4 of 183 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3  Meeting:  July 27, 2017   D. Consideration and possible recommendation of adoption of the 2016 Historic Resources Survey ‐‐  Sofia Nelson, CNU‐A, Planning Director  Nelson announced the draft Survey is almost complete but that the consultants did not provide  the final draft report in time for the posting of this meeting.  The commissioners were asked to  forward this item to a special meeting for discussion and possible action of adopting it. The action  needed to happen for the Survey Report to be taken to City Council on August 22, 2017.  The  Commissioners decided on a Special Called Meeting on Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:00 pm in  the Council Chambers.  Frost will post the agenda and send follow‐up notices to the  commissioners.  E. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings:   Next Demolition Subcommittee Meeting, August 8th   Next Regular HARC Meeting, August 24th    F. Adjournment  Motion by Bruner, second by Bohls to adjourn at 7:04 p.m.  Approved 7 – 0.         ________________________________          ______________________________     Approved, Lee Bain Chair                   Attest, Justin Bohls  Page 5 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s (COA) to rep lace existing windo ws and install an awning o n a b uilding lo cated within the downtown o verlay district and lo cated at 706 Austin Avenue . Sofia Nelso n, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The ap p licant is req ues ting approval of the fo llo wing work: Wind ows . T he ap p licant would like to keep the exact look of the disp lays , transoms and upper s tory wind ows , b ut put in a doub le paned p ro d uc t to help with efficiencies . T hrougho ut the d ay, the s econd flo o r heats s ubstantially, even with interio r shutters. Further, there is evid enc e of p as t leaks o n the s ec ond s to ry. T he ap p licant is req ues ting the use o f And ers on or Pella p ro d uc ts currently- d o uble s as hed , d o uble-paned and c us tom s ized to fit the existing loc atio ns . The first floor wind o ws will als o need a c usto m c ut, the applic ant is reques ting they b e double p aned. Awning– The applic ant is s eeking to ins tall a blac k metal awning for the c lean line and c las s ic lo o k, as well as its durab ility. Signage and c hange in paint color is also b eing p ro p o s ed and is p art o f the attac hed d o cuments , however, actio n o n s ignage and paint can be hand led ad minis tratively. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r ATTACHMENTS: Description Type s taff report Cover Memo application information Cover Memo Main Street Report on des ign options Cover Memo Page 6 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-024 ( David Love Building) Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 File Number: COA-2017-024 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to replace existing windows and install an awning on a building located within the downtown overlay district and located at 706 Austin Avenue. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: David Love Building Applicant: Kris Kasper Property Owner: Marilyn Messick Property Address: 706 S. Austin Ave., Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.06 ac. of Lot 4(PT), Block 41 out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey Historic Overlay: Town Square Historic District Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1883 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant has requested approval to renovate the façade facing Austin Ave through a revised paint scheme, signage, window replacements, and awning. The painting of the building and signage can be approved administratively. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Windows The applicant is seeking to keep the exact look of the displays, transoms and upper story windows, but put in a double paned product to help with efficiencies. According to building permits the windows currently in place are not original to the building and were installed in 1983. For all intents and purposes, the windows will look the same except for being a double paned product. The applicant is proposing a wood exterior cladding on the windows with a vinyl interior. Reasons for replacement by the applicant include the following: “Throughout the day, the second floor heats substantially, even with interior shutters. Further, there is evidence of past leaks on the second story. Given the cost of the interior renovation and of the façade, we want to preserve that as best as possible. We are looking at Anderson or Pella products currently- double sashed, double-paned and custom sized to fit the existing locations. The first floor windows will also need a custom cut, but we request they be double paned. This will comply with Sections 6.12, 6.13 and 6.16 of the Design Guidelines.” Page 7 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-024 ( David Love Building) Page 2 of 6 The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 6.1 For a commercial storefront building, a rehabilitation project shall preserve these character-defining elements: • Display windows: The main portion of glass on the storefront, where goods and services are displayed. This will help maintain the interest of pedestrians by providing views to goods and activities inside first floor windows. • Transom: The upper portion of the display window, separated by a frame. • Kickplate: Found beneath the display window. Sometimes called a bulk-head panel. • Entry: Usually set back from the sidewalk in a protected recess. • Upper-story windows: Windows located above the street level. These usually have a vertical orientation. • Cornice molding: A decorative band at the top of the building. • These features shall not be altered, obscured or removed The applicant would like to preserve all character defining windows in form and simply replace the windows with more energy efficient windows. The replacement as proposed by the applicant will be custom cut windows in order to preserve the size and form of the storefront windows. 6.2 Maintenance of storefronts. • Wash display windows. • Repair damaged kickplates. • Re-caulk display windows to reduce air infiltration. • Install weather-stripping around doors. n/a to request. 6.10 Retain the original shape of the transom glass in historic storefronts. • Transoms, the upper glass band of traditional storefronts, introduced light into the depths of the building, saving on light costs. These bands should not be removed or enclosed. • The shape of the transom is important to the proportion of the storefront, and it should be preserved in its historic configuration. • If the original glass is missing, installing new glass is preferred. However, if the transom must be blocked out, be certain to retain the original proportions. One option is to use it as a sign panel or decorative band. The applicant has indicated they would like to keep the exact look of the display windows, transoms and upper story windows, but put in a double paned product to help with efficiencies. 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. The applicant is seeking to keep the same number, size and arrangements the current windows provide to the building. Page 8 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-024 ( David Love Building) Page 3 of 6 GUIDELINES FINDINGS • 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 6.13 Preserve the functional and decorative features of an historic window or door. • Features important to the character of a window include its clear glass, frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation, location, and relation to other windows. • Features important to the character of a door include the door itself, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms, and flanking sidelights. • Historic screen and storm doors should be preserved and maintained. The applicant is seeking to retain a clear glazing and wooden exterior cladding. 6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the original design as closely as possible. • Preserve the original casing, when feasible. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. • Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to the building’s architectural style are inappropriate. • Using the same material (wood) as the original is preferred. • A new screen door added to the front of a visible door should be “full view” design or with minimal structural dividers to retain the visibility of the historic door behind it. • 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. • Security doors are non-historic additions. If installed, they should follow the guidelines for screen doors. The applicant is seeking to match the window replacement in number and position. However the applicant is seeking to replace existing wooden windows with a double paned product. The applicant is proposing a wood exterior cladding on the windows with a vinyl interior. 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. The applicant will maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings as are present today. Page 9 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-024 ( David Love Building) Page 4 of 6 GUIDELINES FINDINGS • 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 Windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining features of historic structures. They give scale to buildings and provide visual interest to the composition of individual façades. Distinct window and door designs in fact help define many historic building styles. The design guidelines recognize the size, shape and proportions of window and door openings are important features. They give scale to buildings and provide visual interest to the composition of individual facades. Additionally, the guidelines acknowledge while replacing an entire window or door is discouraged, it may be necessary in some cases. Although wood is preferred as a replacement material, metal is common on the market today and sometimes is suggested for replacement. It is possible to consider alternative materials, if the resulting appearance matches the original as closely as possible. The substitute also should have a demonstrated durability in this climate. The design guidelines suggest that HARC should assess the following when evaluating proposals to replace non-original windows: 1. Whether the proposed replacement windows and/or doors are based on the documented configuration of the building’s original windows and/or doors. 2. Whether historic window and door openings are proposed to be altered to accommodate windows or doors of different sizes, proportions, views, or configurations. 3. A historic window or door opening should not be enclosed, altered in its dimensions, or obscured. 4. Whether the non-original windows and/or doors have taken on historic significance and now contribute to the history of the building. Awning The applicant is seeking to install a standing seam, black metal awning across the frontage of the building. The applicant has proposed to install the awning just above the transom windows with four black mounting brackets to support the proposed awning. GUIDELINES FINDINGS 10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to the style of the building is encouraged. • Operable awnings are encouraged on historic buildings. • Use colors that are compatible with the overall color scheme of the facade. Solid colors or simple, muted-stripe patterns are appropriate. • The awning should fit the opening of the building. • Simple shed shapes are appropriate for rectangular openings. The proposed canopy will be consistent with the proposed color scheme the applicant is seeking to paint the building. Page 10 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-024 ( David Love Building) Page 5 of 6 GUIDELINES FINDINGS • Odd shapes, bullnose awnings, and bubble awnings are inappropriate on most historic structures. 10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered. • Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-mounted brackets, chains, and posts. • Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those canopies seen historically. The applicant is proposing a metal canopy above the transom windows supported by brackets underneath. The proposal is consistent with the placement the original building awning. 10.3 Illumination related to awnings or canopies should be limited. • Internal illumination in an awning is inappropriate. • Lights may be concealed in the underside of a canopy. • Shielded or low wattage lights may be used on the underside of a canopy. • Lighting that shines onto sidewalks from the underside of a canopy or awning is encouraged. • Rope/icicle lights are discouraged outside of the winter holiday season. Illumination has not been proposed at this time. 10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining features. • It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be found above the storefront and should not hide character-defining fea- tures. • Its mounting should not damage significant features and historic details. It appears that the placement of the awning just above the transom windows may hide rather than accentuate the character defining features for those viewing the building from the automobile perspective. The placement of the awning is consistent with the original building awning. 10.5 Maintenance of awnings and canopies is required. • Replace worn fabric awnings or damaged metal canopies. • Re-secure loose hardware. • Wash fabric awnings regularly. This will help extend the life of the fabric. Spray with water from the underside first, to lift dirt particles, and then rinse them off. • Paint metal canopies regularly, to reduce the potential for rust. This will extend the life of the canopy. n/a at this time. Page 11 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-024 ( David Love Building) Page 6 of 6 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Complies D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Complies E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. n/a H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. 1. Complies 2. Complies 3. Complies STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Sofia Nelson, Planning Director PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 12 of 183 Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Checklist This Checklist is intended to assist you in preparing a complete application for submittal. Occasionally, additional items may be required to complete the review. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. Please indicate the level of Review Authority for the application being submitted (check one; please see Pages 2-6 to determine your Review Authority): 0 HARC Review 0 HPO Review 0 Renewal of an expired CoA (Original Project#: _________ _ Digital Submission Requirements The City of Georgetown utilizes a digital review system called MyPermitNow, which requires certain digital submittal standards. For more detailed information and troubleshooting, please review the separate MyPermitNow User Guide available at https://planning.georgetown .org/mypermitnow/. • All applications must be submitted on a CD/DVD or Flash Drive that will not be returned . Discs or drives must be clearly labeled with the Project Name. • All items must be submitted in flat PDF format (no layers) with no digital signatures or passwords. The maximum file size is 50 MB with a 300 dpi resolution preferred. JPEG is not an acceptable format. Submittal Documents The following is grouped into the electronic documents that will be required for submittal. The bulleted list below each document heading shows the individual items that are to be combined to form that PDF document in th~ order that they are to be combined. The wording in italics is the name that particular PDF document must be given to expedite the intake of your application. 0 PDF Document 1 : Application Information • Master Application Form • Submittal Authorization Form (provided at the Pre-application meeting) • Page 1 of this CoA Checklist 0 PDF Document 2: Letter of Intent and Supporting Materials • A Letter of Intent describing the proposed Project(s), and how it meets the Design Guidelines and UDC. For applications with multiple Projects (signage, paint, addition, etc.) include each item being sought as a part of the application using the applicable Additional Items Required for Submittal as specified below. • Plans, drawings , specifications and other supporting materials of the proposed Project(s) as identified in the Additional Items Required for Submittal below. In addition to the digital items listed above, the following paper copies must be included in the submittal packet: 0 Material(s) Samples • 1 copy of each material sample (i.e. paint chip samples, wall panel samples, etc .), as specified in the Additional Items Required for Submittal below. Additional copies of all material samples may be required. Please Note: • One application is required for each type of review (HARC or HPO). However, one application may include one or more Projects as identified in UDC Table 3.13.01 0, and shall be subject to one fee for the review of that application . • All dimensional drawings shall be to scale and include dimensions (height, area, etc.), label, scale, and north arrow. • All color renderings and samples shall be an accurate representation of the proposed or existing color. • All renderings provided shall be an accurate representation of the property and any proposed changes. • If accurate materials are not provided or clearly explained, a delay may occur in processing your application. UDC Development Manual Revised: July 2015 Georgetown, Tex as www.georqetown. org CoA Checklist Page 1 of 11 Page 13 of 183 Gw Rd'i-owN U.Xt\S Master Application Applications are to be submitted to the Planning Department, located at 406 W. 81h St. Georgetown, TX 78626 Monday_through Fliday.,between the hours of-9.;.00 a .m. and 4;0Q..p.:m. I Application Type (Please neatly print the application type as termed on the Application Submittal Authorization Form) 1 ) HARC I Project Information Project Name: David Love Building Property Address: 706 Austin Avenue (Street Address) (Zip Code) Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOT 4(PT), ACRES .06 City Limits or ET J? City Limits Acreage: ....,o,-. ....,0:-6-:---:-:-:-:~-:--:------:--:---:---Total Lots (incl. open space, drainage, etc.): _1 _______ _ (Indicate if limits of construction) City Limits? _Y-:-e_s __ :-- (yes or n o) C t Z . Commercial urren onmg: -------- (If applica ble) Proposed Zoning: Commercial (If applicable) For Plat, Construction Plan, Site Development Plan, and Stormwater Permit Applications only: Is the subject prop erty loc ate d over th e Edward s Aquife r Recharge Zon e? Q No (!) Yes (select one below) D A signed and notarize d Water Quality A ckn owl edgement Form is included and made part of thi s appli ca tion (including a Geologi ca l A ssessment if applicabl e ). 0 A signed and notarized Water Qua lity Ac knowledgement Form and Geologic A ssess me nt (if appli ca ble) w e re s ubm itted with City A pp li ca tion No . and thi s appli cation is consistent with th e proj ect identified on said a ppli c ation and submitte d form . I Items Required for Submittal In addition to thi s Master Application Form and requ ired submittal fees, the foll owing form s mu st be completed a nd s ubmitte d in orde r to fil e an a ppli cation . );> Application Submittal Authorization Form Thi s form is provided by staff after a pre-application meeting and d etail s th e application type(s ) ready for submittal. );> Application Checklist (if required) An Application Checklist may be r equired for specific typ es of applications. Th e c hecklist lays out the essential technical information and docum ents required for eac h ap plication type . The c hecklist is a lso a guide to the digita l s ubmiss ion requirements th at are needed for th e MyPermitNow tra c king system th at th e City empl oys . All require d items mu st be includ e d with the submittal. Incomplete applications cannot be accepted. Applicati o ns will be reviewed for complete ness within five (5) working day s of submittal. If an a ppli cation is det ermin ed to be UDC D eve lopment Manua l R evised : Octo ber 2016 Georgetown, Texas www.georgetown.org Master Applica tion Page 1 of 2 Page 14 of 183 incomplete, the applicant will be notified and given a specific period of t im e to sub mit the missing material. If the material is not resubmitted within the spec ified period , the application shall be rejected in its enti rety and a new application and fee will be required. I Property Owner Information Property Owner Name(s): Marilyn Messick, TRUSTEE OF KASPER FAMILY TRUST Phone: (512) 818-8112 Email: mrmessick@yahoo.com 101 PITCHSTONE COVE Address : ____________________________________________________________________________ _ City: Georgetown State: TX ------------------Zip Code: 78628 By my signature, I hereby affirm that: )> I am the property owner of record and consent to thi s application. I further affirm that I a m full y aware of the C ity's application, fee, and procedural requirements. )> I ha ve the ability to assign my rights as the official Applicant to an agent of my choos ing or I may choose to serve as th e Applicant for this r ~ect. As noted be low, I have declared my intent to serve as Applicant or designate this responsibility t o eone else . ..._ I Applicant Information The Applicant will be the primary point of contact throughout the process. All correspondence and communication will be conducted with the Applicant, and the Applicant will be the authorized representative at any board, commission, or City Council meeting s unless the Applicant, in writing, designates a representative prior to the scheduled meeting . 0 Owner, as indicated on this application , will act as applicant Iii Owner desig nates the following person/firm to act as the applicant on their behalf: Applicant Name: _K_r_is __ K_a_s_p_e_r ------------------------------------- Phone: (512) 966-9781 Email: kris@kasperproperties .com Address: PO Box 276 City: Weir State: TX ------------------Z ip Co de: 7867 4 I Certification of Materials By my signature, I hereby affirm that the info rmation in thi s application subm ittal is complete and accurate. I furthe r affirm that I a m fully aware of t he City's application , fee, and procedural req uirements. Printed Name: Kris Kasper ~ Applicant Signature: lf ~ UD C D evelopment Manual Revised: October 20 16 Geo rget own, Texas www.qeorgetown.org Date :-~+[ ~-=-r-J _,_I 1--'----------f I Master Application Page 2 of 2 Page 15 of 183 Appli c ation Fee Estimate Agent I 0 ~..ner ~ ~"':> ~ b~ \"vv. "\,.-. P.r:if.Jed. N.am e: 700 Austin Av e. 0 Le!}aiDescrlptian: ---'~:::.....{-=§0~\~~'1~...~..( _,__Lc:=-\--~-'--(p~~-L) ________ --,--_ Planning Department <[)6 w 0 ~t~ st. Georgemwn. TX'1ffl25 512-OC0 -~575 . Date: 7.1:02017 .Acreage: . o Lt Lnts: ---- ln/E -~ art i!:Sfnt ate of the lrrif/al fee to,f.e paid 10 fi!e City GfGeorgei'Ol(liT a t rot e ,q f awmtorr .sutmr ittal. C:thut.ai:icn:s are.J:ssed ctJ: f t acHcrr.s of en .~ d'targ::d as a futl a ocre Additklriii nciificaoorr c i".argi!:'S m a';'~fi.:r.. QTY DESCRIPTION COST 00 ESTIMATEtlTOTAl DUE ·l.__$_2_65_~o_o_o _-.~r '!he City (:..a.s#ierac"Jepts Masteroaid, IAsa , Discolfe,·CJrr:l, dnec/>ijand ca-m . • 0 Clleck>-~uld hem<id.;AiyahletO't,'le C.'~· of ~dgero~, 00 Page 16 of 183 UDC Development Manual Georgetown, Texas CoA Checklist Revised: July 2015 www.georgetown.org Page 1 of 11 Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Checklist This Checklist is intended to assist you in preparing a complete application for submittal. Occasionally, additional items may be required to complete the review. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. Please indicate the level of Review Authority for the application being submitted (check one; please see Pages 2-6 to determine your Review Authority): ‰ HARC Review ‰ HPO Review ‰ Renewal of an expired CoA (Original Project #: ) Digital Submission Requirements The City of Georgetown utilizes a digital review system called MyPermitNow, which requires certain digital submittal standards. For more detailed information and troubleshooting, please review the separate MyPermitNow User Guide available at https://planning.georgetown.org/mypermitnow/. • All applications must be submitted on a CD/DVD or Flash Drive that will not be returned. Discs or drives must be clearly labeled with the Project Name. • All items must be submitted in flat PDF format (no layers) with no digital signatures or passwords. The maximum file size is 50 MB with a 300 dpi resolution preferred. JPEG is not an acceptable format. Submittal Documents The following is grouped into the electronic documents that will be required for submittal. The bulleted list below each document heading shows the individual items that are to be combined to form that PDF document in the order that they are to be combined. The wording in italics is the name that particular PDF document must be given to expedite the intake of your application. ‰ PDF Document 1: Application Information • Master Application Form • Submittal Authorization Form (provided at the Pre-application meeting) • Page 1 of this CoA Checklist ‰ PDF Document 2: Letter of Intent and Supporting Materials • A Letter of Intent describing the proposed Project(s), and how it meets the Design Guidelines and UDC. For applications with multiple Projects (signage, paint, addition, etc.) include each item being sought as a part of the application using the applicable Additional Items Required for Submittal as specified below. • Plans, drawings, specifications and other supporting materials of the proposed Project(s) as identified in the Additional Items Required for Submittal below. In addition to the digital items listed above, the following paper copies must be included in the submittal packet: ‰ Material(s) Samples • 1 copy of each material sample (i.e. paint chip samples, wall panel samples, etc.), as specified in the Additional Items Required for Submittal below. Additional copies of all m aterial samples may be required. Please Note: • One application is required for each type of review (HARC or HPO). However, one application may include one or more Projects as identified in UDC Table 3.13.010, and shall be subject to one fee for the review of that application. • All dimensional drawings shall be to scale and include dimensions (height, area, etc.), label, scale, and north arrow. • All color renderings and samples shall be an accurate representation of the proposed or existing color. • All renderings provided shall be an accurate representation of the property and any proposed changes. • If accurate materials are not provided or clearly explained, a delay may occur in processing your application. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Page 17 of 183 t To HARC: It has long been a dream of the Kasper family to own a building in downtown Georgetown, and recently that dream was realized with the purchase of the historic David Love building. In order to be the best stewards possible of the building, we immediately began cleaning and renovating the available interior spaces, which are the two apartments located on the upper floor. Now we are seeking your support to renovate the façade and restore the beauty of the ornate detailing in the original construction. The David Love Building was built in 1883 and then renovated in 1983 by Eugenia and David Harrell. The Harrells took a number of steps to achieve both national and historic designations. In the process, they removed the old awning, added clerestory, replaced all windows on the front and back façades, and re-worked and re-painted the façade. With the passage of time and the hot Texas sun, many of these items have been worn and need replacing. We began by first consulting with Sarah Blankenship at the Main Street Program, Shelly Hargrove and Matt Synatschk. We have since held meetings with both Kim Mcauliffe and Sofia Nelson to ensure we were fulfilling the City’s intent. The items we are focusing on restoring, pursuant to the Design Guidelines are as follows: Paint – Sarah Blankenship helped to provide us with a sample of appropriate color schemes for this Victorian building. We preferred the light grey color scheme with dark accents. To address Sections 11.1-11.3, the family examined historic photos from both the Harrell’s collection, the city’s archives, the Williamson County Museum and Donna Scarbrough Josey’s book “Then and Now: Georgetown,” indicated this seemed to be consistent with the early life of the building. Granted the photos are in black and white, but the intent seems consistent. This is a similar scheme to that on the Georgetown Art Center, which fits in well with the neighboring buildings. Pursuant to Section 11.6, we would like to highlight some of the beautiful detail in the second story tin features. We have attached indicative color samples. Facade – A.Windows. The sizing and location of the windows define this building as referenced in Sections 6.1-6.3. Per the architect’s renderings from 1983, all the windows on the building were replaced with ¼ inch tempered glass during the remodel. We would like to keep the exact look of the displays, transoms and upper story windows, but put in a double paned product to help with efficiencies. Throughout the day, the second floor heats substantially, even with interior shutters. Further, there is evidence of past leaks on the second story. Given the cost of the interior renovation and of the façade, we want to preserve that as best as possible. We are looking at Anderson or Pella products currently- double sashed, double-paned and custom sized to fit the existing locations. The first floor windows will also need a custom cut, but we request they be double paned. This will comply with Sections 6.12, 6.13 and 6.16 of the Design Guidelines. The David Love Building Page 18 of 183 B.Awning– Working again with Sarah, we were given some historically appropriate options for awnings to fulfill Chapter 10 of the Design Guidelines. Again, looking at the historic photos of the building, we prefer a standing seam, black metal awning for the clean line and classic look, as well as its durability. In addition to restoring a historical feature, the awning has practical attributes, providing welcome shade for pedestrians, shielding the merchandise on the ground floor from direct sun, and providing shelter when those crazy Texas storms blow in. Signage - The original building had a parapet containing the words “Love Building,” and possibly the date of construction. A later iteration has “The David Love Store” painted between first and second floors. Section 9.7 of the Design Guidelines actually shows a picture of the newer location. We would prefer to use wood or metal letters in a serif font similar to the historical font, but with placement of the signage to the upper story. The sign will read “The Love Building 1883”. This will fit within the composition of the plain panel area below the frieze, and is keeping with those historically seen in the area and in the photo provided. We are happy to answer any questions and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Page 19 of 183 Proposed Color Scheme, Awning and Signage for the David Love Building Page 20 of 183 Historical Views of Austin Aveue and the David Love Building Fl~ST MONDAY Sc NE, • I I -.... ;. Page 21 of 183 Page 22 of 183 Current and Historical Views of the Facade of the David Love Building Page 23 of 183 Sc a n n e d b y C a m S c a n n e r ------------ T031 ClfYT0/1-r 2381/674 I 0 ~I I 1' !-' -I I 1;0 J I i I r'----------------1 I I I ~ ~ N "'· ~ ~ ~ ~ $::) ~ ~ ~ S.E:f/E.IVTH ST.R.££7' ;E~!T l2C') ;:; "' <• ~ ;: I~ . I .. 3 J -.~ Q-.. ~ .. -~ .< I H I I ~ K~ fU' = ;:;. g y ~ q ~ .0. lJO.E:.RllvC 2236/925 ~~ ~ t! ~ 0 Q ~ ...;lo: :'§ E .NEJfJSOpf & OLS"'J\l JJ/"C. 10?3/482 ... I. "'~ 0 i-·,; c ...;..;:. ~ ~ ... ~ ~ I I ~ : i ----------L~--~ -~ , -rzz7""-' --~,.-:-------~.~:.~-I : ~ ~ ~ I '~-" · 1-": <EAST r:;:.··c<·::Q"E; 1 . 1 ·-I :T. ;:::.~n w.:.:; •-~~e"';:;:; ~ SC/l?YEY PLAT .FO.R 7'£.1?./ A. COOCH; 7'.1?. 0. 08 AC. 708 A 17S7'/'H A i-E a . .k. a. .f) A VJ'.l) .LO f/E Blff.lJJJltiC £l7C£H./A J£ HARR£'Ll 2559/211 PAH7' OF .£07' 4 BLOCK 4.1 OH/C£HAL 1'01'NS/1E C.ffY OF C.£0/i'C£7VII'H £H #'Jl,l;M.VSOH COC/HJ"Y. 7'.E:XAS ... . ~ NOTICE: TI·IIS HAP COPYRIGHT I LJ~Z:s::: i ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~§~luE.M 3£ HA.R.R;;:;_"~559/2.!.! .. I ,., ~ 3~i 3 "' 0 /J£' AC I ·-, ...; ~ :!:; :"" • uu -rf' it ~ >:~~0;;: 2008 BY FOREST Sl.RVEYING & ~~ ~St: ~ HAPPING CO. THIS HAP IS BEING PROVIDED SOLELY FOR THE USE -:= g.=,..; I < o'f v (55') ·1. .; ;:; .. \·,:;; ;::•'(•(l't•C··w· , rll Ill r -----------------L--r---------- 1 ,w~:;, •<D') (120.11') , 1r i z _ '= ,,.;;-rv ~:a.LL ~r,:~;-.-..,e ... r s~,;l-1!: ~ I TO.lif CUiTOlv 2381/6'.12 n o· x ·:z·> ~:5£ ~ ~.:::: =! ~ "'l'v ...... 0 ...;':jl~..! 1-H ·-·~-12 "'' I ; \Z:~; '-'J '~I"C•::fi'•,"'\"'J•' c ..... _"~ ..... ~-.-t . ·------(!2C.05) ~ ~r ? 3 ".! '=! ~ -...; ~; m -lJ~./SY J.E'AJV AIOO.RE ./66'3/?92 OF THE ClmeNT PARTIES. NO ~ LICENSE HAS BEEN CREATED <EXPRESS OR IMPLIED) TO COPY ~ THIS HAP EXCEPT IN CQN..JllojCTION WITH THE ~ ORIGINAL TRANSACTION FOR WHICH THIS HAP WAS CREATED. (HAY BE COPIED IN THAT CONTEXT IF CONDITIONS REMAIN l..tiCHANGED) I -----------------. , ~or s ~J~~Jf~,~~:{~~:~\~~f~[~~~~~~~?~,is~~:?!~~,, ~~{:,:;~~rt~~i,_:;.~~~:~_7_a;_~~:,~~. '~::=~~{:~;=;~: ·-~~~;l~~~:;~"-? j IV 4 6 J_;01' LE'GE'.ZVD SCALE: 1"=20' RJ.RES7' Sl/HYEnlv"C .J.NIJ .JE.IPPJJ,!C CO.IIPANY JotR ~ S17UD' 12Dil&ITOIH. 7Z.:US 412-~S!l27 SCSIV F! Goocn FBe9P&6 IRON PIN FOUND IRON PIN SET NAIL FOUND CHAlNUNK FENCE BOARD FENCE • 0 ... -----0--------o---- .://~~-~-=-0 =cf.:..:c.~ L ·-E -- -e - RECORD CALLS (BEARING / DISTANCE) TRACT LINES --- - - - ORIGINAL LOT UNES PER OTY TAX MAP ___ :_ -- DATA THIS SlflVEY BUILDING WALLS re7:~~--.± :..s ?e r ~i:p :~~.=-.·:==:-..:..~ ..... -~~·::~:; . .:·:, .S~::::ve .:Je.ie ·::/27 /11~.:. . :-:.) :--::·:::::.:--:: -=~s-=~~:-_;..:z :;~e i-:;-:Sr:.~ifi:.ed :::-· :~p JJ046.:..~2:.. ~4 ;:::-:-:-:::-:-~ C.y ·~~:;_;-~:.-:-n'":l ~Ue Co. -=:>:~ey .:.:.J:e ~:'2E/'?C'":C:. Page 24 of 183 April 13, 2017 Texas Main Street Center Design Report Re: 706 Austin Avenue City: Georgetown, Texas By: Sarah Blankenship, Project Design er Not for regulatory approval, permitting, or construction The purpose of this report is to provide ideas and schematic designs for projects. Main Street Staff works with the plans of business and property owners to provide designs that meet their objectives while still respecting the historic building. For official tax credit review, a separate process must be followed and may involve modified design plans to meet the criteria: http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/preservation-tax- incentives/texas-historic-preservation-tax-credit Prior to making any improvements to the building façade(s), the building owner should perform a thorough review of the major structural components including the roof, walls, and foundation. All mechanical and electrical systems should be well maintained in conformity with applicable codes and ordinances. Building uses and interior arrangements of program spaces should also be in conformity with applicable codes and ordinances. DESIGN REQUEST A design request was submitted for the building at 706 Austin Avenue. The new building owners would like to see different color schemes for the front façade. The color scheme of the Georgetown Art Center, seen below right, was referenced as preferred colors. A canopy or awning was also discussed as a possibility. Several renderings are provided on the following pages illustrating a variety of color schemes and awning possibilities. These can be modified upon request. Existing Conditions Color Scheme R eference Page 25 of 183 Page 2 of 10 DESIGN RENDERINGS Below are ten color schemes for 706 Austin Avenue. #4: Medium brown base color, white and blue/purple blue accents #3: White base color, darker blue accents #2: Light blue base color, brown and darker blue accents #1: Light gray base color, red and black accents Page 26 of 183 Page 3 of 10 #8: Gray base color, white, dark gray and small areas of blue accents #7: Gray base color, white and dark gray accents #6: Light gray accent base color, dark gray and light yellow accents #5: Medium brown base color, gray and white accents Page 27 of 183 Page 4 of 10 In general, the goal is to have a color scheme that is compatible with the rest of the Main Street district. A color scheme should not be too overpowering. Thus, more muted colors are typically selected for the majority of the building and vibrant colors limited to smaller accent areas. The façade of 706 Main Street is pressed metal. Historically, pressed metal was a more cost-efficient way to create a storefront with intricate designs than carved stone. Georgetown has several pressed metal facades, many of which were produced by a company called Mesker. There have been many approaches to color over the years on pressed metal façades. One approach was to paint the pressed metal the color of local stone to make the storefront appear like it was carved stone. The “painted lady” approach used multiple colors to accent as many details as possible. Ultimately, the decision comes down to personal preference. There is an interesting article titled “Don’t Faint, it’s just Paint” which looks at different colors on Mesker Facades. It can be found here: http://meskerbrothers.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/dont-faint-its-just-paint/. Below are some different color examples from that article. #9: Light yellow base color, white and blue-gray accents #9: Light blue base color, white and dark gray accents Page 28 of 183 Page 5 of 10 WOOD STOREFRONT & WOOD WINDOWS The storefront is showing signs of wood deterioration. It is possible that the storefront has been replaced at some point, possibly during the 1983 renovation, but the proportions are appropriate and relate to the historic photos. Therefore, it should be retained as is. The second- floor windows are historic and must be retained. Tinted glass is not recommended. For shade, the current shutters are an appropriate solution. For noise reduction, interior storm windows can be a consideration that does not change the exterior historic appearance of the building. For the wood windows, repair rotted or missing pieces of the frame by splicing in new pieces only in that location rather than replacing the entire window. Use consolidants on wood that is damaged or shows signs of rot to prolong the lifespan. A full explanation of how to properly maintain or repair historic wood windows can be found on the National Park Service website here: http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm. The General Services Administration (GSA) also provides technical sheets on historic preservation that list straightforward steps to follow and list companies/suppliers. • Restoring Wood Window Sash and Frames - http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113490 • Primers and Paints for Wood - http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113070 • Epoxy Repair for Deterioration and Decay in Wooden Members – http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/112030 • Surface Preparation for Painting Wood – http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113074 In 1983, the David Love Store was restored by owners Eugenia and Donald Harrell. Interior renovation on the ground floor provided space for several businesses (stores within a store) that sell such items as antiques, folk art, collectibles, and special gifts. The second-floor area has been divided into office space and apartments. Source: http://www.williamson-county-historical-commission.org/GEORGETOWN_TEXAS/David_Love_Store_the_Williamson_County_Texas.html 1984 Historic Photo 2004 I nterior Storm Windows E xisting Storefront Page 29 of 183 Page 6 of 10 AWNINGS/CANOPIES The addition of an awning or canopy to the front façade was discussed to provide shade and protection for the storefront. According to Georgetown’s design guidelines, “An awning or canopy should be similar to those seen historically”. The historic photo on the previous page shows an angled canopy above the transoms with pole supports. The roofing material was most likely metal. The streetscape has changed from pole-supported canopies to tie-rod supported canopies. Some historians attribute this change to the advent of the automobile and cars hitting the poles. A tie-rod supported canopy could be considered for the building and is seen in the 1984 photograph above. Supporting the awning or canopy with brackets from underneath is another consideration. Below are four options that have been explored for 706 Austin Ave. They are illustrated on color scheme 8 only, but can be applied to any color scheme upon request. 8D: Rolled metal canopy located above the transom windows supported with brackets underneath 8C: Fabric awning located above the transom windows supported by brackets underneath 8B: Canopy in between the transom window supported by tie-rods above 8A: Metal canopy above the transom windows supported by brackets underneath Page 30 of 183 Page 7 of 10 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS When rehabilitating a historic building, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards should be considered. The Standards for Rehabilitation are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They provide a framework and guidance for decision-making about work or changes to a historic property. The Standards can be found here - http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm. All changes, additions, and modifications to the building shall comply with the Standards and local design guidelines. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS The purpose of all codes is to provide minimum requirements for new and renovated buildings in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Fire prevention and life safety are their primary focus. Building code requirements vary depending on the occupancy or function of the building and the type of construction. In Texas, there is not a state building code, though state regulations do govern certain aspect of new construction or rehabilitation. Local governments officially adopt a specific building code, such as the International Building Code. A local code may contain amendments or changes particular to the local environment or conditions. The authorities may also adopt different codes for mechanical or electrical work, for example. Contact your local building authority to learn what codes govern your project. For other resources pertaining to rules and regulations that may apply to historic buildings, including Texas Accessibility Standards, Lead Paint and Asbestos Abatement, and Energy Conservation, please refer to the following links • THC Building Code Resources - http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/buildings-and-property/building-codes • Lead Paint Rules and Regulations - http://www.dshs.texas.gov/elp/rules.shtm • Asbestos Rules and Regulations - http://www.dshs.texas.gov/asbestos/rules.shtm • Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) - http://www.tdlr.state.tx.us/ab/abtas.htm • The Federal American’s with Disability Act(ADA) - http://www.ada.gov/ • ADA Primer for Small Business - http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer2010.htm There is the possibility of an IRS tax credit or deduction for making ADA improvements. Please see http://www.ada.gov/taxcred.htm for more information. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Page 31 of 183 Page 8 of 10 SIGNAGE The signage should be a full package of several signs that complement each other and attract people from different vantage points. The sign above the windows should be large enough to be seen across the street and from passing cars. Tag lines or additional information about the business can be added to the façade using window signage. Panel Sign Blade Sign Three Dimensional Letters Painted Sign Pedestrian Sign Window Sign FABRICATION Careful consideration should be given as to how the signage is fabricated. The Design Staff recommends using a local fabricator or sign company who will work with the property owner to achieve the chosen aesthetic of the sign. Panel signs can be printed or hand painted on a flat surface, but should a have a fine level of detail to make the sign look complete. The borders, symbols, and several layers of color in the images below add to the overall aesthetic and make the signs look unified. Panel signs can also be three –dimensional. For example, in the green Powell’s sign on the following page, each element is a separate layer of material, which adds shadow and depth. Hand – Painted Printed 3-D Page 32 of 183 Page 9 of 10 MATERIALS Signage can be made from wood, high density urethane foam, or metal. Plastic should be avoided as it is not compatible with the design of historic architecture. Hand-P ainted Wood Layered Metal Sandblasting the background of a foam or wood can create depth and visual interest like in the images below. EXTERIOR LIGHTING Exterior lighting on a building and in a historic downtown provides comfortable and walkable conditions at night. Lighting sources should be shielded from direct glare and should conform to the International Dark Sky Association guidelines - http://darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ To minimize the harmful effects of light pollution, lighting should (1) only be on when needed, (2) only light the area that needs it, (3) be no brighter than necessary, (4) minimize blue light emissions and (5) be fully shielded (pointing downward). Lighting should also be coordinated with the installation of signage to make the business visible at night. Panel or perpendicular signs can be illuminated from any angle using spotlights. Spotlights can be mounted on the top surface of the canopy or attached to the metal arm of the perpendicular sign. The spotlights depicted are small and have a simple profile, which decreases their visual impact on the façade. Three dimensional letters can be back lit, lit internally or illuminated with spotlights as well. Other methods can also be used to highlight signage. Halcyon Example Perpendicular Signs Page 33 of 183 Page 10 of 10 Coffee Bar uses hidden trough lights to light the three-dimensional letters from the bottom in combination with spotlights on the façade. FUNDING There are many options for funding preservation projects. As part of a designated Main Street community, the property owner has as a resource the local Main Street manager who can help you research and identify sources of additional funding. Localized financial tools can include façade grants or other direct assistance programs that come through sources such as local economic development organizations. The THC and TMSP has compiled a document that identifies many of these avenues for funding and financing, it can be found on our website: http://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/publications/Funding%20Methods%20for%20Main%20Street%20com munities%206.3.15%20update.pdf. There are funding sources at the local, state and federal levels and they are outlined in the document. The list provides only brief summaries of potential funding sources, and information including eligibility requirements and application deadlines that are subject to change without notice. If the scope of work exceeds available sources of funding, the project should be phased accordingly, but these options for funding can still be utilized. Please contact possible grantors directly for more information on their programs. State & Federal Preservation Tax Credit Income – producing properties listed on the National Register (individual or district) or designated as a Registered Texas Historic Landmark or State Antiquities Landmark may be eligible for one or both of the tax credits programs offered through the state. The work undertaken as part of the project must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, found here: http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four -treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm. For more information on the tax credit programs and application process, please visit: http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/proj ects-and-programs/preservation-tax- incentives or contact Christine Huber at 512.475.0129/Christine.Huber@thc.texas.gov. After the owner has had a chance to review the recommended concept, the Texas Main Street Design Center Staff will work with the owner(s) to help develop their rehabilitation plan for this particular building. It is also requested that TMSDC be notified when clarification of design elements might prove helpful or when an alternate scheme is contemplated. Please contact Sarah Blankenship (512) 463-9129/ sarahb@thc.texas.gov , or Marie Oehlerking-Read (512) 463-3345 / marieo@thc.texas.gov . Page 34 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C OA) for the d emo lition of property loc ated at 705 E. University, bearing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.11 ac . b eing remnant N 40' o f Lot 6, Blo ck 52 o ut o f the Clement Stubblefield S urvey. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The Central Ad minis tratio n and Williams Center fo r P ro fes s io nal Development b uilding is loc ated in the Old Town Overlay Dis trict. Georgetown IS D, is req uesting an ap p ro val from the HARC for the removal of three ac cessory struc tures (2016 HRS R Properties 123621A, 123621B) identified as low priority in the 2007 His toric R es o urc es S urvey. T hes e three anc illary s truc tures are loc ated o n the no rth portio n o f the p ro p erty at 507 E. University Avenue, direc tly adjac ent to 8th S treet. T he ap p licant no lo nger has a use for the build ings and intends to use the sites for water q uality facilities . Public Comment: To d ate, staff has received 1 written comment in s up p o rt o f demolitio n from the interested pub lic. Staff Recommendation: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t for d emo lition of the three anc illary build ings loc ated at 507 E. University. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - HARC Demo Exhibit Exhibit 3 - HPO Demo Exhibit Exhibit 4 - His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit Page 35 of 183 N IH 3 5 S O U THW E S T E R N B L V D R I V E RY BL V D M A P L E S T E UNIVER S I T Y A V E N AU S T I N A V E LEANDE R R D FM 1460 S IH 3 5 NE I N N E R L O O P W UNIVERSITY AVE S M A I N S T H U T T O R D S A U S T I N A V E SO U T H W E S T E R N B L V D R O C K R I D E L N SE I N N E R L O O P §¨¦35 E UNIVERSITY A V E W I L L I A M S D R COA-2017-013Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 36 of 183 HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NUMBER: COA-2017-012 MEETING DATE: August 8, 2017 MEETING LOCATION: 507 E. University Ave, Georgetown TX 78628 APPLICANT: David Biesheuvel, Facilities, GISD SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:Lawrence Romero, Shawn Hood STAFF PRESENT: Sofia Nelson, HPO Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Vermeeren, Huckabee, Project Lead COMMENTS Applicant: The Central Administration and Williams Center for Professional Development building is located in the Old Town Overlay District. Huckabee, on behalf of Georgetown ISD, is requesting an approval from the HARC for the removal of three accessory structures (2016 HRSR Properties 123621A, 123621B) identified as low priority in the 2007 Historic Resources Survey, ar e located on the north portion of the property at 507 E. University Avenue, directly adjacent to 8th Street. The applicant no longer has a use for the buildings and intends to use the sites for water quality facilities. Subcommittee : What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that should be made to the structure for re-occupancy? The three structures are habitable. The significance of the three structures are their date of construction. The 2016 Historic Resources Survey (HRSR) notes that the structures lack significance and integrity. Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure to its original design? Yes. The structures have had exterior renovations since construction, namely paint and utility improvements including window air condition units. May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored? The structure can be preserved however the School District does not have programming schedule and intends to use the acreage for water quality treatment for the additional improvements to the main building. Page 37 of 183 File Number: Meeting Date: Page 2 of 2 May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages? The portable building could be relocated. The cinder block building could not be moved without incurring damage. The applicant has not expressed desire to relocate. Does the structure, including any additions or alterations , represent a historically significant style, architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme? According to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey (HRSR), all three structures lack significance and integrity. Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones? No. Other comments RECOMMENDATION  Approval Approval with Conditions: Disapproval Based on: Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date Page 38 of 183 HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION F ILE NUMBER: COA-2017-012 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 507 E. University Ave, Georgetown TX 78628 APPLICANT: David Biesheuvel, Facilities, GISD Background The Central Administration and Williams Center for Professional Development building is located in the Old Town Overlay District. Georgetown ISD, is requesting an approval from the HARC for the removal of three accessory structures (2016 HRSR Properties 123621A, 123621B) identified as low priority in the 2007 Historic Resources Survey. These three ancillary structures are located on the north portion of the property at 507 E. University Avenue, directly adjacent to 8th Street. The applicant no longer has a use for the buildings and intends to use the sites for water quality facilities. Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (48 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (July 30, 2017 ) and six signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 1 written comment in support of demolition from the interested public. Findings The significance of the three structures are their date of construction, 1955 and 1970, respectively. The 2016 Historic Resources Survey (HRSR) notes that the structures lack significance and integrity. The three structures are habitable and have had exterior renovations since construction, namely paint and utility improvements including window air condition units. The structure can be preserved however, the School District does not have programming schedule and intends to use the acreage for water quality treatment for the additional improvements to the main building. The portable building could be relocated. The cinder block building could not be moved without incurring damage. The applicant has not expressed desire to relocate. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request based on the above-mentioned findings. RECOMMENDATION  Approval Approval with Conditions: Disapproval Sofia Nelson, CNU -A Historic Preservation Officer Date Page 39 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 B City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R415791Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 10/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1970 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 page 2 General Notes: Explain Property lacks significance Geographic Location Latitude:30.634811 Longitude -97.672919 Current/Historic Name:Williams Elementary School/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID Not Recorded ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 123621 B2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: Northeast Page 40 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 A City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos SouthPhoto Direction EastPhoto Direction Shed SouthPhoto Direction Page 41 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 A City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R415791Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 5/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1955 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 page 2 General Notes: Explain Property lacks significance and integrity Geographic Location Latitude:30.636461 Longitude -97.672677 Current/Historic Name:Williams Elementary School/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 166 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 123621 A2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: Southwest Page 42 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 B City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos NortheastPhoto Direction Page 43 of 183 Page 44 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n o n a req uest for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) fo r renovations of property lo cated at 705 E. University, b earing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.11 ac . b eing remnant N 40' of Lot 6, Blo ck 52 out of the Clement Stub blefield S urvey.- - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applic ant has req ues ted approval fo r the renovatio n o f multiple exterior elements o f Central Adminis tration and Williams Center fo r Lead ers hip and Learning including the replac ement of doors , wind o ws and the addition of ramp s , flag p o les and c anopies. This reques t, COA-2017-013, addresses the ap p licants d es ire to rep lace exterio r d o o rs and wind o ws o f Building One (1), Building Two (2) and Building Three (3) and the approval to c o nvert windows alo ng the As h Street faç ad e into a new, ADA compliant entranc e fo r Build ing 3. The ap p licant is s eeking ap p ro val to rep lace 1 window bay with new, ADA c o mp liant entrance to west fac e o f build ing one alo ng As h S t. The proposed improvements will us e the exis ting o p ening s ize of wind o w, convert to do o r. The applic ant proposes using white aluminum sto re front that c an b e seen througho ut the existing fac ility. T he new entrance will inc lud e a thin s teel frame awning with glas s to p and the und ers id e o f new c anopy will b e lit. The ap p licant is req ues ting approval to replac e the exterior d o o rs of b uildings one (1), two (2) and three (3). The doors propos ed fo r replac ement are no t o riginal to the b uilding. The rep lacement o f seven (7) s ets o f exterior d oors will inc ludes: o 5 to tal o n main b uilding o 3 on 2001 b uilding o 2 on 1963/1964 Band Hall The ap p licant intend s to resto re all exterio r wind o ws o n the Band Hall (Building 3). Currently the wind o ws are bric ked and boarded up. The applic ant will return to the fac e to glas s . The Fire Riser R o o ms of Building One (1) will require new exterio r doors. · T he Main Building’s existing ris er room d o es no t have an exterio r door; no infill will be req uired. o A new 3’ x 7’ painted hollo w metal d o o r will be lo cated o n the no rth side o f the main b uilding’s west wing. · T he exis ting riser ro o m in the 2001 Eas t Build ing need s to b e provid ed with an exterior doo r. o This new 3’ x 7’ p ainted hollow metal door will b e loc ated on the b uilding’s eas t façade. The Downtown and Old To wn Des ign Guidelines , chap ter fo ur p ro vides guidanc e o n the replac ement or s ubstitution o f materials , · “S u b stitu te ma terials ma y be con sid ered wh en th e orig inal is not readily a va ila b le or Page 45 of 183 wh ose u se is not feasible, where the orig inal is kn own to b e su scep tib le to ra p id d eca y, or where mainten a n ce access ma y be d ifficult.” FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans and Specs Part 1 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans and Specs Part 2 Exhibit Exhibit 4 - 2016 His toric Res ources Info Exhibit Page 46 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-013 (Renovations at Williams Elementary ) Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 File Number: COA-2017-013 (Renovations) AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for renovations of property located at 705 E. University, bearing the legal description of 0.11 ac. being remnant N 40' of Lot 6, Block 52 out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Central Administration and Williams Center for Leadership and Learning Applicant: Crystal Vasquez, Huckabee Property Owner: David Bieshuevel, GISD, Facilities Property Address: 705. E University, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 9.04 ac. Lot I of the Record Final Plat of the P.U.D. of Everette Williams Elementary School City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1923 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High National Register Designation: Yes Texas Historical Commission Designation: Yes APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant has requested approval for the renovation of multiple exterior elements of Central Administration and Williams Center for Leadership and Learning including the replacement of doors, windows and the addition of ramps, flag poles and canopies. This request, COA-2017-013, addresses the applicants desire to replace exterior doors and windows of Building One (1), Building Two (2) and Building Three (3) and the approval to convert windows along the Ash Street façade into a new, ADA compliant entrance for Building 3. 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. Complies 5.7 Consider removing materials that cover original siding. Complies Page 47 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-013 (Renovations at Williams Elementary ) Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained. Complies 7.11 Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building. Complies 10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered. Complies 10.3 Illumination related to awnings or canopies should be limited. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking approval to replace 1 window bay with new, ADA compliant entrance to west face of building one along Ash St. The proposed improvements will use the existing opening size of window, convert to door. The applicant proposes using white aluminum store front that can be seen throughout the existing facility. The new entrance will include a thin steel frame awning with glass top and the underside of new canopy will be lit. The applicant is requesting approval to replace the exterior doors of buildings one (1), two (2) and three (3). The doors proposed for replacement are not original to the building. The replacement of seven (7) sets of exterior doors will includes: o 5 total on main building o 3 on 2001 building o 2 on 1963/1964 Band Hall The applicant intends to restore all exterior windows on the Band Hall (Building 3). Currently the windows are bricked and boarded up. The applicant will return to the face to glass. The Fire Riser Rooms of Building One (1) will require new exterior doors.  The Main Building’s existing riser room does not have an exterior door; no infill will be required. o A new 3’ x 7’ painted hollow metal door will be located on the north side of the main building’s west wing.  The existing riser room in the 2001 East Building needs to be provided with an exterior door. o This new 3’ x 7’ painted hollow metal door will be located on the building’s east façade. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, chapter four provides guidance on the replacement or substitution of materials,  “Substitute materials may be considered when the original is not readily available or whose use is not feasible, where the original is known to be susceptible to rapid decay, or where maintenance access may be difficult.” Page 48 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-013 (Renovations at Williams Elementary ) Page 3 of 4 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Complies D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Complies E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. Complies H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. Complies STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey Information PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 49 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-013 (Renovations at Williams Elementary ) Page 4 of 4 SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Page 50 of 183 N IH 3 5 S O U THW E S T E R N B L V D R I V E RY BL V D M A P L E S T E UNIVER S I T Y A V E N AU S T I N A V E LEANDE R R D FM 1460 S IH 3 5 NE I N N E R L O O P W UNIVERSITY AVE S M A I N S T H U T T O R D S A U S T I N A V E SO U T H W E S T E R N B L V D R O C K R I D E L N SE I N N E R L O O P §¨¦35 E UNIVERSITY A V E W I L L I A M S D R COA-2017-013Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 51 of 183 June 14, 2017 City of Georgetown 300 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Re: Central Administration and Williams Center for Professional Development for Georgetown ISD HARC & HPO Review HARC & HPO Reviewers, The Central Administration and Williams Center for Professional Development building is located in the Old Town Overlay District. Huckabee, on behalf of Georgetown ISD, is requesting an approval from the HARC and HPO for the following scope of work: · Replacing exterior doors of building · Replacing exterior windows and doors at the old Band Hall building. · Replacing one window bay with new entrance doors on the west wall of the Auditorium o With the new door a set of steps and a ramp will be installed in order to comply with ADA. o Installing a new steel and glass canopy above the new door. · Landscape improvements · A new building sign centrally located on University Blvd. · New parking in the back (north) of the building · Demolition of miscellaneous peripheral buildings on site Included with this letter is a rendering of the new entrance at the existing auditorium along with the plans and project manual for your reference. Should you have any questions, please contact Mike Vermeeren or Crystal Vasquez at 800.687.1229. Sincerely, Crystal Vasquez Regulatory Specialist Page 52 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING | GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING 1, MAIN ENTRY- VIEWS - 5.0 5.0 03 T IMAGES - 3.1 EXTERIOR Page 53 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING | GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING 1, BOARD ROOM ENTRY- VIEWS - 5.1 5.1 03 T IMAGES - 3.1 EXTERIOR Page 54 of 183 Sheet No.Job No. Drawn By: Date: Project:Copyright © 2017, Huckabee & Associates, Inc.C:\Users\ etorres\Documents\ 1717-04-01 Williams ES_Renovations Page 55 of 183 HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING AUGUST 11, 2017 Page 56 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING / GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING ONE PLAN 1.0 NEW EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING 1 EXISTING HOLLOW METAL DOOR CONDITION NEW EXTERIOR ALUMINUM DOUBLE DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING ALUMINUM DOOR CONDITION Page 57 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING / GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING TWO PLAN 2.0 NEW EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR TO MATCH EXISTING DOORS AT BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 EXISTING HOLLOW METAL DOOR CONDITION NEW EXTERIOR ALUMINUM DOUBLE DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING DOORS AT BUILDING 1 EXISTING HOLLOW METAL DOOR CONDITION AT BUILDING 2 EXISTING ALUMINUM DOOR CONDITION AT BUILDING 1 Page 58 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING / GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING THREE PLAN 3.0 BUILDING 3 EXISTING DOOR CONDITION AT BUILDING 3 NEW EXTERIOR ALUMINUM SINGLE DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING AT BUILDING 1 EXISTING ALUMINUM DOOR CONDITION AT BUILDING 1 NEW EXTERIOR WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING AT BUILDING 1 AND BUILDING 2 EXISTING WINDOWS AT BUILDING1EXISTINGWINDOWCONDITIONATBUILDING3 Page 59 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING / GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 4.0 Page 60 of 183 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING / GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 5.0 Page 61 of 183 UP UP F.E. F.E. FECFECFECF. E. UP FEC UP UP UP FEC FEC F. E.ICE FIREMAN'S KNOX BOX CODE ANALYSIS PLAN NOTES 1) THIS CODE ANALYSIS PLAN IS PROVIDED AS A TOOL FOR VIEWING THE OVERALL CODE COMPLIANCE FOR THE ENTIRE FACILITY.WHILE STATED U.L. RATINGS REQUIRED THROUGH WALLS MUST BE MET, ALL CONTRACTORS MUST CONSTRUCT THIS FACILITY FROM THE MATERIALS AND IN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ANY APPARENT CONFLICT SHALL BE RESOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT.2) RATED WALLS NOT DESIGNED TO EXTEND ABOVE ROOF LEVEL SHALL EXTEND TO THE ROOF DECK WITH U.L. APPROVED CLOSURE TO THE DECK U. N.O.3) ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALLS SHALL BE CLOSED WITH CODE APPROVED METHODS AND MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN THE SPECIFIED RATING.4) REFER TO MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS.5) REFER TO A6 SHEETS FOR TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.THE EMERGENCY ACCESS LOCK BOX(ES) SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 10 4400. BOTTOM ELEVATION OF BOX SHALL BE 6'-0" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (VERIFY WITH FIRE MARSHAL)TYPICAL FIRE ASSEMBLIES DRYWALL PARTITIONS 1 HOUR DRYWALL PARTITIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE LAYER 5/8" "TYPE X" GYPSUM BOARD ON EACH SIDE OF 3-5/8" (U. N.O.)METAL STUDS. CONSTRUCTION SHALL EQUAL I.B.C. TABLE 720. 1(2)ITEM 13-1.1(BEARING OR NON-BEARING), U.L. # U419 OR # U465 NON-BEARING) OR U.L. # U423( BEARING)MASONRY RATED MASONRY WALLS AND PARTITIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE BLOCK AS SPECIFIED, CLAY BRICK AS SPECIFIED, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. THE EQUIVELANT THICKNESS OF THE MATERIALS SHALL EQUAL I.B.C. TABLE 720. 1(2)ITEM 2-1.1, ITEM 2-1.2, ITEM 3-1.1, ITEM 3-1.2, ITEM 3-1.3, OR ITEM 3-1.4 FOR THE RATING SPECIFIED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE ARCHITECT AND CODE OFFICIALS WITH MANUFACTURERS DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE COMPOSITION AND EQUIVELANT THICKNESS OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED ON THE PROJECT.ROOF OR FLOOR RATED FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH CONCRETE FLOOR ASSEMBLY AND FIREPROOFED STRUCTURE.RATED ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE FIREPROOFED PER UL # P701. CEILING ASSEMBLY RATED CEILING ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 5/8"TYPE X" GYP BOARD ATTACHED TO SHAFT WALL STUDS WITH 1"GYPABOVE, INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY PER ICBO ER-3579.SURROUNDING PARTITIONS MAY TERMINATE AT RATED CEILING ASSEMBLY.RATED CONSTRUCTION LEGEND WALLS BEARING THIS DESIGNATION SHALL MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR 1 HR.CONSTRUCTION. WINDOW ASSEMBLIES MUST BE 60 MINUTE RATED AND BE U.L. LABELED. DOORS MUST HAVE CLOSERS, BE U.L. LABELED, AND RATED AS SCHEDULED.WALLS BEARING THIS DESIGNATION SHALL MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2 HR.CONSTRUCTION. WINDOW ASSEMBLIES MUST BE 60 MINUTE RATED AND BE U.L. LABELED. DOORS MUST HAVE CLOSERS, BE U.L. LABELED, AND RATED AS SCHEDULED.WHERE THIS HATCH IS SHOWN, PROVIDE A FIRE-RATED CEILING ASSEMBLY AS DETAILED AND NOTED. REFER TO PLAN NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILING FOR TERMINATION POINT OF ADJACENT FIRE- RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES. RATING SHALL EQUAL THAT OF SURROUNDING WALLS.WHERE THIS HATCH IS SHOWN, PROVIDE A FIRE-RATED FLOOR/CEILING OR ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLY AS DETAILED AND NOTED. REFER TO PLAN NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILING FOR TERMINATION POINT OF ADJACENT FIRE-RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES. RATING SHALL EQUAL THAT OF SURROUNDING WALLS.ONE HOUR WALL TWO HOUR WALL RATED CEILING ASSEMBLY RATED FLOOR/ CEILING OR ROOF/ CEILING ASSEMBLY SOUND RATING PLAN LEGEND WALLS BEARING THIS DESIGNATION SHALL EXTEND TO DECK AND BE FILLED W/ INSULATION AS SPECIFIED.WHERE THIS HATCH IS SHOWN, PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE SOUND BATT INSULATION AS SPECIFIED ABOVE FINISHED CEILING. SOUND INSUL.SOUND BATT ABOVE CEILING TYPICAL UL RATED ASSEMBLY NUMBERS 1 HR. DRYWALL: UL # U419 OR # U465 CONCRETE / CMU PARTITIONS: IBC TABLE 720.1(2) ITEMS 3 & 4 1 HR. FLOOR: UL # D925 1 HR. ROOF: UL # P701 COLUMNS: UL # X771 AND # X772 FLOOR PERIMETER FIRE CONTAINMENT: UL # FW- S-0001 1 HR. DRYWALL HEAD: UL # HW- D-0001 CONCRETE / CMU PARTITION HEAD: UL # HW- D-0040 CONTRACTOR HAS OPTION TO SUBMIT ALTERNATIVE UL ASSEMBLIES FOR APPROVAL BY ARCHITECT.GENERAL STRUCTURAL FIREPROOFING NOTES 1) AT TYPE IIA CONSTRUCTION, ALL COLUMNS AND OTHER PRIMARY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH CEMENTITIOUS FIREPROOFING AS SPECIFIED.2) AT TYPE IIA CONSTRUCTION ALL ROOF ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING DECK AND OTHER SECONDARY MEMBERS) WITHIN 20'-0" OF A FLOOR SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH FIREPROOFING AS SPECIFIED PER IBC TABLE 604 ( NOTE C).BUILDING DESIGN CRITERIA INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION;NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING PURPOSES.1) PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A) OWNER: GEORGETOWN I. S.D.B) PROJECT NAME: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT C) LOCATION: GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 2) APPLICABLE CODES A) INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ( IBC) 2012 B) INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 2012 C) NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ( NEC) 2014 D) INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2012 E) ELIMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT; TEXAS DEPT.OF LICENSING AND REGULATION F) INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODES 2003 G) LOCAL AMMENDMENTS 3) OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION A) PRIMARY OCCUPANCY: GROUP B B) SEPARATED USES: NONE C) INCIDENTAL USE AREAS: RATED PER TABLE 508. 2.5 4) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION / FIRE- RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS TABLE 601)A) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II-B 5) ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS AND AREAS (REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)A) BUILDING AREA:A.1) BUILDING 1 ALLOWABLE AREA = 77,123 S.F.AREA PROVIDED = 45,577 S.F.B) BUILDING HEIGHT:B.1) BUILDING 1 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT = 55 FT. / 3 STORIES ACTUAL HEIGHT = 30 FT. / 2 STORIES 6) FIRE- PROTECTION SYSTEMS A) AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM: 1.1 & PARTIAL 1.2 B) PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS PROVIDED PER INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE: YES C) FIRE ALARM PROVIDED: YES 7) EXIT REQUIREMENTS (REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)A) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TRAVEL DISTANCE A.1) TO EXIT FROM WITHIN A SPACE FOR OCCUPANCY LOAD GREATER THAN 50 = 250 FT.A.2) TO EXIT FROM WITHIN BUILDING = 300 W/ SPRINKLER B) OCCUPANT LOAD CALCUATION (SECS. 1004.1, 1004.7):REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)B.1) BUILDING 1.1 OCCUPANCY: 550 C) EXIT CAPACITY:C.1) LEVEL: 576 IN. OF EGRESS / .20 LOAD FACTOR 2,880 EGRESS CAPACITY C.2) STAIRS: 128 IN. OF EGRESS / .30 LOAD FACTOR 427 EGRESS CAPACITY D) OCCUPANT LOAD CALCUATION (SECS. 1004.1, 1004.7):REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)D.1) BUILDING 1.2 OCCUPANCY: 469 E) EXIT CAPACITY:E.1) LEVEL: 160 IN. OF EGRESS / .20 LOAD FACTOR 800 EGRESS CAPACITY E.2) STAIRS: 192 IN. OF EGRESS / .30 LOAD FACTOR 640 EGRESS CAPACITY 8) PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS (REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS) BUILDING 1 A) MALE WATER CLOSETS: 5 REQUIRED, 6 PROVIDED B) FEMALE WATER CLOSETS: 6 REQUIRED, 6 PROVIDED C) LAVATORIES: 5 REQUIRED, 7 PROVIDED D) DRINKING FOUNTAINS: 3 REQUIRED, 12 PROVIDED TABLE 601 BUILDING TYPE II ELEMENT A B STRUCTURAL FRAME 1 0 BEARING WALLS EXTERIOR 1 0 INTERIOR NON- BEARING WALLS &PARTITIONS (EXTERIOR) 1*1*NON- BEARING WALLS &PARTITIONS (INTERIOR) 0 0 FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 1 0 ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1**0 TYPE II A: RATING REQUIRED WHERE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 30 FT.TYPE II B: RATING REQUIRED WHERE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 10 FT.ROOF CONSTRUCTION IN TYPE II A CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RATED IF WITHIN 20' OF NEAREST FLOOR LEVEL.SMOKE AND FIRE BARRIER MARKINGS 1.FIRE BARRIERS, FIRE PARTITIONS, SMOKE BARRIERS AND SMOKE PARTITIONS SHALL BE LABELED NOT LESS THAN 30'-0" O.C. HORIZONTALLY IN ACCESSIBLE,CONCEALED FLOOR, FLOOR/CEILING OR ATTIC SPACES.LABELING SHALL CONSIST OF 4" HIGH RED STENCILED LETTERING STATING, "FIRE AND/OR SMOKE BARRIER -PROTECT ALL OPENINGS."2.FIRE WALLS SHALL BE LABELED NOT LESS THAN 30'-0"O.C. HORIZONTALLY IN ACCESSIBLE, CONCEALED FLOOR, FLOOR/CEILING OR ATTIC SPACES. LABELING SHALL CONSIST OF 4" HIGH RED STENCILED LETTERING STATING, "FIRE WALL - PROTECT ALL OPENINGS - MAY NOT BE STABLE AFTER FIRE EXPOSURE." DRAFT PROTECTION IN ALL MULTI-STORY CONSTRUCTION, ALL FLOOR PENETRATIONS SHALL BE CLOSED WITH CODE APPROVED METHODS AND MATERIALS TO PREVENT DRAFTS BETWEEN FLOOR LEVELS.IBC 703.6)IBC 717.1, 717. 3.1) 2413 SF BOARD ROOM 338 SF STAIR 224 SF DIRECTORS SUITE 289 SF VEST. 68 SF MDF 32 SF MECH. 43 SF ELEV. MACHINE 46 SF ELEV. 290 SF VEST. 173 SF MEN 46 SF JANITOR 381 SF STAIR 1523 SF DESIGN LAB 102 SF PAYROLL 103 SF BENEFITS 393 SF WAIT/REC. 127 SF RECEPTION 530 SF DISPLAY 56 SF COFFEE AREA 155 SF WOMEN 1020 SF LOBBY 279 SF CORRIDOR 647 SF CORRIDOR 92 SF DIRECTORS OFFICE 369 SF FINE ARTS 358 SF ATHLETICS 155 SF CONFERENCE 257 SF WAIT/REC. 201 SF CONFERENCE 334 SF CONFERENCE 143 SF COFFEE AREA 147 SF CONFERENCE 211 SF DIRECTORS SUITE 211 SF OFFICE 80 SF SMALL CONF. 224 SF CONFERENCE 74 SF RISER 78 SF CORRIDOR 155 SF CORRIDOR 92 SF DIRECTORS OFFICE 279 SF CORRIDOR 253 SF ASST. AREA 12 SF COFFEE AREA 33 SF MECH. 67 SF STORAGE 35 SF TELE. 35 SF TELE. 377 SF PAYROLL/ACCOUNTANT 472 SF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 588 SF CORRIDOR 1634 SF OPEN MTG. AREA 5151 SF CAFETERIA 1127 SF KITCHEN 116 SF WH 74 SF VESTIBULE 77 SF STAFF RR 128 SF STAIR 136 SF STAIR 753 SF VESTIBULE 28 SF STORAGE EGRESS PATH (84')EGRESS PATH (50')EGRESS PATH (43')EGRESS PATH (85')EGRESS PATH (63')EGRESS PATH (41')EGRESS PATH (85')EGRESS PATH (75') 151 SF OPEN FILE STO. 63 SF TELE. 83 SF STO. 104 SF DIRECTORS OFFICE 63 SF TELE. 207 SF GUIDANCE & WELLNESS 109 SF ASST. SUPER OFFICE 113 SF EXEC. DIRECTOR EGRESS PATH (65') KNOX BOX BUILDING 1.2 SPRINKLERED AREA 412 SF STAIR 148 SF MEN 207 SF STAIR 209 SF STAIR 140 SF WOMEN 355 SF STAIR 49 SF ROOF ACCESS 33 SF IDF 111 SF ELEC. 46 SF ELEVATOR 64 SF TELE. 139 SF SM. CONF. 541 SF PURCHASING 222 SF CFO OFFICE 30 SF JANITOR 69 SF COPY 43 SF VEST. 43 SF VEST. 69 SF SM. CONF. 34 SF TELE. 170 SF DIRECTORS SUITE 103 SF STORAGE 160 SF EDIT 492 SF CORRIDOR 498 SF BOARD CONF. 354 SF SECRETARY/RECEPTION 272 SF SUPER. OFFICE 144 SF CATERING 342 SF COLLAB. 508 SF MEETING SPACE 1005 SF CORRIDOR 1021 SF COLLAB. 74 SF VESTIBULE 128 SF STAIR 136 SF STAIR 96 SF GIRLS RR 95 SF BOYS RR 64 SF ELECTRICAL 148 SF OFFICE 5670 SF GYMNASIUM 812 SF STAIR 76 SF IDF 454 SF VESTIBULE EGRESS PATH ( 67')EGRESS PATH ( 60')EGRESS PATH ( 63')EGRESS PATH (66')RENOVATION: BUILDING 1.1 - FIRST & SECOND FLOORS PRIMARY OCCUPANCY: GROUP B TYPE: II- B, SPRINKLERED BASIC AREA ALLOWED: 23,000 SQ. FT.TOTAL FRONTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED: 7,093 SQ. FT.TOTAL SPRINKLER INCREASE ALLOWED: 46,000 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA ALLOWED: 76,093 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED FIRST FLOOR: 19,721 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED SECOND FLOOR: 9,598 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED: 29,319 TOTAL OCCUPANCY: 503 (1ST FL) + 47 (2ND FL) = 550 PEOPLE TOTAL EGRESS CAPACITY PROVIDED: 2,880 PEOPLE (1ST FL) + 427 PEOPLE (2ND FL) = 3, 307 PEOPLE RENOVATION: BUILDING 1.2 - FIRST & SECOND FLOORS PRIMARY OCCUPANCY: GROUP B TYPE: II- B, PARTIALLY SPRINKLERED BASIC AREA ALLOWED: 23,000 SQ. FT.TOTAL FRONTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED: 6,208 SQ. FT.TOTAL SPRINKLER INCREASE ALLOWED: 0 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA ALLOWED: 29,208 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED FIRST FLOOR: 8,272 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED SECOND FLOOR: 8,272 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED: 16,544 TOTAL OCCUPANCY: 352 (1ST FL) + 117 (2ND FL) = 469 PEOPLE TOTAL EGRESS CAPACITY PROVIDED: 800 PEOPLE (1ST FL) + 640 PEOPLE (2ND FL) = 1, 440 PEOPLESheetNo. Job No. Drawn By:Date:Project:Copyright © 2017, Huckabee & Associates, Inc. C:\Users\etorres\ Documents\ 1717-04-01 Williams ES_Renovations for Central Admin_ARCH_v16_etorres. rvt6/1/2017 6:38:06 PMJC G2.1 CODE ANALYSIS BUILDING 1 05/12/2017 1717-04-01 CENTRAL Page 62 of 183 F.E. FECFECFECF. E. F.E. 335 SF CONF. 351 SF CONF. 52 SF TELE. 442 SF LOUNGE 72 SF ELEC. 45 SF IDF 56 SF ELEV. MACHINE 44 SF ELEVATOR 218 SF MEN 247 SF WOMEN 807 SF CORRIDOR 289 SF STAIR 145 SF STORAGE 404 SF WORK AREA 189 SF ASSESSMENT 322 SF HIGH- DENS. STOR. 522 SF MAKER SPACE 87 SF FIRE RISER 39 SF STORAGE 1166 SF COFFEE AREA 407 SF FURNITURE STOR. 311 SF STAIR 717 SF MEETING ROOM A 711 SF MEETING ROOM B 712 SF MEETING ROOM C 698 SF MEETING ROOM D 703 SF MEETING ROOM E 831 SF MEETING ROOM F EGRESS PATH (55')EGRESSPATH (103')EGRESS PATH (138')EGRESS PATH (102') KNOX BOX 286 SF STAIR 104 SF SMALL CONF. 146 SF STORAGE 237 SF CONFERENCE 359 SF MAIN CONF. 249 SF CONF. 49 SF TELE. 49 SF TELE. 202 SF STORAGE 659 SF TECHNOLOGY 1468 SF DIRECTORS SUITE 588 SF SECRETARY SUITE 765 SF FEDERAL PROGRAMS 753 SF DIG. LEARNING 749 SF ACADEMIC COORD. 720 SF WORKROOM 64 SF STORAGE 59 SF JANITOR 52 SF WELLNESS 51 SF TELE. 51 SF TELE. 122 SF ELEC. 52 SF MECH. 32 SF IDF 44 SF ELEVATOR 146 SF CORRIDOR 218 SF MEN 246 SF WOMEN 1330 SF CORRIDOR 312 SF STAIR 718 SF STAFF EGRESS PATH (111')EGRESS PATH (71')EGRESS PATH (104')EGRESS PATH (58')RENOVATION: BUILDING 2 FIRST & SECOND FLOORS PRIMARY OCCUPANCY: GROUP B TYPE: II- B, SPRINKLERED BASIC AREA ALLOWED: 23,000 SQ. FT.TOTAL FRONTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED: 4,087 SQ. FT.TOTAL SPRINKLER INCREASE ALLOWED: 46,000 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA ALLOWED: 73,087 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED FIRST FLOOR: 11,931 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED SECOND FLOOR: 11,931 SQ. FT.TOTAL OCCUPANCY: 431 (1ST FL) + 80 (2ND FL) = 511 PEOPLE TOTAL EGRESS CAPACITY PROVIDED: 960 PEOPLE ( 1ST FL) +380 PEOPLE (2ND FL) = 1, 340 PEOPLE FIREMAN'S KNOX BOX CODE ANALYSIS PLAN NOTES 1) THIS CODE ANALYSIS PLAN IS PROVIDED AS A TOOL FOR VIEWING THE OVERALL CODE COMPLIANCE FOR THE ENTIRE FACILITY.WHILE STATED U.L. RATINGS REQUIRED THROUGH WALLS MUST BE MET, ALL CONTRACTORS MUST CONSTRUCT THIS FACILITY FROM THE MATERIALS AND IN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ANY APPARENT CONFLICT SHALL BE RESOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT.2) RATED WALLS NOT DESIGNED TO EXTEND ABOVE ROOF LEVEL SHALL EXTEND TO THE ROOF DECK WITH U.L. APPROVED CLOSURE TO THE DECK U. N.O.3) ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALLS SHALL BE CLOSED WITH CODE APPROVED METHODS AND MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN THE SPECIFIED RATING.4) REFER TO MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS.5) REFER TO A6 SHEETS FOR TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.THE EMERGENCY ACCESS LOCK BOX(ES) SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 10 4400. BOTTOM ELEVATION OF BOX SHALL BE 6'-0" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (VERIFY WITH FIRE MARSHAL)TYPICAL FIRE ASSEMBLIES DRYWALL PARTITIONS 1 HOUR DRYWALL PARTITIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE LAYER 5/8" "TYPE X" GYPSUM BOARD ON EACH SIDE OF 3-5/8" (U. N.O.)METAL STUDS. CONSTRUCTION SHALL EQUAL I.B.C. TABLE 720. 1(2)ITEM 13-1.1(BEARING OR NON-BEARING), U.L. # U419 OR # U465 NON-BEARING) OR U.L. # U423( BEARING)MASONRY RATED MASONRY WALLS AND PARTITIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE BLOCK AS SPECIFIED, CLAY BRICK AS SPECIFIED, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. THE EQUIVELANT THICKNESS OF THE MATERIALS SHALL EQUAL I.B.C. TABLE 720. 1(2)ITEM 2-1.1, ITEM 2-1.2, ITEM 3-1.1, ITEM 3-1.2, ITEM 3-1.3, OR ITEM 3-1.4 FOR THE RATING SPECIFIED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE ARCHITECT AND CODE OFFICIALS WITH MANUFACTURERS DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE COMPOSITION AND EQUIVELANT THICKNESS OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED ON THE PROJECT.ROOF OR FLOOR RATED FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH CONCRETE FLOOR ASSEMBLY AND FIREPROOFED STRUCTURE.RATED ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE FIREPROOFED PER UL # P701. CEILING ASSEMBLY RATED CEILING ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 5/8"TYPE X" GYP BOARD ATTACHED TO SHAFT WALL STUDS WITH 1"GYPABOVE, INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY PER ICBO ER-3579.SURROUNDING PARTITIONS MAY TERMINATE AT RATED CEILING ASSEMBLY.RATED CONSTRUCTION LEGEND WALLS BEARING THIS DESIGNATION SHALL MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR 1 HR.CONSTRUCTION. WINDOW ASSEMBLIES MUST BE 60 MINUTE RATED AND BE U.L. LABELED. DOORS MUST HAVE CLOSERS, BE U.L. LABELED, AND RATED AS SCHEDULED.WALLS BEARING THIS DESIGNATION SHALL MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2 HR.CONSTRUCTION. WINDOW ASSEMBLIES MUST BE 60 MINUTE RATED AND BE U.L. LABELED. DOORS MUST HAVE CLOSERS, BE U.L. LABELED, AND RATED AS SCHEDULED.WHERE THIS HATCH IS SHOWN, PROVIDE A FIRE-RATED CEILING ASSEMBLY AS DETAILED AND NOTED. REFER TO PLAN NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILING FOR TERMINATION POINT OF ADJACENT FIRE- RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES. RATING SHALL EQUAL THAT OF SURROUNDING WALLS.WHERE THIS HATCH IS SHOWN, PROVIDE A FIRE-RATED FLOOR/CEILING OR ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLY AS DETAILED AND NOTED. REFER TO PLAN NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILING FOR TERMINATION POINT OF ADJACENT FIRE-RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES. RATING SHALL EQUAL THAT OF SURROUNDING WALLS.ONE HOUR WALL TWO HOUR WALL RATED CEILING ASSEMBLY RATED FLOOR/ CEILING OR ROOF/ CEILING ASSEMBLY SOUND RATING PLAN LEGEND WALLS BEARING THIS DESIGNATION SHALL EXTEND TO DECK AND BE FILLED W/ INSULATION AS SPECIFIED.WHERE THIS HATCH IS SHOWN, PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE SOUND BATT INSULATION AS SPECIFIED ABOVE FINISHED CEILING. SOUND INSUL.SOUND BATT ABOVE CEILING TYPICAL UL RATED ASSEMBLY NUMBERS 1 HR. DRYWALL: UL # U419 OR # U465 CONCRETE / CMU PARTITIONS: IBC TABLE 720.1(2) ITEMS 3 & 4 1 HR. FLOOR: UL # D925 1 HR. ROOF: UL # P701 COLUMNS: UL # X771 AND # X772 FLOOR PERIMETER FIRE CONTAINMENT: UL # FW- S-0001 1 HR. DRYWALL HEAD: UL # HW- D-0001 CONCRETE / CMU PARTITION HEAD: UL # HW- D-0040 CONTRACTOR HAS OPTION TO SUBMIT ALTERNATIVE UL ASSEMBLIES FOR APPROVAL BY ARCHITECT.GENERAL STRUCTURAL FIREPROOFING NOTES 1) AT TYPE IIA CONSTRUCTION, ALL COLUMNS AND OTHER PRIMARY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH CEMENTITIOUS FIREPROOFING AS SPECIFIED.2) AT TYPE IIA CONSTRUCTION ALL ROOF ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING DECK AND OTHER SECONDARY MEMBERS) WITHIN 20'-0" OF A FLOOR SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH FIREPROOFING AS SPECIFIED PER IBC TABLE 604 ( NOTE C).BUILDING DESIGN CRITERIA INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION;NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING PURPOSES.1) PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A) OWNER: GEORGETOWN I. S.D.B) PROJECT NAME: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT C) LOCATION: GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 2) APPLICABLE CODES A) INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ( IBC) 2012 B) INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 2012 C) NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ( NEC) 2014 D) INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2012 E) ELIMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT; TEXAS DEPT. OF LICENSING AND REGULATION F) INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODES 2003 G) LOCAL AMMENDMENTS 3) OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION A) PRIMARY OCCUPANCY: GROUP B B) SEPARATED USES: NONE C) INCIDENTAL USE AREAS: RATED PER TABLE 508. 2.5 4) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION / FIRE- RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS TABLE 601)A) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II-B 5) ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS AND AREAS (REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)A) BUILDING AREA:A.1) BUILDING 2 ALLOWABLE AREA = 73,087 S.F.AREA PROVIDED = 23,862 S.F.A.2) BUILDING 3 ALLOWABLE AREA = 34,500 S.F.AREA PROVIDED = 2,505 S.F.B) BUILDING HEIGHT:B.1) BUILDING 2 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT = 55 FT. / 3 STORIES ACTUAL HEIGHT = 30 FT. / 2 STORIES B.2) BUILDING 3 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT = 55 FT. / 3 STORIES ACTUAL HEIGHT = 18 FT. / 1 STORY 6) FIRE- PROTECTION SYSTEMS A) AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM: BUILDING 2 - YES BUILDING 3 - NO B) PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS PROVIDED PER INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE: YES C) FIRE ALARM PROVIDED: YES 7) EXIT REQUIREMENTS (REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)A) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TRAVEL DISTANCE A.1) TO EXIT FROM WITHIN A SPACE FOR OCCUPANCY LOAD GREATER THAN 50 = 250 FT.A.2) TO EXIT FROM WITHIN BUILDING = 300 W/ SPRINKLER B) OCCUPANT LOAD CALCUATION (SECS. 1004.1, 1004.7):REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS)B.1) BUILDING 2 OCCUPANCY: 511 B.2) BUILDING 3 OCCUPANCY: 22 C) EXIT CAPACITY: BUILDING 2 C.1) LEVEL: 192 IN. OF EGRESS / .20 LOAD FACTOR 960 EGRESS CAPACITY C.2) STAIRS: 114 IN. OF EGRESS / .30 LOAD FACTOR 380 EGRESS CAPACITY BUILDING 3 C.3) LEVEL: 68 IN. OF EGRESS / .20 LOAD FACTOR 340 EGRESS CAPACITY 8) PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS (REFER TO CODE SUMMARY REPORT FOR CALCULATIONS) BUILDING 2 A) MALE WATER CLOSETS: 4 REQUIRED, 10 PROVIDED B) FEMALE WATER CLOSETS: 6 REQUIRED, 10 PROVIDED C) LAVATORIES: 5 REQUIRED, 8 PROVIDED D) DRINKING FOUNTAINS: 2 REQUIRED, 4 PROVIDED BUILDING 3 A) MALE WATER CLOSETS: 1 REQUIRED B) FEMALE WATER CLOSETS: 1 REQUIRED C) LAVATORIES: 1 REQUIRED D) DRINKING FOUNTAINS: 1 REQUIRED DISTANCE FROM BUILDING 3 TO RESTROOM/DRINKING FOUNTAIN FACILITIES IN BUILDING 2 IS LESS THAN 500' AND FACILITIES PROVIDED IN BUILDING 2 ARE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE OCCUPANT LOAD OF BUILDING 3. TABLE 601 BUILDING TYPE II ELEMENT A B STRUCTURAL FRAME 1 0 BEARING WALLS EXTERIOR 1 0 INTERIOR NON- BEARING WALLS &PARTITIONS (EXTERIOR) 1*1*NON- BEARING WALLS &PARTITIONS (INTERIOR) 0 0 FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 1 0 ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1**0 TYPE II A: RATING REQUIRED WHERE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 30 FT.TYPE II B: RATING REQUIRED WHERE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 10 FT.ROOF CONSTRUCTION IN TYPE II A CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RATED IF WITHIN 20' OF NEAREST FLOOR LEVEL.SMOKE AND FIRE BARRIER MARKINGS 1.FIRE BARRIERS, FIRE PARTITIONS, SMOKE BARRIERS AND SMOKE PARTITIONS SHALL BE LABELED NOT LESS THAN 30'-0" O.C. HORIZONTALLY IN ACCESSIBLE,CONCEALED FLOOR, FLOOR/CEILING OR ATTIC SPACES.LABELING SHALL CONSIST OF 4" HIGH RED STENCILED LETTERING STATING, "FIRE AND/OR SMOKE BARRIER -PROTECT ALL OPENINGS."2.FIRE WALLS SHALL BE LABELED NOT LESS THAN 30'-0"O.C. HORIZONTALLY IN ACCESSIBLE, CONCEALED FLOOR, FLOOR/CEILING OR ATTIC SPACES. LABELING SHALL CONSIST OF 4" HIGH RED STENCILED LETTERING STATING, "FIRE WALL - PROTECT ALL OPENINGS - MAY NOT BE STABLE AFTER FIRE EXPOSURE." DRAFT PROTECTION IN ALL MULTI-STORY CONSTRUCTION, ALL FLOOR PENETRATIONS SHALL BE CLOSED WITH CODE APPROVED METHODS AND MATERIALS TO PREVENT DRAFTS BETWEEN FLOOR LEVELS.IBC 703.6)IBC 717.1, 717. 3.1) 1234 SF OPEN OFFICE 91 SF CONF. ROOM 75 SF TEL. ROOM 75 SF TEL. ROOM 55 SF IDF 46 SF ELEC ROOM 121 SF MECH ROOM EGRESS PATH (76')EGRESS PATH (57') KNOX BOX RENOVATION: BUILDING 3 PRIMARY OCCUPANCY: GROUP B TYPE: II-B, NON-SPRINKLERED BASIC AREA ALLOWED: 23,000 SQ. FT.TOTAL FRONTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED: 11,500 SQ. FT.TOTAL SPRINKLER INCREASE ALLOWED: N/A TOTAL AREA ALLOWED: 34,500 SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA PROVIDED: 2,505 SQ. FT.TOTAL OCCUPANCY: 22 PEOPLE TOTAL EGRESS CAPACITY PROVIDED: 340 PEOPLESheetNo. Job No. Drawn By:Date:Project:Copyright © 2017, Huckabee & Associates, Inc.C:\ Users\etorres\Documents\ 1717-04-01 Williams ES_Renovations for Central Admin_ ARCH_v16_etorres.rvt6/1/2017 6:38:13 PMJC, KAN G2.2 CODE ANALYSIS BUILDING 2 & BUILDING 3 05/12/2017 1717-04-01 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND WILLIAMS CENTERFOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FORGEORGETOWN I.S.D.GEORGETOWN, TEXASG2.2 Page 63 of 183 EXISTING CONDITIONSC3Sheet No.Job No.Drawn By:Date:Project:Copyright © 2017, Huckabee & Associates, Inc. 1717-04- 01CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Page 64 of 183 SOUTH ASH STREET(60' R.O.W.)SOUTH COLLEGE STREET( 50' R.O.W.) STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER29COMMONLYKNOWNAS EAST UNIVERSITY AVENUE)R.O.W. VARIES)EAST 8TH STREET(R.O. W. VARIES)S87°44'52"W 348.13'N2°14'32"W 1139.91'N87°44'22"E 332.00'S2°15'54"E 190.83'N88°20'37"E 15.89'S2°15'08"E 948.96'CleanoutsFHPPPPCleanoutPPPPWater Meter BoxPPPPWater VlvEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL Page 65 of 183 SOUTH ASH STREET(60' R.O.W.)SOUTH COLLEGE STREET( 50' R.O.W.) STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER29COMMONLYKNOWNAS EAST UNIVERSITY AVENUE)R.O.W. VARIES)EAST 8TH STREET(R.O. W. VARIES)S87° 44' 52" W 348. 13' N2° 14'32"W 1139. 91' N87° 44' 22"E 332.00'S2°15'54" E 190.83'N88°20'37" E 15.89'S2° 15'08"E 948. 96'Gas MeterCleanoutsPPPPCleanoutPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EMHE Page 66 of 183 SOUTH ASH STREET(60' R.O.W.)SOUTH COLLEGE STREET( 50' R.O.W.) STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER29COMMONLYKNOWNAS EAST UNIVERSITY AVENUE)R.O.W. VARIES)EAST 8TH STREET(R.O. W. VARIES) S87°44'52"W 348.13'N2°14'32"W 1139.91'N87°44' 22" E 332.00'S2°15' 54"E 190.83' N88°20'37"E 15.89' S2°15' Page 67 of 183 SOUTH ASH STREET(60' R.O.W.)SOUTH COLLEGE STREET( 50' R.O.W.) STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER29COMMONLYKNOWNAS EAST UNIVERSITY AVENUE)R.O.W. VARIES)EAST 8TH STREET(R.O. W. VARIES) S87° 44' 52"W348. 13' N2° 14' 32" W 1139.91'N87°44'22" E 332.00'S2° 15'54"E 190. 83'N88° 20'37" Page 68 of 183 SOUTH ASHSTREET(60' R.O W.)N87°44'22"E 332.00'S2°15'54"E 190.83'N88°20'37"E 15.89'S2°15'08"E 948.96'Gas MeterCleanoutPPFHWater Vlv6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL6" WL 6" WL 6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL8" WL8" WL8" WL8" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WW 6" WW 4" WW 4" W WMH E 6" WW6" WW 6" WW 6" WW 6" WWEE6" WWGasMtrPPEEEEEPPExist. 1.5" WaterMeterEEEEEEEEPPWtrVlvMetalCoverMetal CoverEEEEEEEEEFHEWaterVlvEEEEPPEEEEEEEEEE745745745745745744744744 74774774874074174274374 3 742741740739738737736 742743743741 73873 9743742741740XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX746 746 74645 KVATSTORM SEWER Page 69 of 183 ELEVATION - FEET ABOVE M.S.L.STATIONPROFILE OF STORM SEWERLINEA720.00730.00740.00750.00760.00720.00730.00740.00750.00760.00-1+00.000+00. 001+00.002+00.003+00.004+00.005+00.00STA. 0+00.00 173.18 L.F.OF30" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE@ 0. 55%STA. 1+73.1830" FL OUT: 737.4524" FLIN: 737.9524" FLIN: 737.95133.42 L.F.OF 24" CORRUGATED HDPEPIPE@0.62%68.50L.F.OF 12" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE@0.62%STA. 3+06.6024" FL OUT: 738.7824" FL IN: 738. 7812" FL IN: 739.82 STA. 3+75.1012" FL OUT: 740. 24 EXISTING SURFACEPROPOSEDSURFACE100YEARHGLELEVATION - FEET ABOVE M.S.L.STATIONPROFILE OF STORMSEWERLINEB720.00730.00740.00750.00760.00720.00730.00740.00750.00760.00-1+00.000+ 00.001+00.002+00.003+00.00STA. 1+73.1830" FLOUT: 737.4524" FLIN: 737.9524" FLIN: 737.95 7. 06 L.F.OF 24" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE@ 0.57%47.40 L.F. OF 24" CORRUGATEDHDPEPIPE@0.56%STA. 0+07.0624" FLOUT: 737.9924" FLIN: 737.99 STA. 0+54.4624" FL OUT: 738.2524" FL IN: 738. 2512" FL IN: 739. 29 107.28 L. F.OF 24" CORRUGATED Page 70 of 183 SOUTH ASH(60' R.O.W.) N87°44'22"E 332.00'S2°15'54"E 190.83'N88°20'37"E 15.89'Gas MeterPPFHWater Vlv6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL 6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL8" WL8" WL8" WL8" WLE 6" WW 6" WW 6" WW 6" WW 6" WW E EPPE EE EEPPExist. 1. Page 71 of 183 SOUTH ASHSTREET( 60' R. O. W.) S2° 15' 08" E948. 96'Cleanout6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL6" WL4" W W 6 WW6" WW6" WWGas MtrPPTel PedWater VlvEEEEPPEEEEEEEEEEE7457 4 5 745745745744744744747747748746 746 746XXXXXXXXXTC745.00FG744.50TC 744.40FG743.90TC 744.10FG 743. 605' INLETTC743.90FG 743.40TC 744.20HIGHPOINTTC744.50FG 744.00TC744.65FG744.15TC 744.80FG744.30TC744.80FG744.30TC 745.00FG744.50TC 745.00FG 744.50TC 745.25FG 744.75TP 744.25TP744.60HIGHPOINTTP744.00TC 744.45FG 743. 95TC 744.65FG 744.15TC 744.55FG 744. 05TC 744. 80FG 744. 30TC 744.65FG 744.15TC 744.50FG 744.00TP Page 72 of 183 S87°44'52"W 348.13' N2° 14' 32"W 1139.91'PPPPPPPPWaterMeter BoxPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EWater VlvEWater VlvWater VlvEEWaterMtrBoxWater VlvWLEWater CutoffPPTelPoleEEEEEEEEPPEEEEEEEEWLTelPedPP756EXTEND PATIOLEVELNEW SIDEWALK5' X5' LANDINGNEW SIDEWALK1:20 WALK5' WIDE ACCESSIBLE2 STEPS6" CURB6" CURBMATCHEXISTINGMATCHEXISTINGSEE INSET 2 THIS SHEETROOF DRAINROOF DRAINROOF DRAINSTORM SEWERMATCH Page 73 of 183 SOUTH ASHSTREET(60' R.O.W.) S87° 44'52"W 348.13' N2°14'32"W 1139.91'S2°15' 08"E 948.96' Page 74 of 183 SOUTH ASHSTREET(60' R.O.W.) S87° 44'52"W 348.13' N2°14'32"W 1139.91'S2°15' 08"E 948.96' ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNVAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNVAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNVAN Page 75 of 183 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:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 D City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R415791Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 10/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:RTHLConstruction Date:1923 High school 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: vinyl windows) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:292 ID:178 *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 Williams Elementary School/Georgetown High School ID:123621 D2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.6341 Longitude -97.6725 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: North Page 76 of 183 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:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 D City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos NorthwestPhoto Direction NortheastPhoto Direction NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 77 of 183 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:507 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:123621 D City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High NortheastPhoto Direction Close-upPhoto Direction Close-upPhoto Direction Page 78 of 183 NPS Form lO'SOO.a (3-»2) OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-37 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form For HPS u«» qr^ Continuation sheet Item number Page 54 1. County TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82) Williamson | WM [ 5. USGS Quad No GE I UTM Sector 627-3389 6 Date Georgetovm City/Rural 2 Name Old Georgetovm High School 3097-313 Site No 178, Photo 4«S Address 507 E. University Factual 7. Architect/Builder 1923/19A8 Est. 3. Owner _ Address _ 4. Block/I^t Georgetown I.S.D. c/o Jack Frosts Style/Type _ Same, Georgetovm, 78626 9 Original Use south half of block Present Use C.H. Page and Bro.—1923 and 1948 Contractor Wattinger Bros/Taylor Spanish Colonial Revival Const. educational educational 10 Description Tvo-story brick school building; vood-sash double-hung windows with 6/6 lights; primary double-door entrance on south elevation with transom and sidelights. Other noteworthy features include three-part massing with outer sections projecting from central two-story section; one-story wings one-story excellent; recently rehabilitated. 11. Present Condition 12. Significance Primary area of significance; architecture. A rare example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture in Georgetown. Located on the site of the original campus of Southwestern University. 13. Relationship to Site: Moved southeast of CBD; Date or Original Site x (Jte.'^cribe) residential neighborhood mostly turn-of-the-century dwellings nearby. 14 Bibliography _ files Georgetown Historical Societiy Informant. 16 Recorder P. Moore/HHM Date July 1984_ TNRIS No. NR: Other • RTHL • Individual • Thematic NR File Name DESIGNATIONS .Old THC Code • HABS (no) TEX B&W 4 X 5s PHOTO DATA Slides. • Historic District • Multiple-Resource 35mm Negs YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME 4 3 to 38 24 to 38 29 to CONTINUATION PAGE No iof TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82) 1 County Wi n i flitisnn City/Rural Gpnrgpfnwn 2 Name Old Georgptown High Sr.hnni _GE. -^097-31 3 5. USGS Quad No _ UTM Pt. 14/627260/3389580 Acreage T.ps.'^ thnn nnp arrp Site No. jLia. #10. Description (cont'd): with Mission-style parapet; main, central section with three-part composition; highly ornate, cast-iron ornamentation in slightly projecting corner bays; decorative tile on both floors; Mission-style parapet caps corner bays joined to clay tile "pent roof;" primary entrance with large cast-stone fanlight and pilaster; main entry with modern doors; gym addition on rear; school encompasses two city blocks. Outbuildings include detached temporary classrooms and garage-workshop to the north. Page 79 of 183 MPS Fonn 10-900.« (7-«1) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register off Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item numt)er Page Multiple Resource Area Thematic Group Name Georgetown MRA State Williamson County. TEXAS Nomination/Type of Review Date/Signature 31. Lockett, M.B. and Annie, ^ . Keeper ,^^^^^^U*JjLd.AA/ House SubBtaatlTft S«T1M ^ - Attest , W.K. and Kate, Batwcj^ 1« Ite /fegSper^<;y^£»«*-V^y<,>.^ ^Ji^l^ 32. Makemson, House Attest — *• 33. M.K.T. Bridge gufieiantlTft I«Yle» Keeper r S Attest 34. McKnight-Ebb House ^eper f^//^ Attest 35. McMurray House ^^«S2l^i£lta» ifeeeper ^pT^O^'^^'^A^y^ Attest 36. Miller—Ellyson House Attest 37. Paige-DeCrow-Weir Vioxxs^S^nSjl^SjSltr ^^^^^er <'y^U..&.,^'^^^.^A^^€4^/Atl^/s^ ^ 38. Old Georgetown High School Attest Attest 39. Pegues House iSSll^SjSfcW 7^^'^^-^''--^<^J^ '^"'^^'^ Attest ^ Attest Page 80 of 183 WASO Form -177 l"R" June 1984) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET Old Georgetown High School (Georgetown MRA) WjlliaTTison_Cm]nt^ TEXAS CZl resubmission mi nomination by person or local government d owner objection • appeal SulKtantive Review: 1^ sample CD request Working No. QECL v.<:^y^y 7 Fed. Reg. Date:' ^mew f/Aj3 "- A/<'7i^ Artion: _u=-i*[C^PT .RETURN. REJECT. Federal Agency: CU appeal D NR decision Reviewer's comments: Recom./Criteria ^' Reviewer )7/H^OJp, Discipline tL.-r77l Date TALLTMJ^ inuation slieet see contir Nomination returned for: .technical corrections cited below .substantive reasons discussed t>elow 1. Name Z Location 3. Classification Category Ownership Public Acquisition Status Accessible Present Use 4. Owner of Property 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Has this property been determined eligible? • yes • no 7. Description Condition excellent CU good • fair I I deteriorated • ruins I I unexposed Check one • una Itered • altered Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance • summary paragraph • completeness • clarity • alterations/integrity • dates I I boundary selection Check one • original site • moved date. Page 81 of 183 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below Specific dates Builder/Architect Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) • summary paragraph • completeness • clarity • applicable criteria • justification of areas checked • relating significance to the resource • context • relationship of integrity to significance • justification of exception • other 9. Major Bibliographical References 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property Quadrangle name UTM References Verbal boundary description and justification ^. 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national state local State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date 13. Other • Maps • Photographs • Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to. Signed Date Phone: GPO 9 1 8-450 Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet Page 82 of 183 Page 83 of 183 Page 84 of 183 Please refer to the map in the Multiple Property Cover Sheet for this property Multiple Property Cover Sheet Reference Number: 64000843 Page 85 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s (COA) fo r new cons tructio n within the downto wn overlay dis tric t loc ated at 810 Roc k Street. (COA-2017-014)-- Sofia Nelson, Planning Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applic ant is p ro pos ing the c o ns truc tio n o f a four story mixed us e b uilding. The parc el is c urrently vac ant, demolitio n of the previo us build ing was approved thro ugh a determination by the b uilding offic ial that the s tructure was d angero us. The app lic ant has p res ented the propos ed concept on July 27, 2017 and March 23, 2017. At both times the following topic s were disc ussed: · Material d ifferentiation · Height of Building- courtho use view c orridor · Co lo r o f metal roofing, fac ia, and trim FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, C NU-A P lanning Directo r ATTACHMENTS: Description Type s taff report Cover Memo Rock Street Backup Material Page 86 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 File Number: COA-2017-014- new construction AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new building construction at 810 Rock Street. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Rock Street Lofts Applicant: John Readyhough Property Owner: Eric Visser Property Address: 810 Rock Street Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District Case History: This commission has had two conceptual reviews of the proposed development. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: n/a Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: n/a National Register Designation: n/a Texas Historical Commission Designation: n/a APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of four-story mixed use building. The first floor will consists of a commercial use and parking in the rear of the building. Floors 2-4 will be developed residentially. 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 13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies 13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Does not comply in its entirety. 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Complies 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies 13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street Complies 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge Complies Page 87 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the construction of a four story mixed use building. The parcel is currently vacant, demolition of the previous building was approved through a determination by the building official that the structure was dangerous. The project consists of a single four story structure that is approximately 56 feet high at its highest point. The proposed structure is built up to the front (east) property line and side (south) property line. On the north side the building is setback from the north property line in order to allow for ingress to the rear of the property where on-site parking is provided. Primary entrances to the building will be oriented to the street. Varying sizes of windows break up all four sides of the building with canopied patios present both on the south and north sides of the building, with a corner accent that allows units on the northeast corner to have wrapped patios that expand to the main frontage of the building (on the east side). The applicant has presented the proposed concept on July 27, 2017 and March 23, 2017. At both times the following topics were discussed: • Material differentiation • Height of Building- courthouse view corridor • Color of metal roofing, facia, and trim The Commission appeared to support the differentiation in materials and the applicant has retained the use of brick, limestone, and stucco. On March 23, 2017 staff reviewed the location of the subject property in relation to courthouse view corridor. As stated at the July meeting the northwest corner of the property is located within the courthouse view corridor. Due to the lack of building development in the northwest corner staff is supportive of the height of the building. Additionally, at the July meeting the commission suggested the use of bronze trim and roofing rather than black. The applicant has updated the proposed renderings to reflect the requested bronze accent color. The architectural style of the structure creates a compatible structure for the Downtown Overlay District, while establishing a modern feel. The proposed building does not vary in height as desired by the design guidelines for new development. However, the inclusion of the extended patios helps to create the following: • a plane variation of the east, north, and south elevations; • creates a variation in architectural detailing and materials which emphasize modulation of the building; CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Page 88 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 3 of 4 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application is deemed complete by staff. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project does not comply with the standards of the UDC. The applicant has filed for an Administrative Exception to address parking requirements. Additionally, the applicant is asking HARC to consider height that exceeds the maximum 40 feet for buildings located in the Mixed Use Downtown zoning designation. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. There is no existing structure on the site. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. It appears that the proposed building is a modern building that appears to be designed to be as compatible as possible with surrounding properties. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The project will not have an adverse effect on the Downtown Overlay District based on its design, and location. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. Signage is in compliance with the design guidelines. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading The overall design and materials are compatible with those found in the district. The project utilizes a modern style to differentiate the structure from the historic structures found throughout the Downtown Overlay District. Page 89 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 4 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request as submitted. As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Sofia Nelson, Planning Director PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 90 of 183 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" (4) PARKING STALLS 9.25' X 15' (GROUND LEVEL) (1) WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 8' X 15' (GROUND LEVEL) FD C PI V 305 SF CONCRETE SIDEWALK 58 LF (1) 16" WIDE DOUBLE BRICK PAVER STRIP 3840 SF CONCRETE PAVEMENT 50 LF 8" HIGH CONCRETE CURB 8 LF CONCRETE FLUSH CURB 60 LF 2' WIDE CONCRETE CURB AND GUT TER 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB 30 SF LANDSCAPE 50 SF LANDSCAPE 125 SF LANDSCAPE 8 LF CONCRETE FLUSH CURB 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB DN BUILDING FOOTPRINT 43' X 77' (14) PARKING SPOTS TOTAL ON-SITE LIBRARY PARKING COVERED PARKING UNDER STRUCTURE ADJACENT STRUCTURE ADJACENT STRUCTURE EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE LANDSCAPING FRONT PROPERTY LINE REAR PROPERTY LINE SI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E SI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 11 9 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 11 9 ' - 2 3 / 4 " TRANS. BOX 59' - 1 3/4" EXIT DOOR 59' - 1 3/4" P-1 P-2P-3P-4P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 OH BALCONY OH BALCONY ADJACENT STRUCTURE ADJACENT STRUCTURE EXISTING PRIVACY FENCESI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE REAR PROPERTY LINE ROCK STREET LIBRARY PARKING FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 11 9 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 59' - 1 3/4" 59' - 1 3/4" EXISTING AUTO REPAIR SHOP "PERRY'S GARAGE" TO BE REMOVED 1' - 0"20' - 0" 70 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " CONCRETE PAD TO BE REMOVED 15' - 0" 25 ' - 0 " UNDEVELOPED SITE 11 9 ' - 4 3 / 4 " XTEA TEFO E R S T 17313 RB O T E GIS AED B C A ST A S C H I R OM E HT T Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE 1/8" = 1'-0" A01 ARCH. SITE PLANS _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 8 -01 -1 7 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION LOT AREA ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING & PROPOSED USE EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA EXISTING FAR PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA PROPOSDED FAR 7,200 sf C-1 MIX-USE COMMERCIAL 1,400 sf 19% 3,311 sf 46% 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN N Page 91 of 183 1st FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" 3rd LEVEL P.H. 31' - 0" 2nd LEVEL 11' - 6" STUCCO - BEIGE 1st LEVEL P.H. 10' - 0" 2nd LEVEL P.H. 20' - 6" 3rd LEVEL 22' - 0" (9' - 0") 4th LEVEL 32' - 6" 4th LEVEL P.H. 41' - 6" PARTY ROOM 43' - 6" PARTY ROOM P.H. 51' - 6" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (8' - 0") 8' - 0 " 7' - 0"13' - 9 1/2" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 7' - 0" 4' - 0 " 4' - 0" 3' - 10" 3' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 1/2" 12" MAX. BLDG. HT. 53' - 2" 3' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 43' - 0" 14' - 3"16' - 2 1/2"12' - 6 1/2" 3' - 10" 8' - 0" 2' - 2 1/2"31' - 9 1/2"5' - 0" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE BRICK CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE METAL RAILING BRONZE STOREFRONT WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM BRONZE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM BRONZESTOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE 30' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2" A03.1 3 STOREFRONT WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM BRONZE ELEV. SHAFT P.H. 56' - 1" 1' - 0"1' - 0" 1/2" 12" A06 1 A06 2 A06 3 PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 3' - 7 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 1st FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" 3rd LEVEL P.H. 31' - 0" 2nd LEVEL 11' - 6" 1st LEVEL P.H. 10' - 0" 2nd LEVEL P.H. 20' - 6" 3rd LEVEL 22' - 0" 4th LEVEL 32' - 6" 4th LEVEL P.H. 41' - 6" PARTY ROOM 43' - 6" PARTY ROOM P.H. 51' - 6" MAX. BLDG. HT. 53' - 2" STUCCO - BEIGE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE BRICK CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL RAILING BRONZE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM BRONZESTOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE 5' - 2 1/2"21' - 2"1' - 9 1/2" 9' - 0"6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 4' - 0" 2' - 0 " 5' - 0" 8' - 0 " 3' - 0" 6' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 10' - 6" 8' - 0 " 3' - 0" 8' - 0 " 77' - 0" 12' - 5 1/2"38' - 0 3/4"11' - 3 3/4"2' - 0"11' - 2"2' - 0" 9' - 6 " 6' - 0" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (8' - 0") ELEV. SHAFT P.H. 56' - 1" A06 4 A06 5 2' - 3 " 2' - 3 " 2' - 6 " 6' - 9 " 2' - 3 " 3' - 7 " PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 2' - 0 " 2' - 6 " GRAY BORDER BEIGE LETTERS WHITE LETTERS BRONZE METAL FACIA 7' - 0" 2' - 2 " XTEA TEFO E R S T 17313 RB O T E GIS AED B C A ST A S C H I R OM E HT T Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE As indicated A03.1 ELEVATIONS FRONT & RIGHT _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 8 -01 -1 7 3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1 RIGHT ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0"3 CALLOUT OF PROPOSED SIGNAGE EXTERIOR FINISHES STONE LIMESTONE BRICK BANDS STUCCO AWNINGS & TRIM NAME DESCRIPTION ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE ACME - MOCHA BROWN, ENP114, 746363 AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232 MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" MUELLER - BRONZE STANDING SEAM THE EXTERIOR DESIGN AND HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE APPROVED VIA COA-2017-014 BY THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ON AUGUST 24, 2017. ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE IS BEING APPLIED AND APPROVED SEPARATELY ALL HVAC AND ROOFTOP MECH. EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8. Page 92 of 183 2' - 0"13' - 11 1/4"61' - 0 3/4" 77' - 0" 9' - 0" 2' - 0 " 3' - 0" 2' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 2' - 0" 6' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 9' - 0" 6' - 0 " 1' - 9 1/2"21' - 2"5' - 2 1/2" STUCCO - BEIGE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE BRICK CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL RAILING BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE 1' - 0" 9' - 6 " 6' - 0" 1' - 0"1' - 0" PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 3' - 0" 7' - 0 " MECH. CHASE DOOR 3rd LEVEL P.H. 31' - 0" 2nd LEVEL 11' - 6" 1st LEVEL P.H. 10' - 0" 2nd LEVEL P.H. 20' - 6" 3rd LEVEL 22' - 0" 4th LEVEL 32' - 6" 4th LEVEL P.H. 41' - 6" PARTY ROOM 43' - 6" PARTY ROOM P.H. 51' - 6" MAX. BLDG. HT. 53' - 2" 43' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0 " 2' - 0"18' - 6"2' - 0"18' - 6"2' - 0" 9' - 0" 2' - 0 " 2' - 0" 2' - 0 " 9' - 0" 2' - 0 " STUCCO - BEIGE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL RAILING BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE 1/2" 12" BRICK ELEV. SHAFT P.H. 56' - 1" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (8' - 0") 5' - 0" 2' - 2 1/2" 1' - 0"1' - 0" 1/2" 12" PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 3' - 7 " 2' - 0 " XTEA TEFO E R S T 17313 RB O T E GIS AED B C A ST A S C H I R OM E HT T Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE 3/16" = 1'-0" A03.2 ELEVATIONS REAR & LEFT _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 8 -01 -1 7 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LEFT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2 REAR ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES STONE LIMESTONE BRICK BANDS STUCCO AWNINGS & TRIM NAME DESCRIPTION ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE ACME - MOCHA BROWN, ENP114, 746363 AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232 MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM THE EXTERIOR DESIGN AND HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE APPROVED VIA COA-2017-014 BY THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ON AUGUST 24, 2017. ALL HVAC AND ROOFTOP MECH. EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8. ALL HVAC AND ROOFTOP MECH. EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8. Page 93 of 183 Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " A12 RENDERING & MATERIALS _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 STONE ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP STONE ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE BANDING AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 BRICK ACME - MOCHA BROWN ENP114, 746363 STUCCO MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM REGAL BRONZE STANDING SEAM RENDERING @ NORTHEAST CORNER RENDERING @ SOUTHEAST CORNER Page 94 of 183 Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " A13 AERIAL MODEL VEIWS _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17STONE ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP STONE ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE BANDING AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 BRICK ACME - MOCHA BROWN ENP114, 746363 STUCCO MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" NORTHEAST CORNER SOUTHWEST CORNER TO SQUARE NORTHWEST CORNER METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM REGAL BRONZE STANDING SEAM Page 95 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Public hearing and possible action on a req uest fo r a variatio n in height fro m the s tandards s et fo rth in Sec tion 4.08.020.A of the Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC) to allo w a s ingle four sto ry struc ture that is ap p ro ximately 56 feet in height at its highest point for a p ro p erty loc ated in the downto wn overlay distric t and lo cated at 810 Rock Street.-- So fia Nels on, Planning Direc tor ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applic ant is p ro pos ing the c o ns truc tio n o f a four story mixed us e b uilding. The parc el is c urrently vac ant, demolitio n of the previo us build ing was approved thro ugh a determination by the b uilding offic ial that the struc ture was d angero us.The arc hitectural s tyle of the s tructure creates a c o mp atible s tructure for the Do wntown O verlay District, while es tab lis hing a mo d ern feel. T he proposed b uilding d o es not vary in height as d es ired b y the design guid elines for new develo p ment. However, the inc lusion of the extended p atios helps to c reate the following: · a p lane variation of the east, north, and s o uth elevatio ns; · creates a variation in architec tural d etailing and materials which emphas ize modulatio n o f the b uilding; The p ro ject c o ns is ts o f a s ingle four s tory struc ture that is approximately 56 feet high at its highes t point. The pro p o s ed s tructure is b uilt up to the front (east) property line and s id e (s outh) p ro p erty line. On the north side the build ing is setbac k from the north property line in order to allow fo r ingres s to the rear of the p ro p erty where o n-s ite p arking is p rovid ed . P rimary entranc es to the build ing will b e oriented to the street. Varying sizes o f windows break up all four sides o f the b uilding with c ano p ied patio s pres ent b o th on the s o uth and no rth s id es of the b uilding, with a corner ac cent that allows units o n the northeast co rner to have wrapped p atio s that exp and to the main frontage o f the b uilding (o n the eas t s id e). HARC may grant a reques t fo r a variatio n in height fro m the s tand ard s set fo rth in S ectio n 4.08.020.A o nly if it determines that the fo llo wing goals o r purpos es will s till b e ac hieved : a. Views to and fro m the Courtho use and to and from the To wn Square His toric Dis tric t will b e protec ted; and b. The c haracter of the Do wntown Overlay Dis trict and the Town S q uare His to ric District will be defined, reinfo rced, and preserved ; and c . The relatio ns hip of the proposed projec t to the exis ting s tructures in the immed iate vic inity remains c ons is tent; and d. The p ro p o s ed projec t allo ws fo r the bes t utilizatio n o f redevelo pment in the Do wntown Overlay Dis tric t and the Town Square His toric Dis trict; and e. The p ro p o s ed projec t p ro tec ts the his to ric b uildings in the Do wnto wn Overlay District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r Page 96 of 183 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Propos ed development Cover Memo s taff report Cover Memo Page 97 of 183 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" (4) PARKING STALLS 9.25' X 15' (GROUND LEVEL) (1) WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 8' X 15' (GROUND LEVEL) FD C PI V 305 SF CONCRETE SIDEWALK 58 LF (1) 16" WIDE DOUBLE BRICK PAVER STRIP 3840 SF CONCRETE PAVEMENT 50 LF 8" HIGH CONCRETE CURB 8 LF CONCRETE FLUSH CURB 60 LF 2' WIDE CONCRETE CURB AND GUT TER 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB 30 SF LANDSCAPE 50 SF LANDSCAPE 125 SF LANDSCAPE 8 LF CONCRETE FLUSH CURB 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB 3 LF CONCRETE TRANSITION CURB DN BUILDING FOOTPRINT 43' X 77' (14) PARKING SPOTS TOTAL ON-SITE LIBRARY PARKING COVERED PARKING UNDER STRUCTURE ADJACENT STRUCTURE ADJACENT STRUCTURE EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE LANDSCAPING FRONT PROPERTY LINE REAR PROPERTY LINE SI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E SI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 11 9 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 11 9 ' - 2 3 / 4 " TRANS. BOX 59' - 1 3/4" EXIT DOOR 59' - 1 3/4" P-1 P-2P-3P-4P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 OH BALCONY OH BALCONY ADJACENT STRUCTURE ADJACENT STRUCTURE EXISTING PRIVACY FENCESI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE REAR PROPERTY LINE ROCK STREET LIBRARY PARKING FRONT PROPERTY LINE SI D E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 11 9 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 59' - 1 3/4" 59' - 1 3/4" EXISTING AUTO REPAIR SHOP "PERRY'S GARAGE" TO BE REMOVED 1' - 0"20' - 0" 70 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " CONCRETE PAD TO BE REMOVED 15' - 0" 25 ' - 0 " UNDEVELOPED SITE 11 9 ' - 4 3 / 4 " XTEA TEFO E R S T 17313 RB O T E GIS AED B C A ST A S C H I R OM E HT T Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE 1/8" = 1'-0" A01 ARCH. SITE PLANS _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 8 -01 -1 7 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION LOT AREA ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING & PROPOSED USE EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA EXISTING FAR PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA PROPOSDED FAR 7,200 sf C-1 MIX-USE COMMERCIAL 1,400 sf 19% 3,311 sf 46% 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN N Page 98 of 183 1st FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" 3rd LEVEL P.H. 31' - 0" 2nd LEVEL 11' - 6" STUCCO - BEIGE 1st LEVEL P.H. 10' - 0" 2nd LEVEL P.H. 20' - 6" 3rd LEVEL 22' - 0" (9' - 0") 4th LEVEL 32' - 6" 4th LEVEL P.H. 41' - 6" PARTY ROOM 43' - 6" PARTY ROOM P.H. 51' - 6" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (8' - 0") 8' - 0 " 7' - 0"13' - 9 1/2" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 7' - 0" 4' - 0 " 4' - 0" 3' - 10" 3' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 1/2" 12" MAX. BLDG. HT. 53' - 2" 3' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 43' - 0" 14' - 3"16' - 2 1/2"12' - 6 1/2" 3' - 10" 8' - 0" 2' - 2 1/2"31' - 9 1/2"5' - 0" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE BRICK CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE METAL RAILING BRONZE STOREFRONT WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM BRONZE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM BRONZESTOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE 30' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2" A03.1 3 STOREFRONT WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM BRONZE ELEV. SHAFT P.H. 56' - 1" 1' - 0"1' - 0" 1/2" 12" A06 1 A06 2 A06 3 PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 3' - 7 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 1st FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" 3rd LEVEL P.H. 31' - 0" 2nd LEVEL 11' - 6" 1st LEVEL P.H. 10' - 0" 2nd LEVEL P.H. 20' - 6" 3rd LEVEL 22' - 0" 4th LEVEL 32' - 6" 4th LEVEL P.H. 41' - 6" PARTY ROOM 43' - 6" PARTY ROOM P.H. 51' - 6" MAX. BLDG. HT. 53' - 2" STUCCO - BEIGE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE BRICK CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL RAILING BRONZE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM BRONZESTOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE 5' - 2 1/2"21' - 2"1' - 9 1/2" 9' - 0"6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 4' - 0" 2' - 0 " 5' - 0" 8' - 0 " 3' - 0" 6' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 10' - 6" 8' - 0 " 3' - 0" 8' - 0 " 77' - 0" 12' - 5 1/2"38' - 0 3/4"11' - 3 3/4"2' - 0"11' - 2"2' - 0" 9' - 6 " 6' - 0" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (8' - 0") ELEV. SHAFT P.H. 56' - 1" A06 4 A06 5 2' - 3 " 2' - 3 " 2' - 6 " 6' - 9 " 2' - 3 " 3' - 7 " PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 2' - 0 " 2' - 6 " GRAY BORDER BEIGE LETTERS WHITE LETTERS BRONZE METAL FACIA 7' - 0" 2' - 2 " XTEA TEFO E R S T 17313 RB O T E GIS AED B C A ST A S C H I R OM E HT T Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE As indicated A03.1 ELEVATIONS FRONT & RIGHT _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 8 -01 -1 7 3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1 RIGHT ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0"3 CALLOUT OF PROPOSED SIGNAGE EXTERIOR FINISHES STONE LIMESTONE BRICK BANDS STUCCO AWNINGS & TRIM NAME DESCRIPTION ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE ACME - MOCHA BROWN, ENP114, 746363 AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232 MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" MUELLER - BRONZE STANDING SEAM THE EXTERIOR DESIGN AND HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE APPROVED VIA COA-2017-014 BY THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ON AUGUST 24, 2017. ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE IS BEING APPLIED AND APPROVED SEPARATELY ALL HVAC AND ROOFTOP MECH. EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8. Page 99 of 183 2' - 0"13' - 11 1/4"61' - 0 3/4" 77' - 0" 9' - 0" 2' - 0 " 3' - 0" 2' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 2' - 0" 6' - 0 " 8' - 0" 8' - 0 " 9' - 0" 6' - 0 " 1' - 9 1/2"21' - 2"5' - 2 1/2" STUCCO - BEIGE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE BRICK CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL RAILING BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE 1' - 0" 9' - 6 " 6' - 0" 1' - 0"1' - 0" PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 3' - 0" 7' - 0 " MECH. CHASE DOOR 3rd LEVEL P.H. 31' - 0" 2nd LEVEL 11' - 6" 1st LEVEL P.H. 10' - 0" 2nd LEVEL P.H. 20' - 6" 3rd LEVEL 22' - 0" 4th LEVEL 32' - 6" 4th LEVEL P.H. 41' - 6" PARTY ROOM 43' - 6" PARTY ROOM P.H. 51' - 6" MAX. BLDG. HT. 53' - 2" 43' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0 " 2' - 0"18' - 6"2' - 0"18' - 6"2' - 0" 9' - 0" 2' - 0 " 2' - 0" 2' - 0 " 9' - 0" 2' - 0 " STUCCO - BEIGE METAL AWNING LOW SEAM BRONZE CHOP BLOCK STONE LIMESTONE METAL RAILING BRONZE CAST STONE BANDS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BRONZE 1/2" 12" BRICK ELEV. SHAFT P.H. 56' - 1" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (8' - 0") 5' - 0" 2' - 2 1/2" 1' - 0"1' - 0" 1/2" 12" PARAPET WALL HT. = 45' - 1" 3' - 7 " 2' - 0 " XTEA TEFO E R S T 17313 RB O T E GIS AED B C A ST A S C H I R OM E HT T Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE 3/16" = 1'-0" A03.2 ELEVATIONS REAR & LEFT _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 8 -01 -1 7 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LEFT ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2 REAR ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES STONE LIMESTONE BRICK BANDS STUCCO AWNINGS & TRIM NAME DESCRIPTION ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE ACME - MOCHA BROWN, ENP114, 746363 AMERICAN ARTSTONE - 4700MAE, AA16232 MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" MUELLER - CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM THE EXTERIOR DESIGN AND HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE APPROVED VIA COA-2017-014 BY THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ON AUGUST 24, 2017. ALL HVAC AND ROOFTOP MECH. EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8. ALL HVAC AND ROOFTOP MECH. EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8. Page 100 of 183 Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " A12 RENDERING & MATERIALS _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17 STONE ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP STONE ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE BANDING AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 BRICK ACME - MOCHA BROWN ENP114, 746363 STUCCO MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM REGAL BRONZE STANDING SEAM RENDERING @ NORTHEAST CORNER RENDERING @ SOUTHEAST CORNER Page 101 of 183 Scale: Date: Bob Thomas, NCARB btncarb@yahoo.com 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " A13 AERIAL MODEL VEIWS _ 81 0 R o c k S t r e e t , Ge o r g e t o w n , T X LO F T S O N R O C K 8-01-17STONE ACME - OKLAHOMA MULTI-COLOR CHOP STONE ACME - WHITE CHOPPED LIMESTONE BANDING AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 BRICK ACME - MOCHA BROWN ENP114, 746363 STUCCO MERLEX - P-174 "DESERT BEIGE" NORTHEAST CORNER SOUTHWEST CORNER TO SQUARE NORTHWEST CORNER METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM REGAL BRONZE STANDING SEAM Page 102 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 File Number: COA-2017-014- building height exception AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public hearing and possible action on a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow a single four story structure that is approximately 56 feet in height at its highest point for a property located in the downtown overlay district and located at 810 Rock Street. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Rock Street Lofts Applicant: John Readyhough Property Owner: Eric Visser Property Address: 810 Rock Street Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District Case History: This commission has had two conceptual reviews of the proposed development. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: n/a Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: n/a National Register Designation: n/a Texas Historical Commission Designation: n/a APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of four-story mixed use building. The first floor will consists of a commercial use and parking in the rear of the building. Floors 2-4 will be developed residentially. 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 13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies 13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Does not comply in its entirety. 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Complies 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies 13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street Complies Page 103 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge Complies 13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the construction of a four story mixed use building. The parcel is currently vacant, demolition of the previous building was approved through a determination by the building official that the structure was dangerous. The project consists of a single four story structure that is approximately 56 feet high at its highest point. The proposed structure is built up to the front (east) property line and side (south) property line. On the north side the building is setback from the north property line in order to allow for ingress to the rear of the property where on-site parking is provided. Primary entrances to the building will be oriented to the street. Varying sizes of windows break up all four sides of the building with canopied patios present both on the south and north sides of the building and with a corner accent that allows units on the northeast corner to have wrapped patios that expand to the main frontage of the building (on the east side). The applicant has presented the proposed concept on July 27, 2017 and March 23, 2017. At both times the following topics were discussed: • Material differentiation • Height of Building- courthouse view corridor • Color of metal roofing, facia, and trim The Commission appeared to support the differentiation in materials and the applicant has retained the use of brick, limestone, and stucco. On March 23, 2017 staff reviewed the location of the subject property in relation to courthouse view corridor. As stated at the July meeting the northwest corner of the property is located within the courthouse view corridor. Due to the lack of building development in the northwest corner staff is supportive of the height of the building. Additionally, at the July meeting the commission suggested the use of bronze trim and roofing rather than black. The applicant has updated the proposed renderings to reflect the requested bronze accent color. The architectural style of the structure creates a compatible structure for the Downtown Overlay District, while establishing a modern feel. The proposed building does not vary in height as desired by the design guidelines for new development. However, the inclusion of the extended patios helps to create the following: • a plane variation of the east, north, and south elevations; • creates a variation in architectural detailing and materials which emphasize modulation of the building; Page 104 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 3 of 4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: 1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC that the following standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved: a. The proposed building or addition shall not obscure views to and from the Courthouse or overwhelm or detract from views of the Town Square Historic District; b. The proposed building or addition shall be compatible with the height, scale, massing, and volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District; and c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. 2. The documentation required by Section 3.13.030.C.1 must include, at a minimum, the following information: a. A visual analysis that identifies: i. The extent to which the building would impact views to and from the Courthouse, and to what extent the building will be visible from four directions; and ii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structure iii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structures and the character of the District; and b. A summary of the conclusions of the visual analysis as to how the proposed building will impact the District, specifically the immediate surroundings. 3. HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the following findings, staff recommends approval of the request as submitted: • Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; Page 105 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-008 1501 South Church Street Page 4 of 4 • The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent. • The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District • The proposed building or addition is compatible with the height, scale, massing, and volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District; and • The proposed building will contribute to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Sofia Nelson, Planning Director PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 106 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Ap p ropriatenes s (COA) for new cons tructio n of p ro p erty loc ated at 815 S. Main Street, bearing the legal des c riptio n o f 0.11 ac . b eing remnant N 40' o f Lo t 6, Bloc k 52 out o f the C lement S tub b lefield Survey. ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The ap p licant has reques ted ap p ro val fo r the c o ns truc tion of a new 4756 sq . ft., two sto ry mixed use b uilding. The b uilding will b e c o nstruc ted on what is currently a parking lot, direc tly adjac ent to the Grace Heritage Center. The C o mmis s io n reviewed this proposal as a conceptual plan during the June 22nd meeting. The Commis s ion did not take action on the p ro p o s al and no r direc t the ap p licant to make any changes to the c o nc ep tual plan. Public Comment: To d ate, staff has received 0 written comments . Staff Recommendation: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t for new c o nstruc tion as d es cribed in the ap p licant’s req uest fo r the property loc ated at 815 S. Main Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner, and S o fia Nels o n, CNU-A, Planning Direc tor ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans and Specs Exhibit Page 107 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-021] – 815. S Main Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 File Number: COA-2017-021 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new construction for property located at 815 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of 0.11 ac. being remnant N 40' of Lot 6, Block 52 out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Watkins Building Applicant: Wang Architects Property Owner: Watkins International Group Property Address: 815 S. Main Street, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.11 ac. being remnant N 40' of Lot 6, Block 52 out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey Historic Overlay: Town Square Historic District Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: N/A Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant has requested approval for the construction of a new 4756 sq. ft., two story mixed use building. The building will be constructed on what is currently a parking lot, directly adjacent to the Grace Heritage Center. The Commission reviewed this proposal as a conceptual plan during the June 22nd meeting. The Commission did not take action on the proposal and nor direct the applicant to make any changes to the conceptual plan. The Commission did request additional information on the color of the stone proposed for the building. The applicant will have a physical example of the building material at your meeting. 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 8.1 Preserve significant sidewalk features. Complies Page 108 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-021] – 815. S Main Page 2 of 3 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program. Complies 10. 2 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining features. Complies 10.3 Lights may be concealed in the underside of the canopy. Lights that shine onto sidewalks from the underside of a canopy is encouraged. Complies 12.1 Maintain or enhance the alignment of buildings at the sidewalk edge. Complies 12.2 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. Complies 12.3 Maintain the traditional range of building heights seen in the historic core . Complies 12.4 Buildings shall appear similar in width to those seen historically in the block. Complies 12.7 A building shall maintain the alignment of horizontal elements along the block. Complies 12.9 Rectangular forms shall be dominant on commercial facades. Complies 12.10 Use flat rooflines as the dominant roof form. Complies 12.11 Materials shall appear to be similar to those used traditionally. Complies 12.12 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies 12.13 New interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. Complies 12.14 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor. Complies 12.15 Upper-story windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. Complies 12.16 Windows should be trimmed with wood, painted metal, or anodized aluminum. Complies 12.17 Window dimensions that are similar to those used traditionally are encouraged. Complies 12.18 The ratio of solid-to-void surface area shall be similar to that seen traditionally on commercial storefront buildings in the district. Complies 12.19 Building entrances should appear similar to those used historically in the block. Complies 12.20 Doors should be trimmed with wood, painted metal, or anodized aluminum. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The property is currently configured for surface parking. The applicant has requested approval for the construction of a new 4756 sq. ft., two story mixed use building, directly adjacent to the Grace Heritage Center. This infill development project improves overall character of the historic district and complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, specifically those guidelines found in Chapter 12, Infill Development, as illustrated in the attached Exhibit 2. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: Page 109 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-021] – 815. S Main Page 3 of 3 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Complies, see Exhibit 2 D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Not Applicable E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. Complies H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. 1. Complies 2. Complies 3. Complies STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent and Supporting Material Exhibit 3 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 110 of 183 EL M ST A SH ST PIN E ST S M A I N S T R O C K S T E 7 TH ST E 8 TH ST E 5 TH ST E 6 TH ST W 8T H S T S M Y R TL E S T WE S T S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S TI N AV E W 10T H S T S C O L L E G E S T W 9 T H S T W 6 T H S T E 4 TH STW 4T H S T W 11TH ST SCENIC DR WAL NUT S T E 1 3 T H S T W 7T H S T E U N IV ER S IT Y AV E E 1 0T H S T E 11T H S T W U N I V E RSI TY AV E MA R T IN L U TH E R K I NG JR S T FOR E S T S T RAILROAD AVE W 5 T H S T W 1 3 T H S T H A R T S T TI M B E R S T E 9 T H S T E 9 TH 1 /2 S T T I N B A R N A LY M O N T G O M E R Y S T E 11T H S T W 5 T H S T PIN E ST MONT GOMERY ST E 1 0T H S TF O R E S T S T WA L N U T S T F O R E S T S T WE S T S T E 9 TH ST E 9 T H S T COA-2017-021Exhibit #1 Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Fee t Page 111 of 183 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design July 26, 2017 Historical and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: The Watkins Building at 815 Main Street, Georgetown HARC Conceptual Review Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: On behalf of my client, Watkins International Group, I am pleased to submit here a conceptual review package for a new building proposed at the 815 Main Street. Program for this building will include lease space / retail and quite possibly a restaurant at the ground floor, and offices for Watkins at the second floor. We have consulted with City Planning throughout the design process and believe the urbanistic goals of this project are aligned to further advance the City’s Design Guidelines and Master Plan. This new project will result in greatly increased pedestrian traffic and walkability and enhance the quality of life for our community here in Georgetown. Attached are drawings for your review and consideration: 1) A Conceptual Aerial Rendering; 2) Site Map; 3) Site Plan; 4-5) Ground Floor and Second Floor Plan; 6-9) Rendered Elevations; 10) A Detailed Elevation and proposed Materials; 11) Building Details; 12) Precedents for Materials; 13-15) Model Views; and 16) A Perspective from Main Street The design for this new building satisfies a number of initial design requests from the client: They requested that the building be respectful to the square and not ‘foreign’. They wanted a building that is contextual, but also would show evidence that it may have had a great renovation at some point in time. They also wanted a building that would be made primarily of brick. Up until very recently, the building would have been attached to Sincerely Yours, to the North. Through a land-swap with the City, the building is one that now is freestanding. While this makes the building more formal and ‘centered’, we believe it still needs to reinforce the street edge of the existing city fabric. The building design seeks to be proud and dignified, and also quiet and reserved. By now being disconnected from the fabric to the north, natural light is now allowed to flow through the building footprint at both levels. As urbanists, we believe the space surrounding buildings can be just as important as the buildings themselves. While this space is not inside the scope of our work, per se, we have made recommendations towards a courtyard design to the North and a plaza to the South that would activate the space in between Watkins and Grace Heritage Chapel. Page 112 of 183 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on August 24. We will have additional information as well as material samples at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.677.9610. Thank you in advance for your time. Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Principal Wang Architects LLC Page 113 of 183 Design Concepts for Review by HARC The Watkins Building August 24, 2017 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING 1Conceptual Rendering ADDITIONAL NOTES INDICATED IN RED 8/1/2017 PER CITY REQUEST Page 114 of 183 N W 7TH STREET E 8TH STREET SECOND STREET S A U S T I N A V E MA I N S T R E E T 2Site Map E 9TH STREET JULY 26, 2017 Page 115 of 183 N 1/16” = 1’-0” 3Site Plan JULY 26, 2017 Page 116 of 183 N 1/8” = 1’-0” 4Ground Floor Plan JULY 26, 2017 Page 117 of 183 N 1/8” = 1’-0” 5Second Floor Plan JULY 26, 2017 Page 118 of 183 1/8” = 1’-0” 6West Elevation JULY 26, 2017 FLAT ROOF 15’-4” 11’-4” NOTE: SIGNAGE + LIGHTING SEPARATE 4’ 10’-8 3/8” 40’ 12’-2” 6’-0” 4’-8” Page 119 of 183 1/8” = 1’-0” 7South Elevation JULY 26, 2017 15’-4” 12’-2” 4’ 10’-8 3/8” 119’ 9’-7” X 8’-0” BI-FOLD GARAGE DOORS NOTE: SIGNAGE + LIGHTING SEPARATE FLAT ROOF Page 120 of 183 1/8” = 1’-0” 8East Elevation JULY 26, 2017 FLAT ROOF NOTE: SIGNAGE + LIGHTING SEPARATE 15’-4” 11’-4” 4’ 10’-8 3/8” 40’ 12’-2” 6’-0” 4’-8” Page 121 of 183 1/8” = 1’-0” 9 North Elevation JULY 26, 2017 15’-4” 12’-2” 4’ 10’-8 3/8” 119’ FLAT ROOF 9’-7” X 8’-0” BI-FOLD GARAGE DOORS NOTE: SIGNAGE + LIGHTING SEPARATE Page 122 of 183 33’ - 8 3/4” 40 ft. 1/3 Width EQ. 1/3 Width EQ. 1/3 Width EQ. UDC 7.05.050 IF THE LENGTH OF THE WALL IS LESS THAN 60’, ARTICULATION IS NOT REQUIRED.14West Elevation Page 123 of 183 LATERAL SURFACE: 132” X 19 INSETS = 2376” REQUIRED LATERAL ARTICULATION: 303” IF THIS CALC REQUIRED, PROPOSAL DOES SATISFIES UDC CRITERIA 07.04.050 PERPENDICULAR INSET 1: 4” X 9 INSETS = 36” PERPENDICULAR INSET 2: 4” X 9 INSETS = 36” TERRACE INSET 1: 57” X 2 = 114” TERRACE INSET 2: 144” TOTAL PERPENDICULAR INSET: 330”Z REQUIRED ARTICULATION PERPENDICULAR: 303” 15South Elevation PERPENDICULAR INSETS TERRACE INSET 1 TERRACE INSET 2 Page 124 of 183 LIMESTONE BASE RED BRICK 10Detailed Elevation / Materials JULY 26, 2017 CANOPY: WEATHERED COPPER WITH KYNAR FINISH RED BRICK: SINGLE COLOR IN INSET AREAS RED BRICK: MULTI-COLOR, AS PER SAMPLE GLASS CANOPY BASE: LIMESTONE, AS PER SAMPLE SIGNAGE: TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY Page 125 of 183 11Building Details JULY 26, 2017 WALL SECTION 1-1/2” = 1’-0” PLAN SECTION 1-1/2” = 1’-0” SECTIONAL AXONOMETRIC THROUGH ENTRANCE Page 126 of 183 TYPICAL ALUMINUM CANOPY GLASS CANOPY 12Materials Precedents JULY 26, 2017 Page 127 of 183 13Main Street View JULY 26, 2017 Page 128 of 183 14Main Street View JULY 26, 2017 Page 129 of 183 15Aerial View JULY 26, 2017 Page 130 of 183 16Main Street Perspective JULY 26, 2017 Page 131 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) fo r exterio r alteratio ns to a his toric for p ro p erty lo c ated at 1811 S. Main St., bearing the legal desc rip tion of 0.25 ac . Lo t 10, Bloc k 4 o ut of the Eubank Additio n. Nat Waggo ner, PMP, AICP ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The ap p licant has req uested approval to replac e the front façade, replac e an exis ting as p halt s hingle roof with a galvanized ro of, ad d a fro nt facing porc h and rep aint the property. The ap p licant is also seeking a variance in s ide s etbac k req uirements. The s ingle s to ry, rec tangular shap ed ho use lo c ated at the s outhern end of the Old To wn His toric Distric t lacks any identifiab le s tylis tic influences, his toric s ignific anc e and s tructural integrity ac cord ing to the 2007 and 2016 Histo ric Res ources Surveys. The d ate o f cons truction is the property’s d efining his toric characteris tic . All exterio r aspec ts o f the p roperty have been modified o r rep lac ed. The current faç ad e is cons tructed of p lywo o d siding panels (c o mmo nly known as T1-11). The applic ant p ro p o s es replac ing the exis ting s id ing with c ed ar p lank s iding and req uests ap p ro val to rep aint the new s id ing. The ap p licant is s eeking approval to rep lac e the exis ting asphalt s hingled roof, whic h is failing. The ap p licant intend s to replac e the existing roof with a galvanized ro o f. The ap p licant is seeking approval to add a front facing p o rch along the front o f the p ro p erty fac ing Main Street. Ac cording to the survey provid ed by the ap p licant, the northwes tern c orner of the ho us e is 17.8” within the required 72” side s etb ac k c urrently req uired in the Resid ential Des ign s tand ard s of the Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC), sec tion 6.02.050. T he ap p licant intends to b uild the p o rch to match the existing fo o tprint o f the ho us e, effec tively p etitio ning HAR C to ap p ro ve a varianc e o f 17.8” fo r the p o rch. Chap ter s ix o f The Downto wn and Old To wn Des ign provid es guid anc e as it relates to porc hes within the histo ric d is tric ts , “Historically, p orches were pop u lar featu res in resid ential designs. A p orch protects an en tra nce from ra in and p rovid es shade in th e summer. It also provides a sen se of scale to th e buildin g and provid es a space for resid en ts to sit and congregate. A p orch p rovid es stylistic d etails to the hou se, a n d in some ca ses is a n integ ral part of an architectu ral style. If inadequa te documenta tion of orig inal porch es exists, a new porch sh ould be typica l of th ose built in the style of th e h istoric buildin g . A simp lified a d a p tation may be allowed if physical evidence of the orig in a l is non -existent or if th e desig n is p rohib itively expensive to recreate.” Chap ter 13 o f The Do wntown and Old Town Des ign Guidelines states, “In th ose a reas where setbacks va ry slightly, but genera lly fa ll with in a n esta b lished range, th e new build ing shou ld b e with in 1 0 feet of the typica l setback in the b lock.” Public Comment: To d ate, staff has received 0 written comments . Page 132 of 183 Staff Recommendation: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t for renovations and additio ns as d es c ribed in the applic ant’s req uest for the p ro p erty loc ated at 1811 S. Main Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans and Spec Exhibit Exhibit 4 - Survey Exhibit Exhibit 5 - His toric Res ource Survey Exhibit Page 133 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-023] –. 1811 S. Main St. Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 File Number: COA-2017-023 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations to a historic property located at 1811 S. Main St., bearing the legal description of 0.25 ac. Lot 10, Block 4 out of the Eubank Addition. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Lanfear House Residential Remodel Applicant: Jeff Lanfear Property Owner: Jeff Lanfear Property Address: 1811 S. Main St., Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 00.25 ac. Lot 10, Block 4 out of the Eubank Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Case History: This is the first review for this application. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1947 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded 2007- Low 2016 -Low National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant has requested approval to replace front façade, replace existing asphalt shingle roof with a galvanized roof, add a front facing porch and repaint the property. The applicant is also seeking a variance in side setback requirements. 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 5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing it on a primary surface. Complies 6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque materials. Complies Page 134 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-023] –. 1811 S. Main St. Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 6.27 The detailing of decks and exterior stairs should be compatible with the style and period of the structure. Complies 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies 11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building that coordinates all the façade elements. Complies 11.3 A muted color is preferred for the base color of most buildings. Complies 11.5 In general, use bright colors for accents only. Complies 11.7 Wooden structures must be painted. Complies 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies 13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally (Metal and shingle roofs are preferred) Complies 13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. Complies 13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Complies 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The single story, rectangular shaped house located at the southern end of the Old Town Historic District lacks any identifiable stylistic influences, historic significance and structural integrity according to the 2007 and 2016 Historic Resources Surveys. The date of construction is the property’s defining historic characteristic. All exterior aspects of the property have been modified or replaced. The current façade is constructed of plywood siding panels (commonly known as T1-11). The applicant proposes replacing the existing siding with cedar plank siding and requesting approval to repaint the new siding. The applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing asphalt singled roof, which is failing. The applicant intends to replace the existing roof with a galvanized roof. The applicant is seeking approval to add a front facing porch along the front of the property facing Main Street. According to the survey provided by the applicant, the northwestern corner of the house is 17.8” within the required 72” side setback currently required in the Residential Design standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC), section 6.02.050. The applicant intends to build the porch to match the existing footprint of the house, effectively petitioning HARC to approve a variance of 17.8” for the porch. Chapter six of The Downtown and Old Town Design provides guidance as it relates to porches within the historic districts, Page 135 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-023] –. 1811 S. Main St. Page 3 of 4 “Historically, porches were popular features in residential designs. A porch protects an entrance from rain and provides shade in the summer. It also provides a sense of scale to the building and provides a space for residents to sit and congregate. A porch provides stylistic details to the house, and in some cases is an integral part of an architectural style. If inadequate documentation of original porches exists, a new porch should be typical of those built in the style of the historic building. A simplified adaptation may be allowed if physical evidence of the original is non-existent or if the design is prohibitively expensive to recreate.” Chapter 13 of The Downtown and Old Town Design guidelines states, “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.” 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Seeking variance, see Exhibit 3 C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Complies, see Exhibit 2 D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. N/A E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. N/A H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of 1. Complies 2. N/A 3. Complies Page 136 of 183 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-023] –. 1811 S. Main St. Page 4 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Survey (Site Design) Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 137 of 183 Ö ñ Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö D Ö ñ Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö ñ Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö ñ Ö Ö Ö Ö ñ Ö Ö ñ Ö CITY OF GEORGETOWN E U B A N K S T E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T S M AI N ST PAI GE ST W 18TH ST E 18TH ST 1805 1915 104 1801 1809 104 1806 1810 105 1904 1915 102 1808 1811 1810 1902 1814 1901 1915 105 1812 1806 1903 1814 1807 1915 101 1812 1816 1904 1807 1911 1902 1803 1915 103 1813 /1 inch = 83,333.33 feet Page 138 of 183 Letter of Intent I am proposing to improve the “curb appeal” of my home on 1811 S. Main St. I intend to make my “non- period” home more closely resemble the nicer homes that surround me. I plan on doing this by expanding the current patio and cover. The new patio and cover will run the length of the west facing elevation. In addition, I will replace the current T-111 siding with cedar siding, and the current roof with a galvanized metal roof. Lastly, I will repaint the house. Page 139 of 183 Page 140 of 183 Page 141 of 183 Page 142 of 183 Page 143 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1811 Main St 2016 Survey ID:125254 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042234Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/15/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1947 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 page 2 General Notes: Explain Property lacks significance and integrity Geographic Location Latitude:30.627287 Longitude -97.676632 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 535 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125254 2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: East Page 144 of 183 Page 145 of 183 Page 146 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1811 Main St 2016 Survey ID:125254 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042234Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/15/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1947 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 page 2 General Notes: Explain Property lacks significance and integrity Geographic Location Latitude:30.627287 Longitude -97.676632 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 535 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125254 2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: East Page 147 of 183 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1811 Main St 2016 Survey ID:125254 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042234Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/15/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1947 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 page 2 General Notes: Explain Property lacks significance and integrity Geographic Location Latitude:30.627287 Longitude -97.676632 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 535 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125254 2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: East Page 148 of 183 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to rec o mmend adoptio n o f the 2016 His to ric Res ources Survey Rep ort and Data. Sofia Nels on, Planning Direc tor ITEM SUMMARY: Cox-McLain Enviro nmental Cons ulting, Inc . (C MEC ) was retained b y the City o f Georgetown in Dec emb er 2015 to c o nduct a Histo ric Resourc es S urvey. T his work included (1) an update of the 1984 and 2007 surveys , and (2) a new survey of res ources cons tructed in 1974 or earlier. The new s urvey was cond uc ted within an area roughly b o und ed b y Inters tate 35 to the wes t, State Highway 130 to the east, the City limits to the s o uth, and F arm-to-Market R o ad 971 to the north. The new s urvey, whic h was completed in 2016, d o cumented a to tal o f 1,676 resourc es . Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization Category Count Percent High 191 11% Med ium 588 35% Low 897 54% Total 1,676 100% CMEC als o c ategorized the resources within the C ity’s two histo ric o verlays as c o ntrib uting or non- contributing. All High and Medium priority properties within the overlays are c ons id ered c o ntrib uting res o urc es . Lo w p rio rity his toric -age res o urc es , no n-his toric age resources, and vac ant lots are cons id ered non-contributing res ources. The rep o rt des c rib es the histo ric context o f the c ity, methods that were used to doc ument the resources, res ults of the s urvey, inc luding an o verview of the s urveyed resources, the mos t c o mmo n architec tural s tyles and forms , p res ervatio n p rio rities, and d emo litions since the previo us s urvey. Altho ugh the sc o p e o f the survey was p rimarily limited to d o cumentatio n and categorizatio n o f res o urc es , the c o nsultants mad e recommend atio ns in regards to future res earc h, doc umentatio n, and designation opportunities. The full rep ort is attached . The Append ices with the d ata s ets are availab le o n the His toric Res o urc es Survey web page: http s ://histo ric.georgetown.org/introductio n/histo ric-resourc e-s urvey/. Or d irectly at: https://rec o rds .georgetown.o rg/weblink/b rows e.as px?d b id =0 A S urvey map s amp le will be s hown at the meeting. Staff rec o mmend s the Commission make rec ommend ation to Co uncil to adopt the 2016 His toric Resources Survey Report and data sets . FINANCIAL IMPACT: ... SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ATTACHMENTS: Page 149 of 183 Description Type HRS Report 08.01.2017 Backup Material Page 150 of 183 2016 Historic Resources Survey City of Georgetown, Texas DRAFT Report Submitted August 2017 Prepared by: 8401 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78737 Page 151 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Prior Surveys ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 2016 Survey ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................... 3 2 HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Early Settlement and City Founding (1848–1900) ........................................................................ 4 2.2 Early Twentieth-Century Development (1900–1945) ................................................................... 7 2.3 Mid-Century Development (1945–1965) ...................................................................................... 7 3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Pre-Fieldwork Preparation ........................................................................................................ 9 3.1.2 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................. 10 3.1.3 Post-Field Processing .............................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................. 12 4 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Overview of Surveyed Resources ................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Architectural Styles and Forms ................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Bungalow................................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.2 Minimal Traditional ................................................................................................................. 16 4.2.3 Ranch ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Preservation Priority ................................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Demolitions ................................................................................................................................. 17 5 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 18 5.1 NRHP Districts and Boundary Expansions ................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 Expansion of Current Districts................................................................................................. 18 5.1.2 Additional Eligible Districts ..................................................................................................... 19 5.2 High-Priority Properties and Contributing Resources in NRHP Districts .................................... 20 5.3 Local Landmarks and Resources Individually Eligible for the NRHP ........................................... 21 5.4 Future Survey .............................................................................................................................. 23 Page 152 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. iii 5.5 Further Research/ Opportunities ................................................................................................ 23 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Surveyed Resources .................................................................................................. 15 Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization .............................................................................................. 17 Table 3: Summary of Demolished Resources ............................................................................................. 17 APPENDICES Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Inventory Table Appendix C: Inventory Forms Appendix D: Materials from Mobile Workshop Page 153 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 1 1 INTRODUCTION Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. (CMEC) was retained by the City of Georgetown in December 2015 to conduct a Historic Resources Survey. This work included (1) an update of the 1984 and 2007 surveys, and (2) a new survey of resources constructed in 1974 or earlier. The new survey was conducted within an area roughly bounded by Interstate 35 to the west, State Highway 130 to the east, the City limits to the south, and Farm-to-Market Road 971 to the north (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The new survey, which was completed in 2016, documented a total of 1,676 resources. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR SURVEYS The City of Georgetown has partnered with the Texas Historical Commission (THC) on the Main Street and Certified Local Government (CLG) Programs. The City has also established two historic zoning overlays: the Downtown Overlay District, created in 1975, and the Old Town Overlay District, created in 2004. As a CLG member, the City undertakes regular historic resources surveys to systematically identify and document historic-age buildings, structures, objects, and districts. The survey inventory is used by the City’s Planning Department to make informed decisions that support new growth and development while maintaining Georgetown’s heritage and character. The City of Georgetown’s first historic resources survey was conducted by Hardy Heck Moore, Inc. (HHM) in 1984 and included 902 resources constructed prior to 1935. Most resources were located within the city limits near downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods ; however, a small number were located outside the city limits within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Each resource was photographed; documented using the THC’s Historic Resources Survey Form; and assigned a priority of High, Medium, or Low. In 2007, HHM was retained to conduct the City’s second historic resources survey (HHM 2010). As part of this survey, all resources documented during the 1984 survey were re-documented, and all non-residential resources built before 1961 within the then -city limits were documented. Additionally, Hardy Heck Moore documented representative examples of domestic resources in subdivisions platted between 1935 and 1965. This sampling approach was selected because of the large number of residential resources constructed between 1935 and 1965 and because of time and budget constraints. If a subdivision platted after 1935 appeared to have potential eligibility as a historic district, the entire subdivision was documented (e.g., the Nolen Addition). In the 2007 survey, all resources were documented at the reconnaissance level except for properties categorized as High priority in 2007, which were documented with a more detailed form approximating the THC’s Historic Resources Survey Form. In addition to the 902 resources from the 1984 survey that were resurveyed, 665 resources were surveyed for the first time, for a total of 1,574 resources. Many of the resources Page 154 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2 documented in 1984 were found to have been demolished; in these cases, HHM documented the replacement building or vacant lot. All previously surveyed and newly surveyed resources were assigned a priority of High, Medium, or Low, based on the resource’s age; architectural integrity; architectural style, form, or construction method; or association with patterns in history. 1.2 2016 SURVEY 1.2.1 Survey CMEC was retained to update the 1984 and 2007 surveys and to conduct a new survey of all resources constructed in 1974 or earlier located within the survey boundary, an area encompassing approximately 3,300 parcels (Figure 1 in Appendix A). A High, Medium, or Low priority was assigned to each resource using the same definitions used in the 2007 survey (see Section 3.2). The year 1974 was selected as the survey cut-off date, and resources built in 1974 or earlier are, for the purposes of this survey, considered “historic-age.” Per the National Park Service, resources must be 50 years old or older to be eligible for listing on the NRHP; however, properties of exceptional importance that are less than 50 years old may be eligible. Generally, historic resources surveys include resources that are at least 40 to 50 years old. The year 1974 was selected as the cut-off date for the 2016 survey because high-resolution aerial images of Georgetown are available from this year, and comparison of the historic aerial images with current aerial images allowed CMEC to determine whether resources are historic-age. For the 1984 and 2007 survey update, the level of documentation each resource received in the 2016 survey depended on its location within a City overlay, its previous level of documentation, and whether its priority changed. These varying levels and circumstances of documentation were established by the City in the request for proposals for the 2016 survey. • If a resource was previously documented with a THC survey form during either the 1984 or 2007 survey AND the priority did not change in 2016, then it was only re- photographed (hereafter referred to as “Photo Only” properties). • If a resource was previously documented with a THC survey form during either the 1984 or 2007 survey AND the priority changed in 2016, then it was documented with a THC form (hereafter referred to as “THC Changing Priority” properties). The exception to this was when the priority changed on a utilitarian secondary building. • If a resource was within either of the City’s overlays and was not previously documented with a THC form, it was documented with a THC form in 2016 (hereafter referred to as “THC Form” properties). • Resources that had been demolished since they were last surveyed were noted and are reported separately in Section 4.4. No inventory form was created for these resources. Page 155 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 3 • For the new survey of resources constructed in 1974 or earlier and that are located outside the overlays, each historic-age resource within the survey area was documented at the reconnaissance level (hereafter referred to as “Reconnaissance” properties). Specifically, one or more photographs were provided of the street-facing façade; the resource type, style, plan, construction date, and geographic location were recorded; and a preservation priority was assigned. Ancillary buildings were recorded separately only if they were notable in terms of size, style, or age. A more detailed description of the 2016 survey methodology is provided in the Methodology section. 1.2.2 Public Involvement The City of Georgetown hosted a kick-off meeting for the project in February 2016. Members of the public were notified, as well as the City’s Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC). CMEC historians presented the goals and proposed methodology for the survey and invited public input. An email address was established for the project so that members of the public could submit stories, photographs, and other information. In April of 2016, the City of Georgetown hosted a mobile workshop to educa te members of the public about the process of documenting historic resources. The workshop was organized and staffed by historians from CMEC and was structured as a “classroom” learning session followed by a field session. Attendees learned how to complete the THC’s survey form and received tips on spotting alterations and taking digital photographs. After the classroom session, the group worked together to document a small area in Georgetown. The workshop was intended to provide the community with valuable skills as well as to promote historic preservation and a deeper understanding of the importance of local surveys. Materials from the workshop are included as Appendix D. Following the review of the draft inventory forms by the City Planning Department, the forms were posted to the City’s website for review in July 2017. The owners of every property documented in the survey were mailed letters, which stated their property’s priority; provided instructions for accessing the forms online; and included an inv itation to the public meeting on July 13, 2017. On this date, the City hosted a series of meetings. CMEC historians were available for half-hour appointments during the day to meet one-on-one with members of the public. Those who made appointments brought in historic photographs and books, shared the history of their properties, asked questions about the survey and the implications of designation, and provided more precise information about construction dates and alterations. In the evening, CMEC historians presented the findings of the survey to the public in Georgetown City Council chambers. Members of the planning department staff and CMEC historians were available to answer questions from attendees. The PowerPoint presentation was posted to the City’s website and shared with local stakeholders. In the weeks following the presentation, members of the public continued to contact the City and CMEC with additional questions and information. The public input has been incorporated into this report and the attached forms. Page 156 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 4 2 HISTORIC CONTEXT 2.1 EARLY SETTLEMENT AND CITY FOUNDING (1848–1900) The area that is now Williamson County was originally the western part of Milam County, which was an expansive region with a distant county seat. Wanting a more centralized governm ent, a group of settlers successfully lobbied the Texas Legislature for a new county separate from Milam County. Williamson County, named after Robert Williamson, an early political leader and judge, was established March 13, 1848. At the time, the area had an Anglo population of approximately 250 settlers who relied primarily on subsistence farming (Odintz 2016; Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Williamson County’s first officials were tasked with selecting a location for the county seat within five miles of the county’s geographic center (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The site was selected after George Glasscock offered to donate 173 acres for the new city if it was named in his honor (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). Georgetown, as it was called, was well-situated on high land at the confluence of the San Gabriel River’s three branches, with fertile Blackland Prairie to the east that was ideal for farming, and grasslands to the west that were suitable for ranching (Texas Histo rical Commission c. 2000; Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). It was platted as a 52- block grid with a public square in the southeastern quadrant. Narrow lots surrounded the square, creating a commercial center, beyond which lay residential lots (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). This design, named the Shelbyville Square, was replicated widely across the state of Texas because of its simplicity and effectiveness in creating a central focus for the community (Veselka 2000). On July 4, 1848, just four months after the county was established, Georgetown’s first lots were sold (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The population of the city in 1850 was estimated at 2 00 people, and growth was slow for the next two decades (Texas Almanac c. 2000). Most early buildings were log construction and temporary in nature, including the first courthouse, which was a one -room building erected in 1849 one block east of the town square (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000; Williams and Landon 1976). Supported by the local agricultural and livestock industries, more permanent commercial buildings constructed of locally sourced limestone began to replace log buildings. The first such building was a new courthouse, erected in 1857 on the square (Texas Historica l Commission c. 2000). Though solidly vernacular in design and construction, with its central location in the square and sturdy walls, the building was nonetheless a symbol of the county’s stability and potential (Scarbrough 1973). The city’s only early ex pansion occurred in 1854 with the Glasscock Addition, a residential area located south and east of the original 52 -block grid (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Twenty-nine resources dating to the nineteenth century are extant in this neighborhood. Page 157 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 5 It its early years, Georgetown’s economy was heavily based in agriculture, with farmers primarily growing wheat and corn on small farms on the fertile land to the south and east of the city. Commercial activity centered on the courthouse square, and business es were largely service-based and reliant on the activity from the courthouse. There were few industrial or manufacturing businesses at the time (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The Civil War and Reconstruction years stifled Georgetown’s growth and development, but the 1870s were a turning point for the city (HHM 2010). This change is largely attributed to two events. The first was the establishment of Southwestern University in 1873, one of the first institutes of higher education in the region. The university, along with county affairs, proved to be one of Georgetown’s most stable economic drivers. The second major event from this period was the arrival of the railroad in Georgetown (HHM 2010). Williamson County’s first railroad opened in 1876 in the southern part of the county; residents of Georgetown watched as the communities along the line (e.g. Taylor) boomed while those communities that were bypassed vanished (Scarbrough 1973). In response, Georgetown’s leaders quickly organized to establish and finance the construction of the Georgetown Railroad, which would connect the city to the International and Great Northern Railroad in Round Rock. Completed in 1878, the route, which is no longer extant in its original location, terminated just southwest of the business district. The arrival of the railroad improved living conditions and transformed the economy and appearance of the city (Scarbrough 1973). With improved access to transportation, Williamson County’s farmers were able to buy farm machinery and ship crops to larger markets. They began growing cotton, which was a more lucrative product than corn and wheat. Soon, cotton gins and processing plants sprang up throughout the county, including Georgetown, and Williamson County was the top cotton producer in Texas by the 1890s (Scarbrough 1973; Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). As the county’s cotton industry was developing, so too was its cattle industry (Scarbrough 1973). Many cattle trails crossed Williamson County and fed into la rger trails like the Chisholm Trail, Western Trail, Dodge City Trail, and Shawnee Trail (Scarbrough 1973). Several routes passed through Georgetown, including one that ran directly down Brushy Street (now Austin Avenue). Herds of cattle passed the courthouse and commercial district, with cattlemen frequently stopping to purchase supplies (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). Moving north, herds crossed the San Gabriel River just west of the current Austin Avenue bridges (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). As a result of the strong economic growth, the population of Georgetown increased rapidly in the 1870s, from an estimated 320 people in 1870 to 1,354 in 1880. This pace continued into the twentieth century, and by 1900, the population was 2,790 (Texas Almanac c. 2000). A flurry of development activity accompanied this growth. Page 158 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 6 A new, architect-designed, Italianate-style courthouse was erected in 1878, replacing the vernacular building from 1857. Hitching posts and sidewalks were installed around the square in 1881, and these improvements, coupled with the new courthouse’s size, height, ornamentation, and siting, transformed the appearance of the square (Scarbrough 1973). Commercial building owners soon began updating and replacing their properties as well. A review of the city’s early Sanborn maps shows that most of the commercial district’s buildings were still one-story and wood frame in 1885, though a small number of two -story stone buildings had been erected by this time (Sanbo rn Map & Publishing Co. 1885). When the next Sanborn map was published nine years later, the square would have been markedly different in appearance, as nearly all the frame buildings had been replaced with two-story stone buildings (Sanborn-Perris Map Co. 1894). Because a greater variety of goods were available via the railroad, these new buildings were accentuated with materials and embellishments popular during the time; the buildings were given high-style Italianate and Queen Anne designs intended to lure customers inside (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000; Francaviglia 1996). In addition to the specialty stores and service industries that lined Georgetown’s square, notable commercial developments of the late-nineteenth century included new planing mills; a brick and lime kiln; several factories, including an ice factory; and limestone quarries (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). Residential building activity also increased, and between 1870 and 1910, 13 new residential additions tripled the size of Georgetown (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The river provided a barrier to the north and west, so the city grew south and east, and the town square, which was originally sited in the southeastern quadrant of the city, had become more centralized (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Many of Georgetown’s most recognizable and significant commercial and residential buildings date to the period of growth from the 1870s to 1900. Charles S. Belford, a local contractor and lumberman, got his start during this period, and he quickly gained a reputation for constructing quality buildings in a variety of popular styles. He would become one of the city’s most prolific early builders, and many of his buildings are extant today, including a concentration in the Belford National Register Historic District. C. S. Griffith operated a competing lumber company in town, established in 1894; the rivalry between the two firms has been credited with elevating the level of craftsmanship of Georgetown homes (Moore and Hardy 1984). Griffith is believed to have constructed homes at 1002 Ash Street, 1009 Elm Street, and 1216 Main Street (Moore and Hardy 1984). As Georgetown grew into the twentieth century, a consequence of its building activity was that many farms that were once on the outskirts of town became enveloped by development and were often destroyed (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). In all, 151 surveyed resources were constructed prior to 1900 and represent Georgetown’s earliest patterns of development. The oldest documented resource is the c. 1860 Johnson Farmstead, a stone I-house on Westinghouse Road, outside of the historic core of the city. The majority of the pre-1900 resources were constructed in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Page 159 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 7 2.2 EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1900–1945) Georgetown’s economy stalled at the turn of the century, in part because other communities in eastern Williamson County along the main railroad routes had established a firm hold on the cotton industry (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). As Georgetown’s cotton economy diminished, the population declined slightly between 1910 and 1920 (Texas Almanac c. 2000). Agriculture was, nonetheless, still an important industry, and it, along with retail businesses, education, and county government, continued to sustain Georgetown’s economy. Several notable buildings were constructed in the early 1900s, including Southwestern University’s Administration Building and Mood Hall and several local school buildings, including a 1923 high school by Austin-based architects the Page Brothers (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Most prominent, however, was the erection of the county’s final courthouse, a domed, Beaux Arts style building completed in 1911 by the Page Brothers. The building replaced the 1878 courthouse and was situated in the center of the courthouse square within a parklike setting. As the population grew and the city expanded, there was an increased need and demand for improved infrastructure (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). The first major improvement occurred in 1892 when iron bridges were erected over the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River (Scarbrough 1973). Prior to the construction of these bridges, people crossed the water by climbing down the banks and walking across log bridges or logs spanning the width of the river (Scarbrough 1973). City and county roads continued to be rather primitive and unpaved into the 1930s, when road improvements were financed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) program (Scarbrough 2008). After this point, Brushy Street (later renamed Austin Avenue), which was located along the Meridian Highway/U .S. 81, saw an increase in automobile-oriented development, including filling stations, restaurants, and motor courts (HHM 2010; Moore et al. 2016). This street became a primary route through downtown. By 1940, the population of Georgetown was 3,682 and the county’s population was 41,698. Most people continued to reside in the eastern portion of the county in the communities along the railroad (Texas Almanac c. 2000; Odintz 2016). Georgetown and its neighbor, Round Rock, were small, rural hamlets in comparison (Scarbrough 2008). There are approximately 775 resources documented in the survey dating from 1900 to 1945. 2.3 MID-CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1945–1965) Georgetown’s economy picked back up again in the years following World War II, though at a steadier pace than in earlier decades (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The county was still heavily agricultural; however, cotton farming was declining as a result of over -production, soil depletion, and a boll weevil infestation (Odintz 2016). Agricultural interests diversified as farmers began growing sorghum and wheat and raising poultry. Traditional livestock rearing was still common (Odintz 2016). The city’s economy was further supported by Southwestern University, which embarked on a significant expansion effort in the post -war years, in part to meet demand from returning soldiers utilizing the GI Bill (HHM 2010). The city also grew in size Page 160 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 8 in the post-war years, as 14 new subdivisions were added, featuring modern planning principles with wide streets, uniform setbacks, separation of residential and non-residential uses, and consistent architectural design. Single-family residences were typically built in the Ranch style and advertised as having the latest in modern conveniences and design (HHM 2010). Some neighborhoods were more modest with small lot sizes and Minimal Ranch houses, and others , such as Country Club Estates, the Nolen Addition, and East Lynn Additions, were built with spacious lots and homes. Despite the post-war development activity, Georgetown was still a small community of 5,218 people in 1960, and the surrounding area continued to be heavily agricultural (Scarbrough 2008; Texas Almanac c. 2000). Two major infrastructure projects would change this, resulting in a period of explosive growth and development that continues into present day. The first was the opening of I-35 just west of Georgetown’s business district in 1965. This meant that, for the first time, downtown Georgetown was no longer situated on a preeminent north -south artery. Development activity quickly shifted toward the interchanges of the new highway and away from Austin Avenue and U.S. 81. This was intensified in the following years, when plans were made to construct a dam over the San Gabriel River to prevent flooding and secure a water supply for the cities of Georgetown and Round Rock (Scarbrough 2008). The dam, completed in 1979, created Lake Georgetown, a reservoir west of I-35. The surrounding ranch land was quickly tapped by investors for the development of new subdivisions, who marketed the idyllic setting with easy access to I-35 and Austin, which, without today’s traffic, was just a short 25- minute commute. In the years leading up to the dam’s completion, approximately 4,000 acres just west of I-35 changed hands from ranchers to developers (Scarbrough 2008). Georgetown and Round Rock, which is also along I-35 to the south, were suddenly popular bedroom communities. For the first time in its history, the population of Williamson County was shifting west. Georgetown’s historic commercial district and Austin Avenue’s automobile-oriented businesses suffered from the new competition to the west and the improved access to all Austin had to offer. Storefronts were often shuttered but, remarkably, very few buildings were destroyed (HHM 2010). The exception to this occurred in the “Ridge,” a predominantly low-income, minority neighborhood located in the area roughly bounded by 19th Street to the south, the historic business district to the east, and the San Gabriel River’s South Branch to the west and north (The Williamson County Sun 1967a). Here, the city initiated a federally fun ded, 152-acre urban renewal effort, coined the “South San Gabriel Urban Renewal Project,” intended to clear and rehabilitate sub-standard housing, redevelop the area for residential purposes, improve streets and utilities, and develop parks and recreation areas (The Williamson County Sun 1967b). The result was widespread demolition and relocation of the Ridge community starting in the late 1960s (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Though a number of new buildings were erected and streets and infrastructu re improved, many projects never came to fruition, as evidenced by the number of block-sized parking lots that fill the space today. A related project documented in the 2007 and 2016 surveys is the Stonehaven Apartments development, Page 161 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 9 operated by the Georgetown Housing Authority. This housing development was built with the goal of housing residents who were displaced by urban renewal (Williamson County Sun 1970). Residential, commercial, and industrial growth continued at a rapid pace after 1960 and into the 1970s and 1980s (Scarbrough 2010). Starting in 1982, Georgetown embarked on another transformative urban planning and economic development initiative. This time, through participation in the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program, the goal was to preserve and revitalize the city’s historic downtown, which sat shuttered and dilapidated, but largely intact (McKnight 2002). The city’s financial institutions offered low-interest loans to rehabilitate the district’s Victorian buildings, and within two years more than half the commercial district had undergone restoration projects. Infrastructure improvements followed, and soon businesses began filling the storefronts (McKnight 2002). In 2005 and 2006, the courthouse underwent a significant restoration, bringing it back in appearance to its original design (Texas Historical Commission c. 2006). Today, Georgetown’s square is once again a lively commercial center with a distinct sense of history. Georgetown’s population grew from 5,218 people in 1960, prior to the construction of I-35 and the dam, to 9,468 by 1980, and explosive growth continued into the twenty-first century as the Austin metro region expanded to the north (Texas Almanac c. 2000). With a population of 63,716 in 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that Georgetown was the fastest growing city in the country with a population of 50,000 or more (United States Census Bureau 2016). There are approximately 604 resources dating from the 1945 to 1965 time period documented in the survey. These properties are primarily residential resources, most commonly executed in the Ranch and Minimal Traditional style/form. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY The following section describes the methodology used for field survey and property evaluations. Field survey methods included preparations before conducting survey work, on- the-ground fieldwork activities, and post-field processing. 3.1.1 Pre-Fieldwork Preparation 3.1.1.1 Previous Survey Data Review and Analysis CMEC was provided with a copy of the 1984 and 2007 surveys. For the 1984 survey, CMEC scanned in copies of the paper survey forms as well as the photograph negatives. The scanned PDF forms were optimized using text-recognition software to make the documents searchable. From the 2007 survey, CMEC was provided with a copy of the survey report (including inventory forms), a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet summarizing the results of the survey, and GIS data points. CMEC mapped the location of the surveyed resources from 2007 and joined each Page 162 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 10 surveyed property to parcel-based Williamson County Appraisal District data. The location of resources surveyed in 2007 was corrected when necessary. 3.1.1.2 Aerial Imagery Review Next, CMEC obtained a high-resolution aerial image from 1974, the cut-off year for the survey. By comparing the 1974 image to current aerial photograph y as well as examining select properties using Google StreetView, CMEC attempted to determine whether the same building(s) present today were present in 1974, indicating a historic -age resource. For properties where tree cover obscured development, or there were other uncertainties, the resource was flagged for review in the field. 3.1.1.3 Categorization and Field Map Creation A CMEC identification number (ID) was assigned to every previously surveyed parcel and all parcels within the survey area. CMEC historians completed an analysis for every parcel in the survey boundary to determine: • Whether the resource had been surveyed before; • Whether the resource was historic age (some properties proved to have been erroneously categorized as historic age in a previous survey); • The level of documentation from previous surveys (THC form or not); and • Whether the resource was located in either of the local overlay districts. Based on this information, each property was assigned to one of three levels of documentation 1) a new photograph, 2) a Reconnaissance-level documentation form, or 3) a THC-level documentation form. The field maps were keyed appropriately based on the needed documentation type for each property. Resources outside of the 2016 survey boundary that had been recorded in previous surveys were documented in 2016 with photograph updates only, unless the property was changing priority (in which case the resource was documented with a THC form). 3.1.1.4 Tablet Form Design Before conducting fieldwork, CMEC and teaming partner SWCA created a custom tablet-based data collection form that included fields from the THC form. This form was loaded on to tablets for field data collection. 3.1.2 Field Survey A team of professionals from CMEC and SWCA, led by Principal Investigators Emily Reed and Heather Goodson, conducted the field survey. Fieldwork for the resources within the survey area was conducted in the spring and summer of 2016, and fieldwork for the resources outside the survey area was conducted in November 2016 and January 2017. Page 163 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 11 At least one photograph of each resource’s street-facing façade was taken, except when limited by right-of-entry or obscuring vegetation. When visible from the right-of-way, outbuildings (garages, shed, etc.) were also photographed. Photographs taken with the tablets were automatically linked to the resource’s record. The amount of data collected in the field for each resource varied depending on whether it was a THC Form, Reconnaissance, or Photo Only property. For THC Form properties, structural and material information was recorded, as well as property type, use, style, plan, and any visible alterations to the exterior. For Reconnaissance properties, type, style, and plan were documented. For Photo Only resources, no additional data was collected in the field; if a review of the photographs indicated that recent alterations might warrant a change in priority, and therefore THC Form documentation, the resource was revisited. Secondary buildings were documented in the 2016 survey with a separate inventory form if they were previously documented in a separate record on the 1984 or 2007 surveys . For all newly surveyed parcels, secondary buildings were documented separately only if they were more substantial buildings, such as a carriage house, barn, or a stylized detached garage, for example. A commonplace detached garage or shed would be photographed when visible from the right-of-way, and the photo was included in the record of the primary building. When a parcel included more than one resource and each resource was documented with an individual inventory form, an alphabetical character was appended to the CMEC ID. For example, the main house and freestanding carriage house on parcel number 55555 would be designated as 55555A, and 55555B, respectively. Parcels flagged for further review based on the aerial imagery analysis were evaluated in the field. Parcels that appeared to be vacant lots or to contain post-1974 development were noted as such and were not photo-documented. Notes were also made regarding information obtained from neighbors and members of the public encountered during the survey, including construction dates for buildings and neighborhood history. 3.1.3 Post-Field Processing After fieldwork was complete, a qualified architectural historian reviewed the collected data for each record for accuracy and completeness, and one or more photographs was selected for each resource. Historical information was added to records where relevant. For resources being recorded with a THC Form, a brief architectural description was written during the post -field processing period. To determine the existence of alterations, historians primarily relied on professional judgment, as well as Google Street View, Google Earth imagery, and comparison to previous survey photos and descriptions. For year built dates, Sanborn maps, online building improvement data from the Williamson Central Appraisal District, and notes from previous surveys were used to supplement professional judgment. Page 164 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 12 In consideration of integrity and historical associations, each resource was assigned a 2016 survey priority of High, Medium, or Low (based on the definitions outlined in Section 3.2). For resources that did not clearly fall into one category, h istorians discussed the priority with each other and, where needed, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer. For resources that were previously surveyed, the 2007 and 1984 survey IDs and priorities were inserted into the 2016 survey form for reference. The source of this data was an Excel spreadsheet from the 2007 survey, which was provided to CMEC by the City of Georgetown . To provide a more complete record for Photo Only properties, which were only to be documented with a photograph and a preservation priority in 2016, CMEC inserted 2007 survey data into the 2016 record, including the plan, style, and year built. The 2007 year built data was reviewed for accuracy and updated where applicable. Draft survey records were prepared for review by Georgetown’s Historic Preservation Officer, and, later, for public review. Owners of surveyed resources were notified of the survey via mail and invited to discuss the findings in a series of meetings on July 13, 2017. During these meetings, members of the public had the opportunity to provide additional information about surveyed properties. Records were updated to reflect any new information, and the information was confirmed via research where possible. 3.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The 1984 and 2007 survey assigned High, Medium, and Low priorities to each property. No documentation was identified defining these categories for the 1984 survey. The definitions of these categories included in the 2007 survey (and repeated in the scope for the 2016 survey) are provided below. LOW Properties categorized as LOW are neither individually eligible for listing in the NRHP nor potentially contributing resources within a historic district. Resources of historic age were considered LOW priority if they could not be associated with a significant architectural style, building form, construction method, or trend in local history. Also, resources of historic age that had been severely altered to the extent that their architectural and historic associations were no longer understandable, or that new alterations overwhelmed the visual interpretation of the original or historic appearance, were assigned a LOW priority. MEDIUM Resources assigned a MEDIUM preservation priority do not possess sufficient architectural or historical significance to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, they would likely be a contributing resource if located within a historic district that is eligible for the NRHP. MEDIUM priority properties are valuable resources that add to the area's overall character and contribute moderately to an understanding of local history or broader historical patterns. Some MEDIUM priority resources are typical Page 165 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 13 examples of common building forms or architectural styles from the late- nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, such as the folk Victorian- style L-plan house or the Craftsman bungalow. The category of MEDIUM priority may also encompass significant properties that have experienced deterioration or have undergone moderate alterations that detract from their integrity. HIGH HIGH priority properties are either eligible for listing in the NRHP or designation as Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs), or have previously been listed in the NRHP or are designated as an RTHL. These resources are good examples of architecture, engineering, or crafted design. They retain a high degree of their original contextual and architectural integrity and, if altered, changes are in keeping with original design, scale, and workmanship. These properties contribute significantly to local history or broader historical patterns and are considered to be the most significant resources within the city. Some properties in the HIGH category are notable because they represent noteworthy examples of a common local building form, architectural style, or plan type that exhibits particularly exceptional craftsmanship or design qualities. Others are among the city's oldest properties and may be missing certain architectural element and/or have been subject to a moderate amount of changes; nonetheless, because of their age, they are still significant within a local context. A number of properties with HIGH ratings remain as excellent examples of relatively rare vernacular/folk architectural forms that represent Georgetown's early development. In accordance with the Request for Proposals issued by the City of Georgetown for the current project and the agreed-upon scope, CMEC also utilized the same priority definitions for the 2016 survey. CMEC historians considered both significance and integrity when assigning the preservation category. A priority justification statement was also provided for every resource on the inventory form (for example “lacks integrity,” or “lacks integrity and significance”). For properties that had been previously surveyed, CMEC considered whether the previous preservation priority should be changed. Changes in priority in 2016 were primarily attributed to alterations made since the time of the 2007 survey that had diminished the integrity of the structure. Some properties were also upgraded in priority based on a reconsideration of significance allowed by almost a decade of perspective since the prior survey. For example, several Ranch style resources were upgraded from Low priority in 2007 to Medium priority in 2016 if the resources retained integrity and contributed to the character of the neighborhood. CMEC also noted that the practice of the 2007 surveyors seemed to have been to assign the same preservation priority to all resources on a parcel when more than one resource was present. This resulted in garage buildings being assigned a High priority if the garage was on the same parcel as a High priority residence. In collaboration with the City of Georgetown Historic Preservation Officer, CMEC historians proposed providing individualized preservation priorities Page 166 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 14 for each resource on a property. As a result, several previously surveyed ancillary buildings changed priority based on the individualized approach. CMEC also categorized the resources within the City’s two historic overlays as contributing or non-contributing. All High and Medium priority properties within the overlays are considered contributing resources. Low priority historic-age resources, non-historic age resources, and vacant lots are considered non-contributing resources. 4 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY The following section discusses the results of the survey, including an overview of the surveyed resources, the most common architectural styles and forms, preservation priorities, and demolitions since the previous survey. An inventory table of all surveyed resources is included in Appendix B, and individual inventory forms for resources are provided in Appendix C. 4.1 OVERVIEW OF SURVEYED RESOURCES In total, 1,676 resources were documented during the 2016 survey and assigned a preservation priority. This includes 1,660 buildings, 13 structures, 2 objects, and 1 site. Most buildings are single-family homes or commercial buildings. Other building types include educational, municipal, religious, agricultural, and municipal. Documented structures include bridges, dams, a water tower, etc.; objects include a statue and a memorial; and the site is an archeological ruin. Within the survey area, 1,762 parcels were not documented because they do not have historic- age resources or are vacant lots. Additionally, 144 resources that were documented in 2007 as not historic age were not documented in the 2016 survey. CMEC historians surmised that these resources were documented in 2007 because a resource had been documented in that location during the 1984 survey but was no longer extant in 2007. These resources were coded as “NH07” properties in the 2016 survey and were not photographed or assigned a prio rity because they are not historic age. Forty-five resources that were documented during the 2007 survey with a historic-age year-built date were determined by CMEC historians to be not historic-age (built in 1975 or later). These resources, which are coded “Photo Only (E07),” were documented as Photo Only properties at the request of the City, but were not assigned a preservation priority because they are not historic age. Fifteen historic-age resources were not recorded because they are not visible from the right-of- way or are too obscured by foliage to evaluate; 9 of these had been documented previously. Additionally, 6 previously surveyed cemeteries were re-photographed in 2016 but not assigned priorities because no historic-age buildings or structures are present. Page 167 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 15 Finally, as further described in Section 4.4, 66 previously documented resources have been demolished since they were last surveyed. An additional 14 resources documented during the previous surveys either did not have accurate geographic data and could not be located, or the resources were believed to have been demolished, but demolition could not be confirmed from aerial photographs. These resources are listed as “Possible demolitions” in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Surveyed Resources Category Count Priority Assigned 1,676 Buildings 1,660 Structures 13 Objects 2 Site 1 Priority Not Assigned 2,052 Not historic-age / vacant parcels 1,762 Previously surveyed, acknowledged in 2007 as not historic-age 144 Previously surveyed, but determined in 2016 to be not historic-age 45 Not visible from right-of-way 15 Cemeteries 6 Demolitions 66 Possible demolitions 14 4.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND FORMS This section pertains to residential buildings, as the vast majority of the recorded resources were single-family homes. Each historic-age property in the district was categorized based on form and style, using the categories provided on the THC form. The THC Historic Resources Survey Manual was utilized, as well as the following sources: Common Houses in America’s Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi Valley (Jakle et al. 1989) and A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester 2015). The most common forms and types observed in the district are described below. 4.2.1 Bungalow The term “bungalow” has been used to describe small, single or one-and-a-half story dwellings with moderately irregular floorplans, overhanging eaves, and prominent porches. Bungalows may have front-gabled, side-gabled, cross-gabled, or hipped roofs and almost always have either full or partial width porches. The Craftsman style is often applied to this form; characteristic features of this style include decorative beams or braces A front-gabled Craftsman Bungalow on Ash Street Page 168 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 16 under gables, exposed rafter tails, battered columns and piers for porch supports, and gr ouped windows. The bungalow was the dominant form for houses built in the US between the turn of the twentieth century and the 1920s. This form was popularized in Southern California and may have originated in India in the nineteenth century. The bungalow appeared in Georgetown after World War I and remained a popular style into the 1950s. In all, 76 bungalow-plan buildings were documented during the 2016 survey. 4.2.2 Minimal Traditional The “Minimal Traditional” house form was developed beginning in the mid- 1930s as a response to changes in the housing market due to the Great Depression. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was established in 1934 and provided low-interest mortgages. In order to protect their investment, the FHA provided guidelines for effective house designs. The efficient designs also meant that these houses could be constructed rapidly to meet demand from returning World War II veterans. Minimal Traditional houses are characterized by their compact form and minimal architectural detailing. Identifying features include a low or moderately pitched roof, one-story height, and eaves with little or no overhang. In all, 100 Minimal Traditional residences were documented during the 2016 survey. 4.2.3 Ranch Following World War II, the Ranch form became popular nationwide. The Ranch form was developed in Southern California in the mid-1930s and was one of the small house types built under FHA financing guidelines in the 1940s (McAlester 2015). As the FHA guidelines became more flexible after World War II, the Ranch gained increasing popularity. It is characterized by a horizontal one -story shape and low-pitched roof, with the front entry typically located off -center. A garage is often attached to the main façade. Many different types and sizes of wind ows are found on Ranch Ranch house on E. 6th Street Minimal Traditional house on Hutto Rd Page 169 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 17 houses, including windows manufactured in standard sizes using production methods developed during the war. Entries are almost always recessed, either into the front façade or under a porch. Porch supports, if present, are often simple wood posts or wrought iron. Early smaller examples of the Ranch form may be referred to as Minimal Ranch and generally lack a broad overhanging roof and other elaborations (Jakle 1989; McAlester 2015). In all, 441 Ranch style buildings were documented during the 2016 survey. 4.3 PRESERVATION PRIORITY The City of Georgetown requested that the documented resources be categorized as High, Medium, or Low priority, as defined in Section 3.2. Table 2 below summarizes the recommended categorization of historic-age resources. Over 200 resources documented during the 2016 survey had a priority change since the last time they were surveyed. As noted in Section 3.2, in most instances a resource was downgraded because of recent alterations to the exterior. In other cases, the resource was upgraded in priority because of a better understanding of the history or significance of a building, or because a building had been restored since the last survey. 4.4 DEMOLITIONS The 2007 survey identified 163 resources that had been demolished between 1984 and 2007. The 2016 survey identified 66 resources that had been demolished between 2007 and 2016. Table 3: Summary of Demolished Resources 2007 Preservation Priority Count Percent High 2 3% Medium 29 44% Low 32 48% Not Assigned 3 5% Total 66 100% Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization Category Count Percent High 191 11% Medium 588 35% Low 897 54% Total 1,676 100% Page 170 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 18 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Although the scope of this survey was primarily limited to documentation and categorization of resources, future research, documentation, and designation opportunities abound. 5.1 NRHP DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS 5.1.1 Expansion of Current Districts Consider a boundary expansion of the currently NRHP-listed University Avenue—Elm Street Historic District. The City of Georgetown has four National Register Historic Districts: Williamson County Courthouse Historic District, University Avenue—Elm Street Historic District, Belford Historic District, and Olive Street Historic District. With the exception of Olive Street, which was listed in 2013, all of the districts were listed in the 1970s and 1980s. In the decades since their listing, the properties within the districts have been modified, and the settings around the districts have changed. Additional properties have also become historic-age, potentially justifying an expanded period of significance and/or boundary. CMEC historians reviewed the current NRHP boundaries, as well as the properties in the vicinity of these districts that are currently outside of the NHRP boundaries. CMEC also reviewed the recommendations in the survey report for the 2007 survey by HHM. In the areas surrounding the Williamson County Courthouse, Belford, and Olive Street Districts, CMEC did not observe significant concentrations of intact, historic-age resources to justify an expansion of these districts. The University Avenue—Elm Street District, however, appears to have potential for a boundary increase, as was also noted following the 2007 survey. At the time it was listed (1979), the district was centered around five high-style residences built between 1889 and 1900 with Queen Anne, Eastlake, and Georgian Revival styles. The district includes properties on Myrtle Street that are currently considered non-contributing. The Booty-McAden House was destroyed by fire in 2006 and was reconstructed in 2009. Although this resource may no longer be considered contributing to the district, the other contributing resources retain integrity. A review of the surrounding area indicated that there are several High and Medium priority properties in the blocks to the southeast that date to the early twentieth century. The Medium priority properties on Myrtle Street within the current district that are currently categorized as non-contributing to the NRHP district should also be re-evaluated for potential contributing status. The area of the potential boundary increase is depicted o n Figure 2, although additional research would be required to confirm the boundary and contributing/non-contributing resources. The area of proposed expansion is smaller than that recommended following the 2007 survey, based on professional evaluation of the integrity and cohesiveness of the surrounding architectural fabric. Page 171 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 19 5.1.2 Additional Eligible Districts Consider listing the Blue Hole Recreation Area in the NRHP The study area was also evaluated for the potential for additional NRHP eligible districts, including those areas recommended for further study by the 2007 survey. Although CMEC historians did not find that any of those areas (Forest Street or Nolen Addition) were potentially eligible for the NRHP (primarily due to alterations and infill development), the Blue Hole recreation area is recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Two swimming areas have been created by the two dams in the San Gabriel River at Blue Hole Park (Resources 123615B and 123615C). Resource 123615B is known as the “Imhoff Dam,” which is approximately five feet tall and constructed of concrete. The smaller, downstream dam (Resource 123615C) is known as the “Kiddie Dam” and is also constructed of concrete. Local history credits Louis P. Imhoff with the construction of Resource 123615B in the 1930s. The Kiddie Dam is believed to have been constructed contemporaneously with or slightly later than the Imhoff Dam. Research did not identify further details about the specific association of the dam with Mr. Imhoff, but the connection is noted in oral history interviews on record with the Williamson County Historical Commission: “Old Mr. Imhoff, who had a machine shop a block from that, was the instigator of damming up the Gabriel” (Hoffman 2017). The Imhoff Dam is noted as having been constructed in 1932 in Donna Scarbrough Josey’s book Georgetown: Then and Now (2014). A 1933 article in the Georgetown Megaphone (a newspaper published by Southwestern University students) corroborates this date; the article describes the Imhoff Dam as having been constructed during the previous summer (Georgetown Megaphone 1933). No alterations to the dams were observed or identified in research. Information from City of Georgetown staff indicated that the south bank of the San Gabriel River in the Blue Hole Park area near the Austin Avenue bridge was modified following a flood in 2007. The flood resulted in the deposit of a large volume of gravel along the banks of the river. The City graded the area and added Portland cement to stabilize the bank on the south side of the river. A pedestrian low-water crossing was constructed shortly thereafter, c. 2008. Although the appearan ce of the riverfront has been modified by improvements in the past decade, research did not indicate that either of the dams have been altered, and the swimming hole area still conveys the same sense of place as it has since the 1930s. Documentation from the City of Georgetown’s Parks Department regarding the date of the official dedication of the land as Blue Hole Park was not immediately available, but the results of newspaper searches indicate that it likely became a city park in the late 1970s. A 1975 article noted that a park in the Blue Hole area was being considered under the auspices of the Georgetown Urban Renewal Agency (The Williamson County Sun 1975). A 1977 article noted the efforts of a group of teenagers to clean up the area “in order to crea te a city park” (The Williamson County Sun 1977). Independent of its official status as a designated city park, the “Blue Hole” has been a swimming hole and gathering place for Georgetown residents for over one hundred years, even pre-dating the 1930s dams that more explicitly defined the area. The Page 172 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 20 Blue Hole is referred to by name in newspaper articles dating to as early as 1896, when it was noted as the place of several baptisms (The Williamson County Sun 1896). Additional clippings from 1898 and 1906 also noted baptisms in the Blue Hole (The Williamson County Sun 1898, 1906). An article in the Georgetown Megaphone from 1915 described the spot as a place where “the stream becomes both wide and deep and forms what is known as the ‘Blue Hole,’ where the waters seem as clear and sparkling as any artesian pool.” The 1915 article mentions the gathering of scores of men engaging in rope swinging and diving. Oral history subjects recalled that swimming across the river in the location of the Blue Hole was viewed as a rite of passage. “A boy was accepted when he could swim across Blue Hole and swim back without stopping” (Hoffman 2017). The identity of the city of Georgetown is closely linked with the San Gabriel River, and it enjoys widespread renown for the Blue Ho le swimming and recreation area. The recreational area surrounding the “Blue Hole” is therefore recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Recreation for its role as a popular recreation area in Georgetown for over 100 years. The proposed boundary for this property is shown in Figure 3. The City has indicated that they do not have right-of-way/parkland delineation documents, and the Williamson County Appraisal District parcel that encompasses the Blue Hole area is extremely large. Therefore, CMEC historians have recommended the following NRHP boundary. On the west, the boundary includes the treeline that comprises the western extent of the viewshed from users of the Blue Hole area. To the north and south, the boundary includes the banks of the river and a buffer of trees that serve to screen the swimming and recreational area from other land uses. On the south side of the river, the boundary includes the current primary public access point to the recreation area via Rock Street. On the east, the proposed boundary is the centerline of the bridge carrying Austin Avenue over the south fork of the river. The bridge is a defining feature of the viewshed from the Blue Hole looking east. The bridge also appears to serve as the boundary between Blue Hole Park and Veterans of Foreign Wars Park; as noted above, the City has not identified boundary lines for the parks in this area. 5.2 HIGH-PRIORITY PROPERTIES AND CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES IN NRHP DISTRICTS The review standards currently in place for the overlays should also apply to high-priority properties and contributing properties within existing and future NRHP districts. Currently, Georgetown City Code calls for review of alterations and demolitions within the two local historic overlay districts. Outside of the overlays, only demolitions are subject to review. In the 2016 survey, 27 High-priority properties were documented in the area outside of the overlays. There also appears to be at least one instance of a contributing property to an NRHP district that is outside the overlays (1708 Olive Street). Future NRHP districts may be outside of the local overlays entirely. Rather than expanding the boundaries of the overlays, CMEC recommends that proposed alterations to High-priority properties and contributing properties Page 173 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 21 within existing and future NRHP districts also be subject to review, regardless of their location within an overlay. The recommendation regarding contributing resources in NRHP districts could be accomplished by revising the definition of “contributing” structures in the code. This proposed revision would also formalize the recommendation that only High- and Medium-priority properties within the overlays be considered contributing resources. Additionally, the code should be revised to use more general language, such as “historic resources” rather than “historic buildings,” to be inclusive of all types of historic resources, and “the currently adopted survey” rather that citing specific surveys, thus obviating the need for code edits each time the survey is updated. A potential code revision is suggested below. 5.3 LOCAL LANDMARKS AND RESOURCES INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP Establish the City’s first local landmarks and create program/process for future designations , and pursue NRHP listing for High priority resources that are not already NRHP designated. Although the City of Georgetown’s code provides a definition of local landmarks, none have been designated as such to date. The definition of a landmark according to City code is as follows: “The City Council shall make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for designating a building, structure or site within the City limits a local Historic Landmark is met: A. Character, interest, or value of the building, structure or site because of its unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, County, State or Nation; B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the building, structure or site; Page 174 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 22 C. Identification of the building, structure o r site with a person or persons who contributed notably to the culture and development of the City, County, State, Nation, or society; D. Distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship that make it an established or familia r visual feature, or the related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not limited to: 1. Architectural style of the building or structure; 2. Architectural period of the building or structure; 3. Textures and colors of materials used in the building or structure; 4. Shape of the building or structure; 5. Roofline of the building or structure; 6. Porch and entrance treatments of the building or structure; 7. Height and mass of the building or structure; or 8. Relative proportions of the building or structure (width to height, width to depth); and E. Archaeological value in the sense that the building, structure or site can be expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of history or pr ehistory.” CMEC historians believe that all properties identified as High priority in the 2016 survey would meet the landmark criteria. CMEC recommends contacting the owners of each High priority property to determine whether the owner is interested in landmark designation. The City Council could then nominate a group of properties at once to become the first designated local landmarks. The City of Galveston has recently completed a grouped landmarking process, for properties designed by Nicholas Clayton, which could serve as a model for this process. In order to facilitate future designation of additional local landmarks, the City should establish a procedure and/or application process, including the potential for initiation of the designation process by citizens. The City should publish clear instructions regarding the materials required to process an application for a Landmark (statement of significance, photographs, maps, etc.) and provide support from the Historic Preservation Office. To incentivize Lan dmark designation, the city should consider tax abatements, grants, and access to materials conservation resources. In addition to listing High priority resources as local landmarks, CMEC recommends pursuing individual NRHP listing for High priority resources that are not already NRHP designated. For example, the Stonehaven Apartments (Survey IDs 126009, 123478, 123483, and 126083), which were designed to provide affordable and attractive housing to those displaced by Georgetown’s urban renewal efforts in the 1960s, were upgraded from a Low to a High priority since the last survey. Resources like Stonehaven are now regularly recognized for their association with post- war historical trends. By listing Stonehaven and other High priority resources that do not currently have NRHP designation, the City can ensure that the documentation of Georgetown’s history at the national level is robust and continues to evolve. Page 175 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 23 5.4 FUTURE SURVEY Plan for survey updates every 10 years; add areas of the city/ETJ that have not been previously surveyed. The City of Georgetown has demonstrated a commitment to historic preservation during the past several decades. The City should plan to continue to update the historic resources survey at least every ten years in order to ensure t hat the survey provides an accurate record of the city’s resources and serves as a useful tool for City planners. A large portion of the City and its ETJ have never been surveyed. There are mid-century neighborhoods west of I-35 along Williams Dive that have not been documented in full but have potential for significance. The 1984 survey evaluated a small number of agricultural properties in the ETJ. CMEC historians observed many more historic-age agricultural properties outside of the survey boundary that have never been evaluated. These agricultural areas are under threat of encroaching development and should be documented before they are lost. 5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH/ OPPORTUNITIES Finally, CMEC recommends the creation of a repository for local architectural history. This could take the form of a web-based “wiki” application with a map, where participants can add stories, dates, and photographs to records linked to parcels in the city. Alternately, this information could be stored at the Williamson Museum, or at the public library. Page 176 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 24 REFERENCES Francaviglia, Richard V. 1996 Main Street Revisited: Time, Space, and Image Building in Small-Town America. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Georgetown Heritage Society and S. Elizabeth Valenzuela 2013 Olive Street Historic District National Register Nomination. Electronic document, https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/13000615/13000615.pdf, accessed February 8, 2017. Georgetown Megaphone 1915 Swimming for Students. 7 May. Georgetown, Texas. 1933 Professor Added. 24 February. Georgetown, Texas. Hardy Heck & Moore (HHM) 1984 Historic Resource Survey of Georgetown, Texas. Austin, Texas. 2010 Final Report: Historic Resources Survey, City of Georgetown, Texas. Austin, Texas. Hoffman, Billie 2017 Interview by Theresa Wineinger, Williamson County Historical Commission, Electronic document, http://www.williamson-county-historical- commission.org/San_Gabriel_river_Blue_Hole_williamson_county.htm Jakle, John A., Robert W. Bastian, and Douglas K. Meyer 1989 Common Houses in America’s Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi Valley. The University of Georgia Press, Athens. Josey, Donna Scarbrough 2014 Georgetown: Then and Now. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. McAlester, Virginia Savage 2015 A Field Guide to American Houses. 2nd ed. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. McKnight, Kim 2002 Texas Main Street Program: 20 Years of Achievement. Electronic document, http://www.mainstreet.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/01/texas-main-street- program.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/, accessed February 7, 2017. Moore, David, Martha Freedman, and Tara Dudley 2016 The Meridian Highway in Texas. Prepared for the Texas Historical Commission. Austin, Texas. Page 177 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 25 Moore, David and Daniel Hardy 1984 The Historic Resources of Georgetown, Texas (Partial Inventory of Architectural and Historic Properties) National Register nomination. https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/64000843.pdf Odintz, Mark 2016 Williamson County. Handbook of Texas Online. Electronic document, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcw11 , accessed February 7, 2017. Sanborn Map & Publishing Co. 1885 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York. 1889 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York 1905 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York 1910 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York 1916 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York. 1925 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York. 1925 Sanborn Map, Corrected 1940: Georgetown, TX. New York Sanborn-Perris Map Co. 1894 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York. 1900 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York Scarbrough, Clara Stearns 1973 Land of Good Water: A Williamson County, Texas, History. Williamson County Sun Publication, Georgetown, Texas. 2010 Handbook of Texas Online, "Georgetown, TX (Williamson County)." Electronic document, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hfg03 , accessed January 31, 2017. Scarbrough, Linda 2008 Road, River, and Ol’ Boy Politics: A Texas County’s Path from Farm to Supersuburb. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, Texas. Texas Almanac c. 2000 Texas Almanac: City Population History from 1850–2000. Electronic document, https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/CityPopHist%20web.pdf, accessed February 7, 2017. Page 178 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. 26 Texas Historical Commission c. 2000 Untitled report describing the history of Georgetown. Electronic document, http://www.georgetown-texas.org/THC_Georgetown_Texas.pdf, accessed February 7, 2017. c. 2006 Williamson County Courthouse – Georgetown. Electronic document, http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-historic-courthouse- preservation/restored-courthouses/williamson, accessed February 7, 2017. United States Census Bureau 2016 “Five of the Nation’s Eleven Fastest-Growing Cities are in Texas.” Press Release. Electronic document, http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-81.html, accessed February 7, 2017. Veselka, Robert E. 2000 The Courthouse Square in Texas. The University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Williams, J. R., and Marie D. Landon 1976 Williamson County Courthouse Historic District National Register Nomination. Electronic document, https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/77001480/77001480.pdf, accessed February 8, 2017. The Williamson County Sun [Georgetown, Texas] 1896 “Short announcement about baptisms.” 10 December. Georgetown, Texas. 1898 “Announcements.” 17 February. Georgetown, Texas. 1906 “Short announcement about baptism.” 16 August. Georgetown, Texas. 1967a “Urban Renewal – Its Prospects & Possibilities in Georgetown.’ 12 January. Georgetown, Texas. 1967b “$2.19 Million Grant for Renewal Project OKed.’ 2 February. Georgetown, Texas. 1970 “$516,913.00 Loan to Build 30 More Stonehaven Units.” 1975 “Supporters tour proposed park.” July 20. Georgetown, Texas. 1977 “1977 Review.” December 29. Georgetown, Texas. Page 179 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. APPENDIX A: MAPS Page 180 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. APPENDIX B: INVENTORY TABLE Page 181 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. APPENDIX C: INVENTORY FORMS Page 182 of 183 Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. APPENDIX D: MATERIALS FROM MOBILE WORKSHOP Page 183 of 183