HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_10.22.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
of the City of Georgetown
October 22, 2015 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 East 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene
an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address
the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Review and possible approval of the minutes of the September 24, 2015 regular meeting.
C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Master Sign Plan for the property located at 701 South Main Street, bearing the legal
description of City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (N/PT), 0.0826 acres.
D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
for exterior modifications and an addition for the property located at 209 East 8th Street bearing
Page 1 of 80
the legal description of Glasscock Addition, Block 10, Lot 4 (PT), 0.03 acres.
E Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
for a residential addition for the property located at 1700 South Church Street bearing the legal
description of Eubank Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (N/PT), 2 (N/PT), 0.24 acres.
F Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
G Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this
Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general
public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained
so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 2 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene
an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address
the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Page 3 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible approval of the minutes of the September 24, 2015 regular meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC Minutes - 09/24/2015 Backup Material
Page 4 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: September 24, 2015
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Jennifer Brown; Shawn Hood
and Richard Mee.
Commissioners in Training present: Lawrence Romero; and Patty Eason
Commissioners absent: CIT, Jan Daum
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Sofia Nelson,
Planning Director; Shelley Hargrove, Main Street Manager and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the order of business to be conducted.
Chair reported that Commissioner Mary Jo Winder had resigned, she was moving out of the state,
and that the commission would only have six members voting during this meeting.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the August 27, 2015 regular meeting.
Motion by Knight to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Hood. Approved 6 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill
construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block
27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres. This item was continued from the August 27, 2015 meeting.
Synatschk presented the staff report explaining that this project was continued so the applicant could
provide more details for the commission to consider. Those material samples were presented and
included the stucco, the brick, the limestone and a window. A picture of the new railings and light
fixtures was also presented.
Bobby Choi explained that his father had given the commission different options at the last meeting
in deference to the commission. He explained that his father would not put the original Tamiro Plaza
I or other downtown buildings at risk by designing something that was inappropriate. Phil Dupree
also spoke as a friend of the Choi’s and described what an extraordinary contribution to the
downtown this was going to be.
Mr. Choi showed the samples that were brought explaining that the commissioners had asked for
brick on the second floor and he was providing a combination of steel gray brick and stucco. Red
brick would be used on the first floor. He showed how the stucco and brick on the upper levels
formed interlocking “U’s” that would mimic those on the first Tamiro building. He showed
examples of the wrought iron railings, metal canopies and window samples. He explained how the
wall and hanging sconces complimented the design.
Commissioners asked questions. Mee and Knight went on record to express concerns about the
parking situation for this project even though the commission would not review that portion of the
site. Synatschk explained that the Transportation Department would review that part of the site plan.
Chair Bain opened a Public Hearing for those that wished to speak:
Page 5 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: September 24, 2015
Jeff Parker of 30406 Berry Creek Drive spoke in favor of this project and what it could mean for the
downtown area. He feels that this project meets all the city codes, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the
Design Guidelines, and the Unified Development Code and helps the downtown area meet the goal
of becoming a signature destination.
Larry Brundbridge of ______ complained about the height of the building and stated he felt the
fourth floor was too plain. He asked the commission to request a revised fourth floor, one that would
be more compatible with the “well-designed” other floors.
Commissioners asked and Synatschk responded that the underlying zoning district of RS-Residential
Single-family height restriction is 35 feet, and the Overlay District of MU-DT, Mixed Use Downtown
has a maximum height limit of 40 feet. This project will exceed that and the applicant can ask for a
10% variance, up to 44 feet maximum height, as an administratively reviewed exception.
Chair Bain closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Mee to approve the amended application for CDC-2015-025 as submitted for this
review. Second by Hood.
Discussion: Knight expressed concern with the density of the project. She understands the design
complies with the guidelines, but opinions are different and she feels there are flaws in the design,
namely the west facing windows and the parking areas. Hood stated he feels this project will be an
asset to the downtown and appreciates Mr. Choi coming back with his project.
Chair Bain called the vote. Motion approved 6 – 0.
D. Consideration and action to appoint Commissioner Richard Mee to the HARC Historic Resource
Survey Subcommittee. This item was pulled in its entirety and will be brought back at a later date when
more information is available.
E. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training – no comments
F. Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC
Historic Resource Survey, the contract is being finalized and an update will be given to City Council.
Grace Heritage Center, the contractor is working on the structure evaluation and the results will be
taken to the City Council Workshop on October 12th for direction.
Downtown West, this project went to City Council on Tuesday of this week and they recommended
changes. Those will be made and taken back at a later date.
Parking Study
National Register project, this project is at the State Board level for review, then will be forwarded to
the National Parks Service.
Future HARC Meetings
Demolition Subcommittee - October 12th @ 4:00 and October 22nd @ 4:00 will not be held, no
applications.
HARC Regular Meeting - October 22nd @ 6:00, will be held.
Other Downtown related events:
September 21st - 3rd Monday Main Street Lunch @ 11:30 (Burger U)
October 12th - Downtown Lowdown @ 8:30 (Roots Bistro)
Page 6 of 80
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: September 24, 2015
G. Adjournment
Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Hood. The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
________________________________ _______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Richard Mee
Page 7 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Master Sign Plan for the property located at 701 South Main Street, bearing the legal
description of City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (N/PT), 0.0826 acres.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for a master sign plan for the property
located at 701 South Main Street. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes
to develop a master sign plan for the multi-tenant building.
Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request
meets the approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as
outlined in the attached Staff Report. The proposed portable signage for the third floor may create
a conflict with City Ordinance 2015-024.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-032 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-032 Plans and Specifications Exhibit
Page 8 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-033 701 South Main Street Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: October 22, 2015
File Number: CDC-2015-032
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Master Sign
Plan for the property located at 701 South Main Street, bearing the legal description of City of
Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (N/PT), 0.0826 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Master Sign Plan for the Masonic Lodge building
Applicant: Chris Damon
Property Owner: Damon-Manriquez Partners, LTD
Property Address: 701 South Main Street
Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (N/PT), 0.0826 acres
Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 1
Case History: This is the first public hearing for the project.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1900
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
National Register Designation: Contributing structure to the Williamson County
Courthouse National Register District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval for a Master Sign Plan incorporating the existing signage.
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
9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program. Complies
9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition. Complies
9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. Complies
9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or business offered within. Complies
9.8 A window sign may be considered. Complies
9.9 A hanging sign may be considered. Complies
Page 9 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-033 701 South Main Street Page 2 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
9.10 A projecting sign may be considered. Complies
9.12 A directory sign for multi-tenant buildings must be considered. Complies
9.13 A portable sign may be considered, in the
Downtown Overlay District.
Complies
9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details
of an historic building facade.
Complies
9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building facade. Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for a master sign plan for the high priority
historic structure located at 701 South Main Street. The three story structure is comprised of restaurant
space on the first and second floors, with office suites on the third floor. The master sign plan will allow
the applicant to reface existing signs as long as they comply with the approved plan. Any future
signage not in compliance with the master sign plan will require a separate Certificate of
Appropriateness.
The applicant’s request includes the following items, as outlined in the attached exhibit:
First floor signage
Second floor signage
Third floor signage
Much of the proposed signage has been previously presented to HARC and approved for use on the
building. The proposed plan adds some additional signage for each floor, but does not exceed the
allowable amount of signage.
Page 10 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-033 701 South Main Street Page 3 of 5
The proposed signage for the first floor complies with the design guidelines and does not exceed the
allowable signage for the floor. The current signage was approved with a previous CDC and the
applicant wishes to add window signage along 7th Street, a sign on the alley service entrance door, and
two additional windows along Main Street. The total proposed window and door signage does not
exceed 50% per window and is less than 30% of the cumulative glass.
The proposed signage for the second floor is consistent with the current signage and adds a portable
sign to be placed outside the 7th Street entrance during special events. The signage complies with the
design guidelines. Usage of the portable sign is limited to events taking place in the private dining
room on the second floor.
The proposed signage for the third floor is new signage, and is different from the previous CDC.
However, the projecting sign for the multiple tenant sign is appropriate for the 3rd floor space, which is
comprised of multiple office suites and may contain up to eight separate businesses. The proposed
multi-tenant sign allows the property owner to change out the names on the sign as the businesses
change. The master sign plan also includes a portable sign for placement outside the 7th Street entrance
to the third floor. The proposed projecting sign and window signage comply with the design
guidelines. However, the proposed portable sign is potentially in conflict with the City of Georgetown
Ordinance #2015-024, which outlines the requirements for accessibility throughout the Downtown
Overlay District. The narrow sidewalk along 7th Street, and difficulty of oversight by the business
owner may result in violation of the ordinance.
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;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards of the Unified
Development Code.
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 sign
guidelines identified in Chapter 9 of the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed master sign plan does not
have an adverse effect on the integrity of the
historic structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be No new buildings or additions are proposed
Page 11 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-033 701 South Main Street Page 4 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
compatible with surrounding historic properties. with this project.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The project does not have an adverse effect
on the overall integrity of the Downtown
Overlay District.
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.
The proposed master sign plan is consistent
with the design standards of the Downtown
Overlay district.
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.
The proposed master sign plan does not
have an adverse effect on the structure, nor
does it have an impact on the overall
character of the Downtown Overlay District.
The majority of the proposed signage was
previously approved by the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed master sign plan, with
the exception of the portable sign for the 3rd floor of the structure.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding this application.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 12 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-033 701 South Main Street Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Page 13 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge
Building
Master Sign Plan for the
Old Masonic Lodge Building
Located at the corner of 7th And Main Streets, Georgetown, Texas
Owned and operated by Damon Manriquez Partners, Ltd
110 E. 7th Street, Ste. 315, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Christopher Damon
512.633.2961
cfdamon@dmpartners.com
Page 14 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 0
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Map of Premisis
Master Sign Plan for the
Old Masonic Lodge Building
Located at the corner of 7th And Main Streets, George-
town, Texas 78626
Owned and operated by Damon Manriquez Partners, Ltd
110 E. 7th Street, Ste. 315, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Christopher Damon
512.633.2961
cfdamon@dmpartners.com
Geogetown, Texas
Page 15 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 1
Overview
The Old Masonic Lodge Building is a his-
toric, multi-tenant, 3 Floor, 9000 sf mixed-
use commercial building located on the SE
Corner of Main and 7th Streets on the
Square in Georgetown, Texas. Completed
in 1900, this commercial structure is in the
Historic Overlay District, and zoned MU-
DT (Mixed Use, Downtown). Current use
is restaurant/bar on the first two floors,
with professional office space on the third
floor.
Building management (Management) seeks
to develop a comprehensive master sign
plan for the building that will address the
present and future signage needs for multi-
ple, fluid tenants.
Brief History
The building is 115 years old.
The first floor is configured for restaurant
use, with a commercial kitchen in the rear
of the building and formal dining in the
front. Access to first floor dining is through
a main entrance on Main Street, a side
entrance on Main Street, and an ADA
entrance on 7th Street. Uses for the first
floor over the last 20 years has been com-
mercial restaurant. Leases for the first
and/or second floor(s) are long-term (5-15
years).
The second floor is configured for bar/restau-
rant use, with a private banquet room in
the rear, and bar/dining in the front.
Primary access to second floor space is
through a bar entrance stairway on Main
Street. Secondary access is through a com-
mon area grand stair from 7th Street side
entrance. ADA access is through a com-
mon-area elevator off the 7th street side
Old Masonic Lodge
Building
Master Sign Plan for the
Old Masonic Lodge Building
Located at the corner of 7th And Main Streets, Georgetown, Texas
Owned and operated by Damon Manriquez Partners, Ltd
110 E. 7th Street, Ste. 305, Georgetown, Texas 78626
entrance. The second floor has been
designed to operate either as a stand-alone
space, or as an extension of first floor opera-
tions. Over the last 20 years, the second
floor has been used as office space, banquet
space, restaurant, bar and lounge space.
Leases for the first and/or second floor(s)
are long-term (5-15 years).
The third floor is configured for professional
office use, with as many as 8 potential pri-
vate office spaces available to tenants.
Primary access to the third floor is through
common area grand stair access off the 7th
Street side entrance. ADA access is through
a common area elevator off the 7th street
side entrance. The third floor is completely
separate from first or second floor opera-
tions. Internally, it can be configured to
accommodate the needs of a single, large
tenant, or multiple (8), separate office ten-
ants. Over the last 20 years, upstairs use has
been art studio, single-tenant professional
offices and multi-tenant professional offices.
The buildings’external dimensions are 100
ft long (along 7th Street) and 30 ft wide
(along Main Street). It is 40 feet high at
the parapet.
Page 16 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 2
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Summary
Plan Summary
The building is currently home to a restau-
rant tenant and 4 separate office tenants.
While the current restaurant tenant occu-
pies the first two floors as a single, two-
storey restaurant, it has not always been so.
In 2010, for example, the first floor was
leased to a restaurant while the second floor
was leased to a separate bar/lounge concept.
Signage allocations are made per floor,
rather than per tenant. Accordingly,
Management has assigned certain signage
opportunities to the tenants occupying the
First Floor (FT), certain opportunities to
the second floor (SF), and certain opportu-
nities to the third floor (House). In the
event that two different businesses occupy
the first and second floor, each business will
be assigned the signage specified for the
floor they lease. In the event a single tenant
occupies both floors, that tenant will receive
the signage specified for both floors.
Similarly, the third floor has signage oppor-
tunities assigned to it. These opportunities
may be divided up to 8 ways: Management
will be responsible for the division and allo-
cation of these 3rd Floor Signage
Opportunities.
Please refer to the following diagrams:
1) Back Alley Elevation: Diagram 1 on this
page and
2) Blade Sign: Diagram 2 on this page and
3) 7th Street Elevation: Diagram 3 on page
3 and
4) Main Street Elevation Diagram 4 on
page 4
1st Floor Signage
Assignment
3 Window Signs with dark tinting on 7th
Street (1,2,3)
2 Window Signs on 7th Street (8,9)
6 Window Signs on Main Street (10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15)
2 hanging signs on 7th & Main Streets (C1,
C2)
1 A frame Sign on Main Street (B2)
1 Door Sign on Back Alley Service Door (D1)
Blade Sign
Diagram 2
Alley Elevation
Diagram 1
2nd Floor Signage
Assignments
2 Window Signs on 7th Street (4,5)
2 Window Signs on Main Street (16, 17)
1 hanging sign on Main Street (C3)
1 A frame Sign on Main Street (B3)
1 Blade Sign on Main Street (A1)
3rd Floor (House)
Assignments
1 “Shared” Protruding Wall Sign on 7th
Street (A2)
1 “Shared” A frame Sign on 7th Street (B1)
2 Window Signs on 7th Street (6,7)
9 tinted, no signage, multi-paned windows
(M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7,
M8, M9)
Page 17 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 3
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Summary, 7th Street Elevation
7t
h
S
t
.
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
•5
W
i
n
d
o
w
S
i
g
n
s
(1
,
2
,
3
,
8
,
9
)
7t
h
S
t
.
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
•2
W
i
n
d
o
w
S
i
g
n
s
(4
,
5
)
7t
h
S
t
.
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
•1
“
S
h
a
r
e
d
”
P
r
o
t
r
u
d
i
n
g
Wa
l
l
S
i
g
n
(
A
2
)
•1
“
S
h
a
r
e
d
”
A
f
r
a
m
e
S
i
g
n
(
B
1
)
7t
h
S
t
.
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
•2
W
i
n
d
o
w
S
i
g
n
s
(
6
,
7
)
*W
i
n
d
o
w
T
i
n
t
i
n
g
(
n
o
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
)
(M
7
,
M
8
,
M
9
)
Main Street Elevation
Diagram 3
Page 18 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 4
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Main Street Elevation
Main Street Elevation
Diagram 4
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
•6
W
i
n
d
o
w
S
i
g
n
s
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
1
0
,
11
,
1
2
,
1
3
,
1
4
,
1
5
)
•2
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
s
o
n
7
t
h
&
M
a
i
n
St
r
e
e
t
s
(
C
1
,
C
2
)
•1
A
f
r
a
m
e
S
i
g
n
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
B
2
)
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
•2
W
i
n
d
o
w
S
i
g
n
s
o
n
M
a
i
n
St
r
e
e
t
(
1
6
,
1
7
)
•1
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
3
)
•1
A
f
r
a
m
e
S
i
g
n
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
B
3
)
•1
B
l
a
d
e
S
i
g
n
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
A
1
)
Page 19 of 80
First Floor
Signage Assignments
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 5
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor Summary
The Current Situation
The first floor (FF) is currently leased to the
organization that operates Gumbo’s North.
For ever a decade the first two floors have
been home to numerous restaurants,
including Romeo's (2-storey restaurant) in
2006, Amante’s (1-storey restaurant) in
2009, and the present tenant, Gumbo’s, (2-
storey restaurant) since 2012. Since 2006,
Management has recycled the original sig-
nage CDC approved by HARC for Romeo’s
Ristorante Italiano. Accordingly, this plan
is a recycled version of the existing 2012
Gumbo’s CDC, as it applies to the first
floor.
Color Scheme for Future Logos
In the following diagrams and images,
where you see graphics bearing the Gumbo’s
mark, please imagine a future mark of the
same size in the same location. While we
cannot now forecast the color schema,
shape or design of a future – unidentified –
tenant logo, we can affirm that whatever it
is, it will conform to 9.19 (Colors) of the
Design Guidelines for Signs, as were out-
lined at the time this Plan was adopted.
Kitchen Window Tinting
There are windows in this plan that call for
dark tinting. When the building was reno-
vated in 2001, the CDC that established
the color schema for the building also pro-
vided for “opaquing” the kitchen windows.
This was done to conceal unattractive stor-
age shelves inside the windows from outside
passers-by. We believed then that
“opaquing” the windows with a vinyl lami-
nate was the most natural and handsome
way to do this.
However we now realize that we went in
the wrong direction. Rather than making
the windows “lighter,” it would be more
natural, effective and attractive to make
them “darker.” 14 years later, the opaque
vinyl is bubbling and needing replacement.
We propose to remove the lighter “opaque”
vinyl film with darker vinyl tinting film.
Please refer to the following diagrams:
1) Back Alley Elevation: Diagram 1 on this
page and
2) 7th Street Elevation: Diagram 3 on page
and
3) Main Street Elevation Diagram 4 on
page 4
1st Floor Signage Opportunities
5 Window Signs on 7th Street (1,2,3,8,9)
6 Window Signs on Main Street (10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15)
2 hanging signs on 7th & Main Streets (C1,
C2)
1 A frame Sign on Main Street (B2
Differences
How does this plans’ First Floor Assignments
differ from Gumbo’s existing CDC as it per-
tains to the first floor?
The Plan follows Gumbos’ existing CDC
with the following deviations:
Along 7th Street, widows 1, 2 and 3 are
currently unmarked, although they are
opaqued with a white film. These would be
made available for signage and tinted with a
dark film.
In the back Alley, the service door is
unmarked, and would be made available for
signage. First-floor windows in the back
alley would also be tinted with a dark film.
Along Main Street, widows 14 and 15 are
unmarked. These would be made available
for signage.
Page 20 of 80
7th Street Kitchen Windows Tint
When the building was renovated in 2001,
the CDC that established the color schema
for the building also provided for
“opaquing” the kitchen windows. This was
done to conceal unattractive storage shelves
inside the windows from outside passers-by.
We believed then that “opaquing” the win-
dows with a vinyl laminate was the most
natural and handsome way to do this.
However we now realize that we went in the
wrong direction. Rather than making the
windows “lighter,” it would be more natu-
ral, effective and attractive to make them
“darker.” 14 years later, the opaque vinyl is
bubbling and needing replacement.
Figure 1.a.6 (right) illustrates the problem.
While we can still see quite a bit of kitchen
storage through the opaqued windows, the
lightness of the vinyl stands out more than
windows that have no vinyl at all (Figure
2.a.6) The reason windows with no tinting
appear so dark is because there is nothing
behind them. However, in the kitchen win-
dows, there will be objects directly behind
the glass, so to simulate the darkness, we
propose the application of dark vinyl tinting
as illustrated in Figures 3.a.6 and 4.a.6
(right).
We propose to replace the white “opaque”
vinyl with dark window tinting on windows
(and appropriate transoms) along 7th Street
and the back alley. Specifically
Alley windows:M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6
7th Street windows:M7, M8, M9, 1, 2
and 3.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 6
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Kitchen Window & Transom Tinting
Figure 1.a.6 (existing with opaquing)
Figure 3.a.6 Figure 4.a.6
Figure 2.a.6 (dark appearance, no opaquing)
Page 21 of 80
Back Alley Service Door
D1
The back alley service door is the principle
means by which the first floor tenant sup-
plies the kitchen. Not have signage here has
led to vendor confusion. FF logo is made
of self-adhesive vinyl.
The windowless door measures
80 inches tall, and
36 inches wide, for a total of
2880 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.7, right) measures
20 inches wide, and
17 inches tall, for a total area of
340 square inches, which is
11.81% of the total door surface, well with-
in the 30% guideline.
While the Guidelines do not speak to the
coverage of solid doors, the proposed
alley door signage complies with Section
9.8 (windows) of the Design Guidelines.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 7
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Back Alley Door Signage
Figure 1.a.7 Figure 1.b.7
Page 22 of 80
7th Street Dining Room Doors
1, 2
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
50 inches tall, and
25 inches wide, for a total of
1,250 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.8, right) measures
20 inches wide, and 17 inches tall, for a
total area of 340 square inches, which is
27.2% of the total glass surface, well below
the 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dows 1 and 2 fully with Section 9.8 (win-
dows) of the Design Guidelines (p. 106).
7th Street Kitchen Door Window
3
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
50 inches tall, and
25 inches wide, for a total of
1250 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 2.b.8, right) measures
20 inches wide, and 17 inches tall, for a
total area of 340 square inches, which is
27.2% of the total glass surface, well below
the 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dow 3 fully complies with Section 9.8
(windows) of the Design Guidelines (p.
106).
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 8
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Figure 1.a.8 Figure 1.b.8
Figure 2.a.8 Figure 2.b.8
Page 23 of 80
7th Street Dining Room Doors
8,9: Dining Hall Windows
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
75 inches tall, and
25 inches wide, for a total of
1,875 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.9, right) measures
20 inches wide, and
17 inches tall, for a total area of
340 square inches, which is
18.13% of the total glass surface, well with-
in the stated 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dows 8 and 9 have already been aproved
by HARC and comply fully with Section
9.8 (windows) of the Design Guidelines
(p. 106).
Main Street Restaurant Entrance
10: Left Window
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
68 inches tall, and
31 inches wide, for a total area of
2108 square inches.
The mark (see Figure 2.b.9, right) measures
16 inches wide, and
9.5 inches tall, for a total area of 152 square
inches. Additionally, the “phone number”
text measures 19 inches wide and 3 inches
tall, for a total area of 57 square inches.
Taken together, this window contains 209
square inches of signage, which is 9.91% of
the total glass surface, well within the 30%
guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dow 10 has already been approved by
HARC and fully complies with Section
9.8 (windows) of the Design Guidelines
(p. 106).
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 9
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Figure 1.a.9 Figure 1.b.9
Figure 2.a.9 Figure 2.b.9
Page 24 of 80
Main Street Restaurant Entrance
11: Entrance Door Window
The FF logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The door window is 51 inches tall, and
24.5 inches wide, for a total area of 1249.5
square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.10, right) measures
20 inches wide, and 17 inches tall, for a
total area of 340 square inches, which is
27.2% of the total glass surface, well short
of the 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dow 11 has already been approved by
HARC and fully complie with Section 9.8
(windows) of the Design Guidelines (p.
106).
Main Street Restaurant Entrance
12: Right Window
The windows is 69 inches tall, and 34.5
inches wide, for a total area of 2380.5
square inches.
The FF’s logo element (see Figure 2.b.10,
right) measures 16 inches wide, and 9.5
inches high, for a total area of 152 square
inches.
The “hours of operation” measures 26.5
inches wide and 14.5 inches high, for a
total area of 384.25. Finally, the “phone
number” text measures 19 inches wide and
3 inches tall, for a total area of 57 square
inches. Taken together, this window con-
tains 593.25 square inches of signage,
which is 24.9% of the total glass surface,
well within the 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dow 12 has already been approved by
HARC and fully complies with Section
9.8 (windows) of the Design Guidelines
(p. 106).Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 10
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Figure 1.a.10 Figure 1.b.10
Figure 2.a.10 Figure 2.b.10
Page 25 of 80
Main Street Main Windows
13: Left Window
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
83.5 inches tall, and
65 inches wide, for a total area of
5427.5 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.11, right) measures
36 inches wide, and 41.5 inches tall, for a
total area of 1492 square inches.
Additionally, the “tagline” or “marketing
message” text measures 36 inches wide and
3 inches tall, for a total area of 108. Taken
together, this window contains 1600 square
inches of signage, which is 29.5% of the
total glass surface, within the 30% guide-
line.
The proposed window signage for win-
dow 13 has already been approved by
HARC and fully complies with Section
9.8 of the Design Guidelines (p. 106).
Main Street Main Windows
14: Right Window
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
83.5 inches tall, and
65 inches wide, for a total area of
5427.5 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 2.b.11, right) measures
36 inches wide, and 41.5 inches tall, for a
total area of 1492 square inches.
Additionally, the “tagline” or “marketing
message” text measures 36 inches wide and
3 inches tall, for a total area of 108. Taken
together, this window contains 1600 square
inches of signage, which is 29.5% of the
total glass surface, within the 30% guide-
line.
The proposed window signage for win-
dow 14 fully complies with Section 9.8 of
the Design Guidelines (p. 106).
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 11
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Figure 1.a.11 Figure 1.b.11
Figure 2.a.11 Figure 2.b.11
Page 26 of 80
Main Street Bar Entrance Vestibule
15: Main Street Left Window
FF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The window is
74.5 inches tall, and
39 inches wide, for a total of
2909.5 square inches.
FF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.12, right) measures
29 inches wide, and 24 inches tall, for a
total area of 696 square inches.
Additionally, the logo tagline measure 3
inches by 36 inches, for a total area of 108
inches. Taken together, this window con-
tains 804 square inches of signage, which is
27.6% of the total glass surface, well within
the 30% guideline. the total signage.
The proposed window signage for window 15
fully complies with Section 9.8 of the Design
Guidelines (p. 106).
Tenant 1 Hanging Signs
C1, C2 Hanging Signs
FF has 2 hanging signs, the first located
under the 7th Street Balcony Extension,
and the other is located perpendicular to
the Main Street corner entrance.
Both hanging signs are made of wood, and
feature the tenants’ corporate dress in self-
adhesive vinyl. The signs are identical, and
will feature the logo form of FF’s logo as
well as the letterform the logo (if possible,
or just the letterform if space will not
allow), displayed horizontally. The signs are
all 48 inches wide, and 10 inches tall.
The distance from the bottom of the hang-
ing signs to the pavers on the sidewalk
below is 99,” well above the 84” (7 ft) mini-
mum stipulated in the Guidelines.
The canopy is 120 inches wide. At 48,” the
hanging signs are less than 1/2 the width of
the canopy.
The proposed hanging signs in all locations of
the premises have already been approved by
HARC and fully comply with Section 9.9 of
the Design Guidelines.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 12
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows & Hanging Signs
48”
10
”
Figure 1.a.12 Figure 1.b.12
Page 27 of 80
Sandwich Board
B2
FF has 1 portable sandwich board sign, to
be positioned near the Main 7th & Main
Street entrance (Figure 1.a.13).
The sign measures 48” high, 36” wide. It is
constructed of wood or MDO, and feature
self-adhesive vinyl in the colors of the FF
Tenant’s corporate dress.
The vinyl graphics will be adhered to the
substrate, and feature a section of black-
board material that will allow chalk drawing
customization, such that the day’s specials
may be frequently changed.
While in the following diagrams and
images, you see graphics bearing the
Gumbo’s mark, please imagine a future
mark of the same size in the same location.
While we cannot now forecast the color
schema, shape or design of a future –
unidentified – tenant logo, we can affirm
that whatever it is, it will conform to 9.19
(Colors) of the Design Guidelines for Signs,
as were outlined at the time this Plan was
adopted.
The proposed portable sign has already been
approved by HARC and fully complies with
Section 9.13 of the Design Guidelines. (p.
109)
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor Sandwich Board
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 13
Figure 1.a.13
Page 28 of 80
Second Floor
Signage Assignments
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 14
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Second Floor Summary
The Current Situation
The Second Floor is currently leased to the
same organization that operates the first
floor restaurant. For ever a decade the first
two floors haves been home to numerous
restaurants, including Romeo's (2-storey
restaurant) in 2006, Amante’s (1-storey
restaurant) in 2009, and the present tenant,
Gumbo’s, (2-storey restaurant) since 2012.
Since 2006, Building Management has
recycled the original signage plan approved
by HARC for Romeo’s Ristorante Italiano.
What follows is a recycled version of the
existing Gumbo’s CDC, as it applies to the
second floor (SF).
In the following diagrams and images,
where you see graphics bearing the
Gumbo’s Bar mark, please imagine a
future mark of the same size in the same
location. While we cannot forecast the
color schema of a future – unidentified –
tenant’s logo, we can affirm that whatever it
is, it will conform to 9.19 (Colors) of the
Design Guidelines for Signs.
Please refer to 7th Street Elevation: Diagram
1 and Main Street Elevation Diagram 2 on
pages 3 and 4.
2nd Floor Signage Opportunities
2 Window Signs on 7th Street (4,5)
2 Window Signs on Main Street (16, 17)
1 hanging sign on Main Street (C3)
1 A frame Sign on Main Street (B3)
1 Blade Sign on Main Street (A1)
Differences
How does this plan’s Second Floor Assignment
differ from Gumbo’s existing CDC as it per-
tains to the second floor?
The Plan follows Gumbos’ existing CDC as
it pertains to second floor signage, with the
following deviations:
Along Main Street, by the Main Street
entrance to Gumbo’s Bar, the Bar would be
eligible for a sandwich board promoting
second floor activities.
Page 29 of 80
7th Street Main Entrance
4,5
SF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are
75 inches tall, and
25 inches wide, for a total of
1,875 square inches.
SF’s logo (see Figure 1.b.15, right) measures
20 inches wide, and 17 inches tall, for a
total area of 340 square inches, which is
18.1% of the total glass surface, well within
the 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dows 4 & 5 have already been approved
by HARC and fully comply with Section
9.8 (windows) of the Design Guidelines
(p. 106).
Main Street Bar Door Windows
16, 17
SF’s logo is made of self-adhesive vinyl.
The long, rectangular windows are 64 inch-
es tall, and 19 inches wide, for a total area
of 1216 square inches.
SF’s logo (see Figure 2.b.15, right) measures
16 inches wide, and 13.5 inches tall, for a
total area of 216 square inches. This win-
dow contains 216 square inches of signage,
which is 17.7% of the total glass surface,
well within the 30% guideline.
The proposed window signage for win-
dows 16 & 17 have already been aproved
by HARC and comply fully with Section
9.8 (windows) of the Design Guidelines
(p. 106).
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 15
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Second Floor: Windows
Figure 1.a.15 Figure 1.b.15
Figure 2.a.15 Figure 2.b.15
Page 30 of 80
Main Street Hanging Sign
C3
SF has 1 hanging sign, located in front of
the Main Street second floor entrance
doors.
The hanging sign is made of wood, and fea-
ture the tenants’ corporate dress in self-
adhesive vinyl. The sign features the logo
form of SF’s logo as well as the letterform
the logo (if possible, or just the letterform if
space will not allow), displayed horizontally.
The signs are all 48 inches wide, and 10
inches tall.
The distance from the bottom of the hang-
ing signs to the pavers on the sidewalk
below is 99,” well above the 84” (7 ft) mini-
mum stipulated in the Guidelines (see fig-
ure 1.a.16, right).
The canopy is 120 inches wide. At 48,” the
hanging signs are less than 1/2 the width of
the canopy.
The proposed hanging sign C3 has already
been approved by HARC and fully comply
with Section 9.9 of the Design Guidelines
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 16
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Second Floor: Hanging Signs
99
”
Figure 1.a.16
Page 31 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 17
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Second Floor: Sandwich Board
Sandwich Board
B3: SF Sandwich Board
SF has 1 portable sandwich board sign, to
be positioned near the Main 7th & Main
Street entrance.
The sign measures 48” high, 36” wide. It is
constructed of wood or MDO, and feature
self-adhesive vinyl in the colors of the FF
Tenant’s corporate dress.
The vinyl graphics will be adhered to the
substrate, and feature a section of black-
board material that will allow chalk drawing
customization, such that the day’s specials
may be frequently changed.
While in the following diagrams and
images, you see graphics bearing the
Gumbo’s mark, please imagine a future
mark of the same size in the same location.
While we cannot now forecast the color
schema, shape or design of a future –
unidentified – tenant logo, we can affirm
that whatever it is, it will conform to 9.19
(Colors) of the Design Guidelines for Signs,
as were outlined at the time this Plan was
adopted.
The proposed sandwich sign B3 fully
complies with Section 9.13 of the Design
Guidelines.
Page 32 of 80
Main Street Blade Sign
A1: SF Blade Sign
The building is 30 ft wide along the Main
Street elevation, allowing for a 30 ft. pri-
mary sign. In 2006, HARC approved a pri-
mary “blade” type building sign for an
Italian restaurant called Romeo’s. The
Romeo’s sign consisted of a 10’2” x 2’2”
rectangular “blade” that terminated at the
top with the Romeo’s heart logo. The sign
was affixed to the building for 3 years,
when it was removed in 2009 when
Romeo’s closed. It is backlit so that the let-
tering illuminates at night. In 2009, a
streamlined version of the blade was again
approved by HARC: this version featured
the original hardware with a re-worked face-
plate, and a new color palette that reflected
the corporate dress of the new tenant,
Amante’s. The heart element had been
removed. Although approved, Amante’s
never commissioned the repurposing of the
sign, and it was not returned to use.
In 2012 Gumbos again obtained approval
for the streamlined version with changes to
reflect Gumbo’s name and corporate dress.
The Gumbo’s version of the sign measures
22.07 sf. Well beneath the 30 allowed for
by the design guidelines. This plan seeks to
extend the philosophy of the blade sign
revisions to the future. While we cannot
now forecast the logo, color schema, or
typeface of a future – unidentified – tenant
logo, we can affirm that whatever it is, it
will conform to 9.19 (Colors) of the Design
Guidelines for Signs, as were outlined at the
time this Plan was adopted, and that any
blade sign under this plan will reuse existing
hardware and dimensions.
The blade sign A1 has been aproved three
times by HARC for use as a primary sign, and
fully complies with Section 9 of the Design
Guidelines.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 18
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Second Floor: Blade Sign
Page 33 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 19
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Page 34 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 20
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Second Floor: Blade Sign
Page 35 of 80
The Current Situation
The third floor (House) is 3000 sf of fluid
professional office space that can currently
accommodate up to 8 separate businesses.
The space is configurable, so if a tenant
requires more space, they can lease more.
Some tenants have bigger footprints than
others. We have leased the entire floor to a
single tenant before. Currently, we have a
“full house” with 5 tenants.
The 3rd Floor has it’s main entrance on 7th
Street. The 7th Street facade is 100’ long,
and 40” high at the parapet.
3rd Floor signage needs are very different
that the needs of the first two floors.
Tenant clients generally visit the building
with appointments, and the biggest signage
problem 3rd Floor tenants have is convey-
ing to their clients that this is indeed “the
right place.”
Third floor tenants are more numerous and
lease less space for shorter terms than 1st
and 2nd floor tenants. For this reason,
turn-over is much higher.
To deal with this and the “fluid”nature of
the tenancy, we’ve developed a “fluid”
methodology for our proposed projecting
sign board.
Recent History
As long as any one can remember, signage
for 3rd Floor tenants has been accommo-
dated by a protruding bracket that is affixed
to the side of the building near the right-
most carriage lamp. This bracket will
accommodate a 32”x32”(6.93 sf) double-
sided sign board. In 2002, a CDC to re-
use this bracket was approved for
“GraphX,” a former single-floor tenant.
The “House”
The building is locally knows as the “Old
Masonic Lodge Building,” although no
where does it say that.
For the 2 main doors that lead to the 3rd
Floor, we propose using the Building’s
“House” logo (a likeness of the building’s
iconic “onion dome spire), along with the
name “Old Masonic Lodge Building.” We
further propose a similarly-branded two-
sided protruding sign with a fluid face that
can be efficiently configured to accommo-
date the changing number and nature of
the 3rd floor tenancy.
We also propose a similarly-branded 2-sided
A-frame sandwich board with a magnetic
surface, so that it can be used by individual
3rd floor tenants on occasion to announce
to their expected customers that they are
indeed, in the right place. The magnetic
nature would allow tenants to share the
signboard when needed.
Finally, there are windows on the first floor
of the building that require tinting, but will
bear no signage and do not open to tenant
space. These are “House” windows, and
have been included in the “House” portion
of this plan. These are all in the back alley
and look into the fire stair. We propose to
install dark window tinting on all the
“House” windows on the first floor in the
back alley.
Please refer to the following diagrams:
•Back Alley Elevation: Diagram 1 on p2 and
•7th Street Elevation: Diagram 3 on p3
3rd Floor (House) Assignments
1 “Shared” Protruding Wall Sign on 7th
Street (A2)
1 “Shared” A frame Sign on 7th Street (B1)
2 Window Signs on 7th Street (6,7)
6 tinted, no signage, multi-paned windows
(M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6,)
Differences from the current CDC
Only the shape, size and bracket of the
Third Floor’s Projecting Sign are common
to GraphX’s 2002 CDC. Everything else
pertaining to the Third Floor (House) is
new to this Plan.
Third Floor/House
Signage Assignments
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 21
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Third Floor Summary
Page 36 of 80
7th Street Main Doors
6, 7: Main Doors
Third Floor logo (House) is made of self-
adhesive vinyl. It has the appearance of
window frosting.
The long, rectangular windows are
75 inches tall, and
25 inches wide, for a total of
1,875 square inches.
The House logo (see figure 1.b.22, right)
measures 17 inches wide, and 24 inches tall,
for a total area of 408 square inches.
Additionally, there is a 3 inch x 17 inch
information block for a total area of for a
51 square inches. Taken together, the com-
bined signage area is 24.48% of the total
glass surface, well within the 30% guideline.
This is true for all the window treatments
along the 7th Street side.
The proposed window signage in all locations
of the premises comply with Section 9.8 of the
Design Guidelines.
7th Street Projecting Sign
B1: Projecting Sign
The projecting sign is made of 2 layers of
royal blue 0.25” acrylic, sandwiching a sin-
gle layer of 0.25” white acrylic. The blue
acrylic has the onion dome logo and the
content area cut out, revealing the white
acrylic layer beneath. Upon the white layer
-- on both sides -- is self-adhesive printed
vinyl.
The projecting sign measures 32” x 32”
(6.93 sf). The bottom of the sign is 101”
inches to the sidewalk, well within the 96”
limit called for in the Guidelines. Because
the “white” layer is printed, it is possible to
efficiently change/update tenant logos when
tenancy changes.
Decisions regarding signage size allocations
will be made by Management. While the
configuration is intended to be fluid, there
will never be less than 1 tenant logo on the
sign, and never more than 8.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 22
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Third Floor: Windows and Projecting Sign
Figure 1.a.22 Figure 2.b.22
Page 37 of 80
7th Street Projecting Sign
A1
Figure 5 Illustrates the “sandwiched” layers.
Layer 1:32”x32” 0.25” royal blue acrylic,
with cut-out “dome” logo and cut-out “con-
tent” area.
Layer 2:0.25” layer of white acrylic, bear-
ing tenant logos printed on self-adhesive
white vinyl. Upper part of Layer 2 is per-
manently sandwiched between layers 1 and
3 and contains no vinyl. Bottom part of
Layer 2 contains printed vinyl, and slides
up between layers 1 and 3 and is secured
from the bottom.
Layer 3: same as Layer 1.
Illusion of segmentation
Blue Layers 1 and 3 are 0.25” cut-outs.
However, White Layer 2 is printable vinyl
over an acrylic base, and the “blue borders”
you see between the tenant logos are actual-
ly printed to the white vinyl beneath, giving
the illusion of a blue border around them.
Seen from street level, this will give the
illustion of segmentation. This illusion
allows Management to efficiently change
and re-arrange sign content without having
to cut new blue vinyl layers every time ten-
ant logos or tenant priorities change.
Color Scheme for Future Logos
IF any ONE logo in the Content Area has
primacy over the others, this logo may use 2
colors. All subordinate logos will be
expressed in black only. In this manner we
can restrict colors on the sign to 3, (two for
the largest logo, and 1 for the blue acrylic)
allowing for the Guideline exemption of
black and white as colors.
We offer the logos shown in Figures 1.23,
2.23 & 3.23 as examples only. While we
cannot now forecast the color schema,
shape, design or identity of a future tenant’s
logo, we can affirm that whatever it is, the
projecting sign will conform to 9.19
(Colors) of the Design Guidelines for Signs,
as were outlined at the time this Plan was
adopted.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 23
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Third Floor: Projecting Sign
Figure 1.23 (layers of the “sandwiched” acrylic)
Cut Out
acrylic
Printed
vinyl
Figure 2.23
(layers of the
“sandwiched”
acrylic)
Figure 3.23
(layers of the
“sandwiched”
acrylic)
Middle Layer
(middle, “white”
layer slides up)
Figure 4.23
(layers of the
“sandwiched”
acrylic)
Layer 1 Layer 3
Layer 2
Page 38 of 80
Illusion of segmentation
The projecting sign is intended to have a
flexible and adaptable design. For this rea-
son, the printed “content” area can be easily
changed, without having to cut a new
acrylic frame each time tenants change or
tentant configurations change.
The methodology is that the content area
has been “segmented” into 8 possible rec-
tangles, each approx. 5” x 14.5”. However,
the area of a rectangle may be combined to
create larger spaces. These combined spaces
may coexist with smaller spaces to create a
myriad of segmentation possibilities. Using
this methodology, we have a blueprint to
accommodate between 1 and 8 tenant
logos. See Figure 1.24 for possible space
configurations.
White Layers 1 and 2 are 0.25” cut-outs,
the “borders” between tenant logos are actu-
ally printed to the white vinyl beneath, giv-
ing the illusion of a blue border around
them. This illusion allows Management to
efficiently change and re-arrange sign con-
tent without having to cut new blue vinyl
layers every time tenant logos or tenant pri-
orities change.
The proposed projecting sign A1 complies
with Section 9 of the Design Guidelines.
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 24
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Windows
Figure 1.24 (showing possible space allocations on the printed layer)
Possible Configurations (of the printed middle layer )
23” h x 30” w
11.1” h x 30” w
11.1” h x 14.6” w
5” h x 14.5” w
Page 39 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 25
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan Third Floor: Sandwich Board
Sandwich Board
B1
Third Floor Tenants (TFT’s) have occasion-
al need to draw pedestrians to their 3rd
Floor locations. Professional TFT’s generally
receive clients by appointment, but often
have issues with clients becoming lost or
disoriented.
In these situations we propose a magnetic
Sandwich board where the TFT logo can be
switched out when appropriate, with a max-
imum of 4 TFT logos being on a the board
at any one time.
The proposed sign measures 48” high, 36”
wide. It will be constructed of wood or
MDO, and feature blue, white and black
self-adhesive vinyl (see accompanying
swatches) on a magnetic base. Individual
magnetic logos could be attached to the
sign on both sides
The proposed portable sign fully com-
plies with Section 9 of the Design
Guidelines.
+=
2-sided sandwich board, made of wood or
MDO, with self-adhesive vinyl graphics
and lettering on a ferrous (metal) face.
Space left open for magnetic logos.
Magnetic logos for TFT to be used as nec-
essary to customize the sign.
The finished sign with logo magnets
attached. Max. of 4 tenant logos
s at any time.
Page 40 of 80
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan 26
Old Masonic Lodge Master Sign Plan First Floor: Back Alley Window Tinting
Back Alley Window Tinting
M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6
Since the rear portion of the building’s first
floor was retro-fitted to be a commercial
kitchen in the early 1980’s, the back alley
windows have provided outside pedestrians
with a view of kitchen infrastructure: air
conditioners, dry storage shelving, etc.
In the 2003 CDC, opaquing was applied to
some alley windows, but not others.
We propose to place dark window tinting
on all first-floor back alley windows,
Specifically
Alley windows:M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6
Page 41 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
for exterior modifications and an addition for the property located at 209 East 8th Street bearing
the legal description of Glasscock Addition, Block 10, Lot 4 (PT), 0.03 acres.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for a new addition to a historic
commercial structure. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to remove
an existing addition and construct a new two story addition at the rear of the structure. The
applicant also requests increasing the size of the doors and windows on the street facing façade of
the structure.
Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request
meets the approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as
outlined in the attached Staff Report. However, staff recommends denial of the proposed changes
to the street facing façade.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-034 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-034 Letter of Intent Exhibit
CDC-2015-034 Plans and Specifications Exhibit
Page 42 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-034 209 East 8th Street Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: October 22, 2015
File Number: CDC-2015-034
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
exterior modifications and an addition for the property located at 209 East 8th Street bearing the legal
description of Glasscock Addition, Block 10, Lot 4 (PT), 0.03 acres.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 209 East 8th Street Rehabilitation Project
Applicant: Gary Wang
Property Owner: Kevin Sukup
Property Address: 209 East 8th Street
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 10, Lot 4 (PT), 0.03 acres
Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca. 1925
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium
2007 - Medium
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a CDC for modifications to the medium priority historic structure located at
209 East 8th Street. The modifications include the removal of a rear addition and the construction of a
new two story addition. The applicant is also seeking approval to alter the window configuration of the
street facing façade to facilitate retail uses for the structure.
The HARC review includes the following components:
1. Demolition of the rear addition
2. Construction of a new two story addition
3. Alterations to the primary façade
Page 43 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-034 209 East 8th Street Page 2 of 6
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
4.1 Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail. Complies
4.2 Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building. Complies
4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements. Complies
4.7 Remove only that which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Complies
4.9 Replacement of missing or deteriorated details shall be based on original
features.
Complies
5.1 Maintain existing wall materials and textures. Complies
5.2 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials.
Complies
5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
it on a primary surface
Complies
5.14 Preserve architectural metal features that contribute to the overall historic
character of the building.
Complies
5.15 Repair metal features by patching, splicing or otherwise reinforcing the
original metal whenever possible.
Complies
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows
and doors in a building wall.
Does not comply
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to
the original design as closely as possible.
Complies
6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront openings to solid wall. Does not comply
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Does not comply
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic
Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained
Complies
7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. Complies
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impacts.
Complies
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or re- move original architectural details
and materials of the primary structure.
Complies
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the
primary building.
Complies
Page 44 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-034 209 East 8th Street Page 3 of 6
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed project includes the removal of an addition to the rear of the ca. 1925 historic structure
and the construction of a new two story addition. The project will also include an extension of the brick
chimney and reconfiguring the windows in the primary façade to facilitate a retail use for the space.
The structure is listed on the historic resource survey as a Medium Priority structure and first appears
on the 1925 Sanborn map, with the primary structure and the attached restroom facility. The 1941 aerial
image show the current addition on the rear of the structure.
The removal of the rear addition allows for a viable rehabilitation of the original historic structure.
Although the addition has attained historic value in its own right, removal does not result in a
significant loss of integrity. Removing the addition allows for the construction of a new two story
addition to the rear of the structure, providing additional retail space and office space for the structure.
The proposed two story addition reflects the character of the historic structure, but utilizes different
materials, creating the required differentiation for the structure. The proximity of other buildings
obscures the majority of the addition, reducing the impact of the addition. The materials selected for
the addition reflect the materials of the historic structure and the adjacent buildings. The structure to
the east is comprised of stucco and white limestone, while the structure to the west is constructed of
cinderblock.
The proposed materials include cinderblock walls on the first floor, which has limited visibility from
the street, due to the location of the adjacent structures and features. The cinder block construction will
be painted to blend with the rest of the structure, but the materials will create the required
differentiation. The proposed metal cladding for the second floor of the addition reflects the original
materials of the historic structure, but provides differentiation with a different pattern of metal.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines allow for two story additions and additions to the
roof of a structure, provided that the new addition is set back from the primary structure. The
proposed design complies with these requirements.
The proposed chimney extension will include new brick, in a slightly different pattern to differentiate
the original construction from the new extension. Although the extension is not required, it balances
the height with the height of the new addition.
The applicant is also proposing changes to the primary façade of the historic structure, facilitating its
future use as a retail space. The applicant wishes to install larger windows in place of the existing
windows, and install new transom windows above the canopy. The proposed changes are out of
character with the design of the structure and create a false sense of history for the structure. The
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures state:
Page 45 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-034 209 East 8th Street Page 4 of 6
“Each property will 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 elements
from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.”
Recreating a traditional two part storefront, similar to those seen around the Square, is not an
appropriate treatment for this structure. Additionally, Guideline 6.12 states that the position and size of
original windows shall be maintained, while Guideline 6.21 states that the historic configuration of
windows and door openings shall be maintained. While staff acknowledges the need for additional
light and possible retail displays, it is recommended that the applicant research other options for
accomplishing their needs.
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;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
This project is in compliance with the design
standards for the MU-DT zoning district, as
outlined in the UDC.
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 addition is in compliance with
the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines. The proposed façade changes do
not comply with the Guidelines.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project impacts the integrity
of the historic structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The proposed addition is compatible with
the surrounding historic properties.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project does not adversely
affect the overall character of the Downtown
Overlay District.
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.
No signage is proposed with this
application.
H. The following may also be considered by the
HARC when determining whether to approve a
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the surrounding properties
Page 46 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-034 209 East 8th Street Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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.
that comprise the historic district. The
building massing and materials are
consistent with those found throughout the
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the following items
1. Demolition of the rear addition
2. Construction of the new addition
Staff recommends approval with conditions for the following item:
1. Cinderblock exterior for the first floor of the addition
2. Stucco finishes for the north and south facades of the addition
3. Metal cladding for the east and west facades, with more subtle architectural details
Staff recommends denial of the following items:
1. Enlarging the existing storefront windows
2. Adding transom windows above the canopy
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the proposed project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 47 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-034 209 East 8th Street Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Page 48 of 80
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC
Architecture + Urban Design
September 24, 2015
Historical and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown
Re: Rehabilitation/Restoration and Addition to 209 East Eight Street
Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission:
On behalf of my clients, Kevin and Carol Sukup, I am pleased to submit here our
application for approval a project at 209 E. 8th Street. Program for this building will include a retail
space and a separate office space for lease.
As you will find in the supplemental photos attached on page 11, the existing building is
in complete disrepair. For the main portion of the building facing the street, the intent is to
completely restore/rehabilitate the original building to its historic character. The existing building
has a back portion that was later added on after an outhouse was attached (see photo 11e
attached). We propose to replace this portion of the building with a two-story addition. The ground
floor of the addition will be a continuation of the retail space for a combined total of 1300sf, while
the second floor will be a new office space totaling approximately 580sf (see plans p. 3).
As you know, Eight Street will become a dynamic arterial street for the City in the next
few years. This proposed design seeks to advance many of the urbanistic and local goals found
in our Design Guidelines. We have met several times with City Planning, and we have adhered to
two main tenets of the Design Guidelines, also shared by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation for Historic Buildings: First, that the design be compatible, yet differentiated,
from the existing building; secondly, that the renovation be reversible and done in a way that, if
removed, the integrity of the historic building would be unimpaired.
Listed here are the attached drawings for your review and consideration:
1) A Site Map;
2) Site Design Plan;
3) Ground and Second Floor Plans;
4-7) Rendered Elevations;
8) A Rendered Perspective;
9) A View from the Corner of 8th and Main;
10) Building Details; and
11) Existing Photos for Reference
Here are some specific issues the proposed design will address:
Historic Rehabilitation:
Upon further examination, one finds an existing structure that, if located on any other site, would
be a good candidate for complete demolition and new construction. However, with its proximity to
the Williamson County Courthouse and Square, if restored we believe this building could
contribute to the fabric of our downtown community and be a supporting retail partner with shops
surrounding the square. The client has been actively engaged in discussion with an exciting
potential tenant - a haberdasher that has relocated to Georgetown from Colorado. (This person
was named the Best Living Hat Maker in 2008 by True West Magazine.) We believe this building
would be a fitting venue to showcase his craft.
In order to set up a future retailer for success, we have one proposed change to the
historic elements of this building that will be rehabilitated/restored: Our one requested change is
Page 49 of 80
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC
Architecture + Urban Design
that we are permitted to make the two small windows at the street 18" taller, as well as adding
three transom windows above the awning. When the building was originally built, it was certainly
not made as a retail building; it is no coincidence that the retail spaces allowing the most natural
light have also been the most successful in the past, and the opposite is also true for those with
the least. In addition to allowing more natural light into the space, the proposed change will also
allow the retailer to be better visible at the street. It is important that we allow the retailer an
opportunity to thrive through the building's design. (We did look at options with larger apertures.
The proposed has the smallest windows that allow enough visibility and yet keeps the essential
character of the historic property.)
All other building elements will be rebuilt to its original character. The existing corrugated
roof that has failed will be replaced with new, the rotted wood windows will be replaced with like,
and the existing tin cladding will be reused and restored as much as possible. The rusted rods
that hold up the canopy will be replaced with safe and functional tension rods, and the canopy will
be brought up to safety standards for pedestrians below.
Two-Story Addition at Rear of Lot:
Although the front portion of the building is original and historic, there is a portion at the North that
was added even after an outhouse was attached, as indicated by the exterior cladding shown in
photo 11e. After walking through these issues with the City, we understood we were permitted to
design an addition at this back portion to replace this section, which is in the worst condition of all
and beyond repair (see photo 11a).
The proposed new addition will be an extension of the retail space at the ground floor,
and will contain an office space at the second floor. A separate entrance to this floor will be
located between this building and Roberts Printing to the West. Overall the peak of the building
will be approximately 25' above grade.
For materials, the ground floor is a stained and sealed concrete, which is also the
material used on Roberts Printing. The second floor is clad in stucco at the North and South
walls. The East and West walls and the roof will be clad in a shop-finished corrugated metal - a
similar material with a different color than the historic cladding material. The existing brick
chimney will be restored and extended to rise above the new gable line. A soldier course will be
made between the existing chimney and new to differentiate the new brick from the existing.
We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on October 22.
We will have additional information as well as material samples at this meeting for your review
and approval. 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, and I look
forward to seeing you in October.
Yours truly,
Gary Wang, AIA
Principal
Wang Architects LLC
Page 50 of 80
Design Concepts for Review by HARC
1HZ5HWDLODQG2I¿FH (DVW(LJKW6WUHHW
6HSWHPEHU
Wang Architects
$5&+,7(&785(_85%$1'(6,*1_0$67(53/$11,1*
Page 51 of 80
&+85&+
6
7
5
(
(
7
0$,1675(
(
7
($
6
7
7
+
6
7
5
(
(
7
($67
7
+
6
7
5
(
(
7
(WK6W
+LVWRULF3RUWLRQ
/DWHU$GGLWLRQ
,QFOXGHVDQ$WWDFKHG2XWKRXVH
QWV
6LWH0DS
Page 52 of 80
´ ¶´
6LWH'HVLJQ3ODQ
Page 53 of 80
´ ¶´
3ODQVGROUND FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN
/RFDWLRQRI2XWKRXVH/DWHU$GGHG
+LVWRULF6WUXFWXUH
/LQHRI([LVWLQJ$GGLWLRQ/DWHU$GGHG
Page 54 of 80
6RXWK(OHYDWLRQ
´ ¶´
¶
¶
´
¶
Page 55 of 80
:HVW(OHYDWLRQ
´ ¶´
5HKDELOLWDWHG([LVWLQJ6WUXFWXUH1HZ$GGLWLRQ
¶
´
¶
´
¶
Page 56 of 80
1RUWK(OHYDWLRQ ´ ¶´
¶
¶
´
DO
L
J
Q
Z
H
[
W
¶
J
I
D
F
L
D
Page 57 of 80
(DVW(OHYDWLRQ
´ ¶´
5HKDELOLWDWHG([LVWLQJ6WUXFWXUH 1HZ$GGLWLRQ
¶
¶
´
¶
¶
´
Page 58 of 80
DOW3HUVSHFWLYH
QWV
Page 59 of 80
83HUVSHFWLYH
QWV
Page 60 of 80
9LHZIURP6:&RUQHUWKDQG0DLQ
QWV
Page 61 of 80
%XLOGLQJ'HWDLOV
´ ¶´
DETAIL AT REBUILT EXISTING ROOF
DETAIL AT RESTORED/REBUILT
WALL, NEW FLOOR, NEW FOUNDATION
Page 62 of 80
D +HDYLQJDW)ORRU6ODEDW([LVWLQJ1RUWK$GGLWLRQ
E 7\SLFDO&RQGLWLRQRI:LQGRZVDQG:DOOV
([LVWLQJ3KRWRJUDSKV
QWVF 7\SLFDO&RQGLWLRQRI([WHULRU:DOOV
G 9LHZIURPWK6WUHHWH ([W&ODGGLQJ$GGHG2XWKRXVH
Page 63 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC)
for a residential addition for the property located at 1700 South Church Street bearing the legal
description of Eubank Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (N/PT), 2 (N/PT), 0.24 acres.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for an addition to a historic structure.
According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to add an addition to the rear of
the structure and construct a new porch.
Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the
approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the
attached Staff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-035 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-035 Plans and Specifications Exhibit
Page 64 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-035 1700 South Church Street Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: October 22, 2015
File Number: CDC-2015-035
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for a
residential addition for the property located at 1700 South Church Street bearing the legal description
of Eubank Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (N/PT), 2 (N/PT), 0.24 acres.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: The Douglas residence Addition and Remodel
Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd
Property Owner: Michael and Joanne Douglas
Property Address: 1700 South Church Street
Legal Description: Eubank Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 (N/PT), 2 (N/PT), 0.24 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca. 1935
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium
2007 - Medium
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential addition to the medium
priority historic structure located at 1700 South Church Street.
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
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
7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impacts.
Complies
Page 65 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-035 1700 South Church Street Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or re- move original architectural details and
materials of the primary structure.
Complies
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main
building.
Complies
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing a new residential addition and a new porch for the medium priority historic
structure located at 1700 South Church Street. The project is unique due to the fact that it is surrounded
by three streets, limiting the placement of the additions. The primary addition to the residence creates
additional living space for the structure and is setback from the primary historic structure, emphasizing
the historic structure.
In addition, the materials for the addition are compatible with the primary structure, but differentiated
and subdued. The wood siding incorporates the materials from the garage, while the stone accents
allow the addition to blend with the existing structure, but still create the differentiation. The
construction of the addition will not result in the removal of any character defining features of the
structure. The additional setback of the center portion of the addition also creates the appearance of a
connector, further distinguishing the new addition from the historic structure.
The proposed addition is setback from the primary façade of the existing structure and utilizes the
cross gabled roof to reflect the roofline of the existing structure. In addition, the double window in the
proposed addition incorporates the window arrangement on the existing structure.
The proposed porch addition to the rear is designed to not result in the removal of any character
defining features and will not block the view of any significant features.
The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines by creating two
additions that are compatible with the historic structure and highlight the historic structure while
creating the additional living space for the residence.
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;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
Page 66 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-035 1700 South Church Street Page 3 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards for the underlying RS
(Single Family) zoning district.
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.
The proposed project preserves the integrity
of the historic structure by creating an
addition that does not adversely impact the
integrity of the structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The proposed addition is compatible with
the existing structure and does not have an
adverse effect on the surrounding
properties.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The project does not have an adverse effect
on the Old Town Overlay District.
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.
No signage is proposed for the project.
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
The proposed project does not have a
significant impact on the Old Town Overlay
District and creates an addition that is
compatible with the existing structure, while
creating an overall project that is an
appropriate development for the district.
Page 67 of 80
Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC-2015-035 1700 South Church Street Page 4 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
cultural values.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of CDC-2015-035 as presented.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the application.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 68 of 80
City of Georgetown
Planning and Development Services/HARC
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 69 of 80
Page 70 of 80
HARC submittal for CDC
September 30th, 2015
Page 71 of 80
Page 72 of 80
Page 73 of 80
Page 74 of 80
HARC submittal for CDC
September 30th, 2015
Page 75 of 80
HARC submittal for CDC
September 30th, 2015
Page 76 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Page 77 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.
ITEM SUMMARY:
1. Historic Resource Survey
2. Grace Heritage Center
3. Downtown West
4. Parking Study
5. National Register project
Future HARC Meetings:
Demolition Subcommittee - November 9th @ 4:00 and December 10th @ 4:00
HARC Regular Meeting - December 10th @ 6:00 (Reminder: November and December meetings
are combined due to the Holidays.)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2015/16 HARC Meeting Dates Backup Material
Page 78 of 80
UDC Development Manual Georgetown, Texas HARC Calendar
Revised: April 2015 www.georgetown.org Page 1 of 1
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(4th Thursday)
Applications may be submitted at any time. The Agenda Deadline is not a submittal deadline; it is the last day an
item may be added to a meeting agenda to meet notification requirements. Additional time is needed for processing
and review of applications; therefore you are encouraged to submit your application as early as possible in advance
of this date to avoid delays. Please refer to the Application Review Timelines chart in this Development Manual to
estimate overall processing time. All issues must be resolved before an item can be added to an agenda. Staff will
determine when your application is ready for the public meeting and notify you accordingly.
Historic & Architectural
Review Commission
Agenda Deadline HARC Meeting
December 26, 2014 January 22, 2015
January 27, 2015 February 26
February 27 March 26
March 27 April 23
May 1 May 28
May 29 June 25
June 26 July 23
July 31 August 27
August 28 September 24
September 25 October 22
* November 13 * December 10
December 31 January 28, 2016
January 29, 2016 February 25
February 26 March 24
April 1 April 28
April 29 May 26
May 27 June 23
July 1 July 28
July 29 August 25
August 26 September 22
September 30 October 27
** November 11 * December 8
* November and December regular meetings are combined due to the Holidays. The combined meeting is held on the second
Thursday of December.
Page 79 of 80
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2015
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 80 of 80