HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_10.22.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
October 22, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The re gul ar mee ting will c onve ne at 6:00pm on O c tobe r 22, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/2 F D3 Z B 6
Webinar I D: 939-0297-4204
P assword: 204451
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (312)626-6799 or Toll F r ee : 833-548-0276
P assword: 204451
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 62
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
Page 2 of 62
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
C At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the O ctober 8, 2020 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building c onstruc tion (infill development) at the property loc ated at 405 S . Aus tin Avenue, bearing the legal
desc ription 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, R eplat of Bloc k 24, C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bostick,
Downtown & Historic P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
G P resentation and dis cus s ion of the Downtown & O ld Town Des ign G uidelines update.- Britin Bos tic k,
Downtown and Historic P lanner
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 62
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the O c tober 8, 2020 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: October 8, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
October 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/3c2CQUg
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on October 8, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/3c2CQUg
To participate by phone: Call in number: (301)715-8592 or Toll Free: 888-475-4499 Webinar ID#:
985-7521-8377 Password: 131373
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Art Browner, Steve Johnston, Catherine Morales; Karalei
Nunn; Robert McCabe
Members absent: Faustine Curry; Terry Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:01 pm.
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. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
Page 5 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: October 8, 2020
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and qu estions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 24, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston.
Approved (4-0) with Commissioner Nunn abstained.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building construction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S. Austin Avenue,
bearing the legal description 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown. –
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
The order of Agenda Items E and F were switched by Chair Parr. Item E was discussed after
Item F.
Page 6 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: October 8, 2020
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new, three story
bank and office with a drive-thru located on the east side of the building. The new
building is proposed to be a total of 22,702 sq. ft., with a 40’ roof height and a 47’ parapet
height. The proposed exterior materials are cast stone or cut limestone and stucco, with
dark aluminum frame windows and non-reflective glazing. The proposed design includes
decorative stucco details at the first and top floors, as well as stone and stucco details to
highlight the building entrances on the north and south elevations and the center section
of the Austin Avenue (west) façade. Signage is not proposed as part of this application,
but the submitted plans show building signage areas on each of the three street facades.
The highest point of the roof parapet at 49’-6” is proposed for the cornice details in the
center of the street-facing facades, while the parapet surrounding the roof (“mid parapet”)
is 47’ in height. This parapet acts to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from view,
while the “low parapet” is a decorative element. Based on the findings listed above, staff
recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the request. Staff recommends that the
conditions of the approval are:
· That all three street-facing facades have a consistent window design on the first or
ground floor of the building, and that the windows on the first or ground floor have
proportions consistent with traditional storefront windows, or as proposed for the
windows in the center portion of the Austin Avenue façade and the 5th Street and north
facades.
· That the windows on the second and third floors be consistent on all four facades,
and that the windows have a greater height than width, with proportions more consistent
with traditional upper floor windows.
· That HARC be provided with additional examples of the proposed materials
installed as requested during the conceptual review.
The applicant, Whitney Koch, addressed the Commission and answered questions. Scott
Carr, the owner of the building also addressed the Commission.
Koch presented to the Commission and provided additional details related to the entry
and exit for the project, reviewed site flow, and addressed Commissioner questions about
the design of the building.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Garcia read a public comment submitted to the Department by Bob Mullins of 400 Austin
Ave. into the record.
Lawrence Romero likes the design, including the stone and stucco, as well as the new way
the windows will be placed. Romero also commented that traffic patterns are not in the
purview of HARC.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Page 7 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: October 8, 2020
Commissioner Morales asked if the drive-thru will be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Koch explained that the ATM will be, however there will normal operating business
hours, either 8am-5pm or 9am-6pm.
Bostick also explained that there are other applications currently in review related to this
project. The SDP will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval, where
they will discuss issues such as drainage, parking, landscaping. When staff reviewed the
application, they found that the driveway referenced by concerned residents is fully on
the commercial property and the commercial development has the opportunity to use this
for their development. This driveway is currently used by the residential properties, but
it is not part of their properties.
Koch addressed the Commission’s questions related to the cornices, and that stucco will
be used. The Commission asked several questions about the materials that will be used,
and commented that it would be best to see samples of t he materials prior to making a
decision. Koch will provide samples and bring them to the Department for the
Commissioners.
Motion to postpone this item to the 10/22 meeting by Commissioner Morales. Second
by Commissioner Browner. Approved (5-1), with commissioner Johnston opposed.
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for a 4'-0" setback modification to the required 6' side setback to allow a carport structure 2'-0"
from the side (south) property line and an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing
street-facing façade at the property located at 1505 Olive Street, bearing the legal description
0.345 acres, being part of Block 40 of the Snyder Addition. - Britin Bostick, Downtown &
Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the construction of a
new, detached carport. The carport is proposed to be 20’ x 20’ or 400 sq. ft. in size and located
on top of the existing concrete driveway. The carport is proposed to be constructed of metal
columns and roof, with exterior materials including columns, roofing and siding, to match the
columns on the existing historic main structure and the roof and siding materials on the existing
detached garage structure. Due to the location of the existing driveway in the setback, the
applicant is also requesting approval of a 4’-0” setback modification, so that the carport
structure can encroach 2’-0” into the side 6’-0” setback. The main structure has an
approximately 2,737 sq. ft. footprint, and the existing detached garage is approximately 480 sq.
ft. on both ground and second floors. The property is not visible on any of the Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps, and the house does not appear in c. 1934 aerial photos from Southwestern
University’s Special Collections that show Olive Street from two angles. In 1934, the property
and surrounding blocks were farmland. Public records indicate that Sam and Clellia Harris
purchased the property from A. A. and Bonnye Allen on January 28, 1946. The garage was
likely to have been constructed that same year, but per information provided by the current
owner, the house was moved from the J. M. Page property on the west side of what is now
Page 8 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: October 8, 2020
Interstate 35, which is why the house is estimated to have a 1915 construction date but the
property was not developed until 1946. The Harrises owned the property until 1955. The house
has had a mix of architectural styles, and the exposed rafter ends, tapered front porch columns
and divided lite upper windowpanes visible today are Craftsman in style, which was popular at
the time the house the is estimated to have been constructed. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey
form notes that in 1984 the front porch had fluted Doric columns in pairs, which would have
been more commonly found in buildings with a Classical Revival style. At the time the house
also did not have a front porch railing. The proposed new carport would have a style similar to
the current style of the main structure, with the same style of columns, wood siding to match
the siding profile of the detached garage (the main house has asbestos siding), asphalt shingles
and a gable roof instead of the hipped roof of the main house and garage, which provides some
differentiation between the new carport and the historic structures. The new carport is
proposed to be painted blue and white to match the current paint color scheme of the historic
structures.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-49-COA) by Commissioner Browner. Second by
Commissioner Morales. Approved (5-0).
G. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Bostick provided an update on the design guidelines, and commented that the Commission will
meet the consultant at the next meeting. Also, the second meetings in November and December
will be cancelled due to the holidays.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 9 of 62
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building cons truction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S . Austin Avenue, bearing the legal
des cription 0.7434 ac res , being Lot 9, R eplat of Block 24, C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bos tic k,
Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val of a new, three sto ry b ank and o ffic e with a drive-thru loc ated
on the east s ide of the build ing. T he new build ing is proposed to b e a to tal o f 22,702 s q . ft., with a 40’ top
of roof height for the flat roof and a 47’ parapet height. T he propos ed exterior materials are c as t stone or
cut limesto ne and s tucc o , with d ark aluminum frame windows and no n-reflec tive glazing. T he prosed
des ign includ es dec o rative s tuc co d etails at the firs t and top flo o rs , as well as sto ne and s tucc o details to
highlight the build ing entrances on the north and s outh elevations and the center s ec tion of the Austin
Avenue (wes t) façade. S ignage is not proposed as part o f this ap p licatio n, but the sub mitted plans show
building s ignage areas o n each o f the three s treet fac ad es . T he highest point o f the roof p arap et at 49’ is
propos ed for the c o rnic e details in the c enter of the street-fac ing facades, while the parapet s urrounding the
roof (“mid p arap et” noted on the drawings ) is 47’ in height. T his p arap et acts to s creen roofto p mec hanical
equipment from view, while the “low parapet” noted on the drawings is a dec orative element.
A conceptual review was held on this project on S eptember 24, 2020 and a public hearing was held on this
item on O c tober 8, 2020.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 10 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: October 22, 2020
File Number: 2020-45-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new building
construction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal
description 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: R Bank - Georgetown
Applicant: Whitney Koch (Mustard Design)
Property Owner: Carr Ryan Re 4, LLC
Property Address: 405 S. Austin Avenue
Legal Description: 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District
Case History: HARC Conceptual Review on 09/24/2020, Public Hearing on 10/08/2020.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: N/A
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• New building construction (infill development)
STAFF ANALYSIS
Site information
Public records show that what is now Block 24 of the City of Georgetown was originally designated as
Block 11. On October 5th, 1868, John J. Stubblefield purchased what had been Block 11 on the original and
was Block 24 on the revised map from Stephen and Eda Strickland for $1,000. On March 15, 1884, the
Stubblefields’ children sold the west half of Block 24 to Elizabeth Talbot for $1,200. Elizabeth Jane Talbott
(also written Talbot) was the daughter of Georgetown founder George Washington Glasscock.
Elizabeth’s first marriage was to Lon Logan, and their children and grandchildren inherited the west half
of Block 24 when Elizabeth died in 1917. The heirs sold the property to Elizabeth’s oldest son J. D. Logan
in 1918. J. D. sold the west half of the block to his son, Robert Lee Logan, in 1922 when Robert was 25
years old. Robert and his wife Mildred had a son, Jackson Davis Logan, in July 1923, who later inherited
the house, selling it in the early 1980s.
Page 11 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 2 of 9
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and photos from Special Collections at Southwestern University show a
large house with several later additions was on the west half of Block 24 as early as 1916, when the house
was still owned and possibly inhabited by Elizabeth Talbott. The original portion of the house may have
been built by the Stricklands, as Stephen Strickland had successfully petitioned Williamson County to
acknowledge his ownership of the block in 1855. Thirteen years later the Stubblefields purchased the
block and lived there for sixteen years. From 1884 to 1980 the house was owned and mostly occupied by
Elizabeth Talbott, her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. A photo from “before 1991”
shows the house still standing, but by the mid-1990’s it was removed and replaced with a vehicle lot for
Draeger Motor Company. The property has been vacant for several years.
The subject property was platted in 2004 with a large, single lot on the west portion of the block along
Austin Avenue and eight smaller lots facing Main Street. The entire block is zoned Mixed Use Downtown
(MU-DT), and is surrounded by MU-DT zoning to the south and west, MU-DT, Residential Single Family
(RS) and Two-Family (TF) to the north and east and Office (OF) to the southeast. The surrounding
properties are a mix of historic and non-historic structures, residential and non-residential, with building
heights that range from a single story to four stories, and with a variety of building styles and materials.
The smaller lots on the same block as the subject property have been developed as townhomes (attached
dwellings on separate lots) as well as single family homes (separate dwellings on separate lots). The
proposed building is sited at the southwest corner of the project site, along the Austin Avenue and E. 5th
Street property lines. Directly to the south is the Tamiro Building, which is slightly taller than this
proposed building and has four stories, the fourth being stepped back from the lower three floors. The
Tamiro Building has a narrower façade along Austin Avenue but a wider façade along E. 5th Street than
does this proposed building. To the southwest is the Monument Café, and to the west across Austin
Avenue is a city parking lot. To the northwest is a single story, medium priority office building and to
the north is the historic Williamson County Jail, a two-story, high priority structure. To the northwest
are one-story residential structures that have converted to commercial use. Directly to the east are 8
residences, four detached single-family homes and four attached townhomes. To the southeast is a two-
story residence that has converted to office use.
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new, three story bank and office with a drive-thru
located on the east side of the building. The new building is proposed to be a total of 22,702 sq. ft., with
a 40’ roof height and a 47’ parapet height. The proposed exterior materials are cast stone or cut limestone
and stucco, with dark aluminum frame windows and non-reflective glazing. The proposed design
includes decorative stucco details at the first and top floors, as well as stone and stucco details to highlight
the building entrances on the north and south elevations and the center section of the Austin Avenue
(west) façade. The highest point of the roof parapet at 49’-6” is proposed for the cornice details in the
center of the street-facing facades, while the parapet surrounding the roof (“mid parapet”) is 47’ in
height. This parapet acts to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from view, while the “low parapet” is
a decorative element.
A building entrance is proposed for the E. 5th Street façade, as well as for the north façade facing the
parking area. As the sidewalk required by the new development is designed to follow the slope of the
Page 12 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 3 of 9
street curb along Austin Avenue and will require short retaining walls to manage the site grading, the
building is not proposed to have an entrance on the Austin Avenue façade. Although signage is included
in the project renderings and drawings for reference, approval of signage is not requested as part of this
Certificate of Appropriateness and will be submitted in a separate application. The building massing and
form were designed to reflect larger scale civic and business buildings rather than a set of narrower,
traditional building widths as one would see around the Square and adjacent blocks.
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of cut limestone and cast stone on the building exterior for
both the first floor façade and decorative architectural elements so that there can be some flexibility for
the applicant in the final choice of materials. Either material would have a smooth face and consistent
color. In the Downtown Overlay District, the traditional stone used is limestone, which has a rough face
or texture on many of the historic buildings and some of the newer infill buildings. There are some
historic buildings, including the historic Williamson County Courthouse (1910) and the historic Farmer’s
State Bank Building (1910), now the Williamson Museum, which have cut or cast stone details and a cut
stone façade, or which have utilized terra cotta decorative elements, which also have a smooth and
consistent surface. The applicant is also requesting approval of stucco for the second and third floor
exterior of the building. Although there are not many examples of stucco as an original siding material
in the Downtown Overlay District, many buildings have had stucco applied to the façade, including the
Stromberg-Hoffman & Co. Building and the Harry Gold Building. The windows are proposed to be
aluminum storefront windows with either a dark bronze or black finish and non-reflective glazing. The
ground floor windows are proposed to have an upper glazed section reminiscent of a traditional transom
window, and the upper floor windows are proposed to have either two equal sections and appear as a
single window or have four equal sections and appear as a double window.
In the Conceptual Review of the project on September 24, 2020, the HARC Commissioners provided
feedback to the applicant on the design presented based on the applicable Guidelines, which included:
• Adding more variation to the façades, emphasizing the Austin Avenue street facade
• Reducing the mass of the building
• Adjusting the proportions of the upper floor windows to a greater height than width
• Giving more consideration to the pedestrian experience on the Austin Avenue façade
• Stepping down the building height toward the adjacent residential properties
• More examples of the proposed materials installed
In response to HARC’s feedback, the applicant has provided revised drawings and a letter for the Public
Hearing on October 10, 2020, noting the adjustments made in response to the Commission’s comments.
The adjustments include:
• Reducing the height of the roof parapet on the portion of the building over the drive thru
• Adding headers over the windows and entrance openings on the first floor and over the windows
within the stone-clad portions of the façade to reflect traditional building details
• Adjusting the Austin Avenue façade to a wider center module
Page 13 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 4 of 9
• Adjusting the proportions and number of windows on all four facades
• Increasing the depth of the cornice returns on the parapets to create a greater perception of depth
for that architectural feature
Based on the information provided for the meeting on October 10, 2020, HARC requested that the
applicant provide materials samples, as well as time to further review and post for public review the
final proposed drawings as part of the agenda for the regular HARC meeting on October 22, 2020. The
applicant provided materials samples for the Commissioners to review, and the most recent application
materials have been reviewed and incorporated into this staff report and presentation.
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
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line.
Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.
A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a
property shall have a building wall at the
sidewalk edge.
Where no sidewalk exists one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
Proposed building is set at the Austin Ave.
and W. 5th St. property lines along the
sidewalk edge. New sidewalk is to be
constructed along the three street frontages
as part of the proposed project.
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back,
define the edge of the property with landscape
elements.
For example, define the edges of a lot with
landscaping, such as low-scale urban street
trees or shrubs.
Landscaping elements should be compatible
with the character of the area in size, scale, and
type. Free-form, suburban type landscaping is
inappropriate in this setting.
Also consider using a fence, or other structural
element, that reflects the position of typical
storefront elements. These elements should
align with nearby traditional commercial
building types.
Complies
Landscaping and screening are to be
provided in accordance with the UDC
requirements and are reviewed as part of
the Site Development Plan application
process.
13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot
width as expressed by the following:
Variation in height at internal lot lines.
Partially Complies
The subject property is platted as a single
lot and there are not interior lot lines to be
Page 14 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 5 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
• Variation in the plane of the front façade.
Variation in architectural detailing and materi-
als to emphasize the building module.
• Variation in the façade height to reflect tra-
ditional lot width.
expressed in the building façade. The front
facade plane has minimal variation with
repeating architectural features, although
the materials and details at the center
portion of the street facades provide
variation for the center module. The façade
height is consistent except for cornice
details in the center portions, and the lower
parapet height over the drive thru.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should
provide variety.
A larger development should step down in
height towards the street or smaller, sur-
rounding structures.
• Vary the building height in accordance with
traditional lot width.
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building
façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the
front.
Partially Complies
The proposed project steps down in height
toward the smaller structures to the east by
reducing the height of the parapet. The
building height is not varied in accordance
with traditional lot width (typically 20’- 40’
width around the Square and 50’-60’ for lot
widths in the surrounding blocks for
comparison), although the parapet height at
both the Austin Ave. and W. 5th St. facades
has a variation in the center.
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with
several buildings, rather than a single structure.
This will help reduce the perceived size of the
project.
• The façade height shall be varied to reflect
traditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The half block subject property is not being
developed entirely with buildings, as on-
site parking requirements apply. However,
the three-story height and 22,702 sq. ft. size
of the building make it a large project, and
the façade height does not have variation
that reflects traditional lot width.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional
size of buildings.
A typical building module should not exceed
30 feet in width. The building module should
be expressed with at least one of the following:
o A setback in wall planes of a minimum
of 3 feet
o A change in primary facade material
for the extent of the building module
Complies
The proposed building is approximately
100’ wide and 96’ deep, and the proposed
design of the modules, which highlight the
center portion or module of the building
facades with materials, cornice details and
height difference, are 36’ in width for the
two side modules and 30’ for the center
module. The variation in materials for the
center module is carried through to the roof
Page 15 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 6 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
o A vertical architectural element or trim
piece
Variations in facade treatment should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear facades.
If a larger building is divided into “modules,”
they should be expressed three-dimensionally
throughout the entire building. Variation in
height should occur where the site is larger
than two traditional lot widths, in order to
reduce overall scale of the building.
line and part of the facades except for the
east façade, which is designed to
accommodate the bank drive-thru.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.
In certain circumstances views to the court-
house shall be taken into consideration when
designing a new building.
A new building shall not be so tall as to block
views of the courthouse.
Complies
The proposed building is located directly
north of an existing building with a taller
height and greater width within the
Courthouse view corridor than is proposed
for this project, and the subject building
does not further block existing views of the
courthouse.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale
are preferred.
Brick and stone are preferred for new con-
struction.
New materials should appear similar in char-
acter to those used traditionally. For example,
stucco, cast stone, and concrete should be
detailed to provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated
durability for the Central Texas climate. For
example, some facade materials used in new
construction are more susceptible to weather
and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
Complies
The project proposes to use a cut stone or
cast stone (manufactured stone) material for
the first floor of the building and at the
center modules, which provides the detail at
human scale, which the Design Guidelines
recommend. The design also includes
stucco for the primary façade materials,
including the siding, windowsills and
cornices. The stone and stucco are meant to
reference materials on other commercial
structures in the Downtown, and
architectural details materials incorporated
into the façade design.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a
large expanse of wall plane.
A matte, or non-reflective, finish is preferred.
Polished stone and mirrored glass, for
example, are inappropriate and should be
avoided as primary materials.
Complies
Proposed materials are matte finish and
non-reflective.
Page 16 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 7 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood,
brick, and stone are encouraged.
Horizontal lap siding of traditional
dimensions is appropriate in most
applications.
Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions
are encouraged.
Brick or stone, similar to that used tradition-
ally, is also appropriate.
Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
New materials that are similar in character to
traditional ones may be considered. Alterna-
tive materials should have a proven durability
in similar locations in this climate.
Complies
Proposed materials include stone and
stucco, and the proposed cut limestone
(natural stone) or cast stone (manufactured
stone) would have a smooth face, which is
similar to some of the cut stone facades and
building details used on buildings in the
Downtown. Stucco was not usually an
original exterior material in the Downtown
but has been added later to several
buildings to cover the building façades
including buildings on the Square. In some
cases, the stucco material has been
removed, but several building still retain
their painted stucco facades.
13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those
seen traditionally.
Metal and shingle roofs are preferred.
Clay tile is discouraged.
Complies
Proposed roof is a flat roof with parapet,
which is compatible with traditional
structures.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to
encourage pedestrian activity.
Provide at least one of the following along
primary pedestrian ways:
- A storefront
- Display cases
- Landscaping
- A courtyard or plaza
Include traditional elements such as display
windows, kickplates, and transoms on com-
mercial storefronts.
Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
Complies
Proposed project will provide landscaping
in accordance with UDC requirements,
which are reviewed as part of the Site
Development Plan application. The
proposed building is constructed as a bank
and office building and does not have
traditional storefront features, however the
ground floor windows have been designed
with an upper section that interprets a
traditional transom, and there are no blank
walls proposed for the building facades.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building
toward the street.
A building should have a clearly-defined
primary entrance.
The building entrance should be recessed.
A primary building entrance also should be at
or near street level.
Complies
The proposed building has a defined
primary entrance from W. 5th St. and from
the parking lot on the north side of the
building, both of which are recessed and at
street level. However, the Austin Ave.
façade does not have an entrance.
Page 17 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 8 of 9
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project requires approval of an
Administrative Exception for the proposed
overall building height within the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay
District.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
Subject property is a vacant lot and has no
historic structures.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The subject site has been vacant for several
years and was previously a residential block
with commercial parking lot.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed design is compatible with
surrounding properties, which are a mix of
historic and non-historic.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed new building has elements
that reflect the variation in character of the
Downtown Overlay District, including
materials and exterior details, and the
window proportions have been adjusted to
be more compatible with those of historic
structures.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
application.
Page 18 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 9 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 19 of 62
Location
2020-45-COA
Exhibit #1
E 6TH ST
E 5TH ST
E 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
RO
C
K
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 3RD ST
W4THST
W 6TH ST
W5THST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 20 of 62
209 S. Llano St., Suite B Fredericksburg, TX 78624 t. 830.997.7024 F:830.212.4064 www.mustarddesign.net
August 17, 2020
City of Georgetown, Planning and Development Services
Historic and Architectural Review Commission- (CoA)
Regarding: R Bank Georgetown - Certificate of Appropriateness
405 S. Austin Avenue, Georgetown, TX
Owner Information: Carr Ryan Re 4, LLC
5121 Bee Cave Road, Suite 207
Austin, TX 78746
Scott Carr
Email: scott@carrdevelopment.com
Project Summary:
We are proposing the design of a new three story office building on the town lot located at the 405
S. Austin Avenue. The lot is undeveloped, has some existing trees and is bordered by 4th Street on
the north, Austin Avenue on the west, 5th Street on the south and a residential townhouse
development to the east via a shared access easement.
The design vision for the new three-story building is that of a traditional bank office building that
includes cut stone at street level, with decorative cornices and steel-look windows. The entries will
be recessed into the building to provide covered entry for the patrons and tenants and located
facing 4th and 5th streets. A bank drive through will be provided off of the shared access easement
which also provided the primary entry and exit pathway on the site.
The first floor will be comprised primarily of a bank tenant and possible second small tenant while
the 2nd and 3rd floors will be private office lease space.
The first floor and central entry elements are set to resemble traditional load-bearing masonry in a
style reminiscent of historic bank/governmental buildings. These areas will be clad in a cut
limestone veneer and be accented with decorative cornices. The second and third floor areas will
still be reflective of traditional building styles utilizing a stucco veneer and decorative cornices. The
upper parapets are stepped to signal a hierarchy of entry and accent the central entry elements.
The material selection of the building will coordinate well with existing traditional buildings
throughout downtown and provides for a similar aesthetic with stone and stucco veneers and
steel-look window and door appearances. The scale of the building meets with the development
code guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our project for your review.
Whitney Koch, AIA, NCARB
Principal Architect
Texas Registered Architect #24419
Page 21 of 62
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s
COVER SHEET
R BANK
10.09.2020
PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF BUILDING ENTRY
NTS
Page 22 of 62
736
737
738
739
7
4
1
7
3
9
741
741
7
3
4
742 743
742
742
743
7 4 3
744
746744
744
7
4
7
746
7
4
6
7 4 4
740
740
7
4
0
7
3
5
745
7
4
5
FO
T
T
UPUP
GAS
GAS
GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS
GAS
GAS
W
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W W
W
W
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS GAS
SS
GAS GASGAS
N
8
8
°2
9
'2
5
"
E
5
9
.
9
8
'
BLOCK 24, LOT 9
0.74 ACRE
11 9 9
5
6
39 PARKING
SPACES ON-SITE
6 PARALLEL SPACES
AT STREET
LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8LOT 2LOT 1
EXISTING CHINABERRY
TREE TO BE REMOVED
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
N
8
8
°2
9
'0
8
"
E
5
9
.
9
6
'
N
8
7
°4
1
'2
7
"
E
1
4
.
5
4
'
PROPERTY LINE N 01°30'59" W 239.97'
PROPERTY LINE N 01°43'01" W 240.31'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
8
8
°3
2
'4
9
"
W
1
3
5
.
3
2
'
W.
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
W.
4
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
S. AUSTIN AVENUE
EXISTING PECAN TREE TO BE
REMOVED AND MITIGATED,
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROPOSED
BUILDING
9'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
.
18' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
17
'
-
6
5
/
8
"
9'
-
0
"
8'
-
9
1
/
2
"
26' - 0"18' - 0"4' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0"
PRIVATE OFFICE
3 STORIES
APPROX. 22,702 TOTAL SF
1ST FLR: 6,430 SF
2ND FLR: 8,136 SF
3RD FLR: 8,136 SF
DUMPSTER
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
AND ELECTRICAL
SERVICE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TYPE A
CROSSWALK
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
EXISTING
AMERICAN ELM
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WHITE
MULBERRY TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING HERITAGE
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING CONCRETE
DRIVE AISLE TO REMAIN
EXISTING PERMEABLE PAVER
DRIVE AISLE TO REMAIN
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
UTILITY
10' - 0"
PRIVATE DRIVE
25' - 0"
PROPOSED LEVEL III
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LEVEL II
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED MODIFIED
TYPE B CROSSWALK
PROPOSED LEVEL III
SIDEWALK
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
COMPACT
3
3 LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
COVERED PARKING,
CONCRETE
SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR BUILDING EXTENT,
OPEN BELOW FOR DRIVE THROUGH
CONCRETE THROUGHOUT
DRIVE AISLE, AND
PARKING STALLS
COMPACT
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
FIRE LANE
100'-0"
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
16' - 0"
18' - 0"
EXISTING TELEPHONE VAULT
5' - 6"
EXISTING RETAINING
WALL TO BE REMOVED
FIRE LANE
20' - 0"
FIRE LANE
20' - 0"
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE,
"DRIVE THROUGH"
MULTI-TENANT WALL
SIGN AT FACE OF
RETAINING WALL, TO BE
SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
PERMEABLE PAVERS
AT DRIP LINE
PROPOSED WAY-
FINDING SIGN
EXISTING STREET
SIGN
5' - 0"
WAY-FINDING
SIGNAGE
EXISTING
LIGHT POLE
18' - 0"4' - 4"14' - 0"26' - 0"
18' - 0"
RA
M
P
U
P
4' - 10"
PROPOSED
ACCESSIBLE RAMP
EXISTING WHITE
MULBERRY TO BE
REMOVED
STAND-UP CURB AND GUTTER
RIBBON CURB
STAND-UP CURB
AND GUTTER
MODULAR, CAST STONE OR
NATURAL STONE RETAINING WALL
W/ REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE AS NEEDED
MANHOLE, REFER TO
CIVIL FOR ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
MODULAR, CAST STONE OR
NATURAL STONE RETAINING WALL
W/ REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE AS NEEDED
EXISTING
STORM INLET
CROSS-WALK STRIPING
T
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
& EQUIPMENT
MEMBRANE OR TPO ROOF
WITH INTERNAL DRAINS
18' - 6"
17' - 1"
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACE
ZONING:
ZONED:
PROPOSED USE:
MIN. ALLOWABLE LOT AREA:
TOTAL LOT AREA:
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:
STREET SIDE YARD:
INTERIOR SIDE YARD:
REAR SIDE YARD:
PARKING ANALYSIS: OFFICE BUILDING
3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING
22,702 SQFT / 500 GFA OFFICE = 45 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL REQUIRED:45 PARKING SPACES PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL PROVIDED: 46 PARKING SPACES ON SITE
INCLUDING 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE SPACES
INCLUDING 6 PARALLEL SPACES ALONG 4TH AND 5TH STREETS
OWNER INFORMATION:
CARR RYAN RE 4, LLC
5121 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 207
AUSTIN, TX 78746
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
S8731 -GEORGETOWN, CITY OF BLK 24 (REPLAT),
BLOCK 24, Lot 9, ACRES 0.743
MU-DT
PRIVATE OFFICE BUILDING
NO MINIMUM REQUIRED
32,383 SQ FT (0.74 ACRES)
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
BUILDING
PAVING / WALKS
PROPOSED PERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PERMEABLE PAVERS:
LANDSCAPE AREA:
*IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AT THIS PHASE
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT:
95% = (32,383 *.95) = 30,764 SF ALLOWABLE
PER GEORGETOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
91% (29,404 SF)
BUILDING 6,430 SQFT
PAVING / WALKS 22,974 SQFT
9% (2,980 SF)
PAVERS 994 SQFT
LANDSCAPE 1,986 SQFT
40' -0"
50' -0"
40'-0"TOP OF ROOF
49'-0" TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s 1" = 10'-0"
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
R BANK
10.09.2020
NSITE PLAN
Page 23 of 62
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
MAX PARAPET
9' - 6"
MAX ROOF HEIGHT
40' - 0"
100' - 0"
35' - 0" 30' - 0"35' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
7' - 0"
FOUNDATION TYPE
FOUNDATION SHALL BE A BEAM STIFFENED SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION. INTEGRAL SPREAD FOOTERS WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER
COLUMN LOCATIONS. ALL FOUNDATION COMPONENTS WILL BE CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED.
BUILDING ELEMENTS
REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.040
BUILDING ARTICULATION
ARTICULATION COMPLIES WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.050 BUILDING ARTICULATION AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS BELOW
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION FOR FOOTPRINT
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0"
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0" x 3 = 120'-0", MAXIMUM LATERAL DISTANCE WITHOUT PERPENDICULAR OFFSET
VERTICAL ARTICULATION FOR ELEVATION
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0"
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0" x 3 = 120'-0", MAXIMUM LATERAL DISTANCE WITHOUT CHANGE IN VERTICAL ELEVATION
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
REFER TO THE ELEVATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.050-D
ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY
THE BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.060
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN NOTES
1. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND APPROVAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT, NO
SIGNAGE IS APPROVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR HARC PLANS.
2. COLOR SELECTION IS NOT APPROVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAY BE COUNTED TOWARD THE SIGNAGE
CALCULATION IF IT IS FOUND TO REFLECT COLOR THAT IS CONSIDERED SIGNAGE ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF
SIGNAGE IN THE UDC
3. THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL MEET ALL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ARTICULATION, BUILDING DESIGN, BUILDING
MATERIALS AND ELEMENTS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF SECTION 7.03 OF THE UDC.
4. ALL ROOF, WALL AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL AND EL ECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8
SITE DEVELOPMENT NOTES
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
01
02
03
04
06
03
07
07
05
14
15
40
0746.8
786.8
11
34' - 8"62' - 6"2' - 9"
100' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
7' - 0"
49795.8
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
R BANK
10.09.2020
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
AUSTIN AVENUE /
WEST ELEVATION
12 BACK LIT OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BUILDING
SIGN, COLOR: BY TENANT, TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY
13 REINFORCED CMU DUMPSER ENCLOSURE W/STUCCO
FINISH AND CAP TO MATCH BUILDING
14 STEEL FRAMED ACCESS DOOR WITH 1x4 STAINED
WOOD INFILL, FRAME TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
BUILDING WINDOWS
15 ANODIZED DARK BRONZE OR BLACK DRIVE THROUGH
TELLER WINDOW
16 MODULAR, CAST STONE OR NATURAL STONE
RETAINING WALL W/REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONRETE AS NEEDED
07 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW WITH MIDDLE MULLION, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
08 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW W/ TRANSOM, MULLIONS, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
09 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
DOOR W/ TRANSOM, AND LOW-E, NON-REFLECTIVE
COATING
10 BACK LIT OR INTERNALL ILLUMINATED BANK DRIVE
THROUGH SIGNS, TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & HOLLOW METAL FRAME;
PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL SURFACE
01 12"x24" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER. CREAM OR BUFF COLORED, OR SIMILAR
02 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND STUCCO ON
METAL LATH. JOINTS AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS.
03 STUCCO CORNICE BANDS WITH IMPLIED JOINTS TO
MIMIC CAST/CUT STONE, COLOR TO MATCH CAST
STONE VENEER.
04 STUCCO CORNICE BAND WITH IMPLIED JOINTS AND
PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/CUT STONE VENEER.
05 24"x32" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER PLYNTH. COLOR, TEXTURE AND JOINT
SPACING TO MATCH ADJACENT CAST/STONE VENEER.
06 STUCCO SILL WITH IMPLIED JOINTS, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/ CUT STONE VENEER
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Page 24 of 62
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
STUCCO COLOR
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: MODERNE WHITE 6168 OR SIMILAR
TYPICAL COLOR FOR STUCCO
ELEVATION TAG: 02
RETAINING WALL
PRECAST RETAINING WALL BLOCK WITH CAP
COLOR SIMILAR TO CUT/CAST STONE VENEER
ELEVATION TAG: 16
METAL CLAD DOOR/WINDOW EXAMPLE
COLOR: DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK
ELEVATION TAG: 07, 08, 09
CUT OR CAST STONE VENEER
IMAGE ABOVE REPRESENTS THE TYPICAL COLOR FOR
EITHER CAST OR CUT STONE VENEER
ELEVATION TAG: 01
CUT STONE VENEER EXAMPLE
PARKS CANADA FEDERAL BUILDING
CAST STONE VENEER EXAMPLE
AMERICAN STONECAST, LLC
STUCCO FINISH EXAMPLE WITH CORNICE BANDING
TEXTURE: WALL: SMOOTH TO FINE
BANDS: SMOOTH TO FINE
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
49' - 6" OVERALL HEIGHT
01
02
03
04
05
06
03
07
07
08
09
10
12
20' - 11"24' - 0"20' - 11"29' - 8"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
95' - 6"
COVERED PARKING HEIGHT
18' - 6"
7' - 0"
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS & COLORS/MATERIALS
R BANK
10.09.2020
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
5TH STREET /
SOUTH ELEVATION
12 BACK LIT OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BUILDING
SIGN, COLOR: BY TENANT, TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY
13 REINFORCED CMU DUMPSER ENCLOSURE W/STUCCO
FINISH AND CAP TO MATCH BUILDING
14 STEEL FRAMED ACCESS DOOR WITH 1x4 STAINED
WOOD INFILL, FRAME TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
BUILDING WINDOWS
15 ANODIZED DARK BRONZE OR BLACK DRIVE THROUGH
TELLER WINDOW
16 MODULAR, CAST STONE OR NATURAL STONE
RETAINING WALL W/REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONRETE AS NEEDED
07 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW WITH MIDDLE MULLION, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
08 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW W/ TRANSOM, MULLIONS, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
09 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
DOOR W/ TRANSOM, AND LOW-E, NON-REFLECTIVE
COATING
10 BACK LIT OR INTERNALL ILLUMINATED BANK DRIVE
THROUGH SIGNS, TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & HOLLOW METAL FRAME;
PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL SURFACE
01 12"x24" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER. CREAM OR BUFF COLORED, OR SIMILAR
02 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND STUCCO ON
METAL LATH. JOINTS AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS.
03 STUCCO CORNICE BANDS WITH IMPLIED JOINTS TO
MIMIC CAST/CUT STONE, COLOR TO MATCH CAST
STONE VENEER.
04 STUCCO CORNICE BAND WITH IMPLIED JOINTS AND
PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/CUT STONE VENEER.
05 24"x32" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER PLYNTH. COLOR, TEXTURE AND JOINT
SPACING TO MATCH ADJACENT CAST/STONE VENEER.
06 STUCCO SILL WITH IMPLIED JOINTS, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/ CUT STONE VENEER
Page 25 of 62
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s
CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES
R BANK
10.08.2020
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVESOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
NTS
Page 26 of 62
R Bank 405 S. Austin Ave.
2020-45-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
October 22, 2020
1Page 27 of 62
Item Under Consideration
2020-45-COA –R Bank Georgetown
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building construction (infill development)at the property located at 405 S.Austin Avenue,
bearing the legal description 0.7434 acres,being Lot 9,Replat of Block 24,City of
Georgetown.
2Page 28 of 62
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New building construction (infill development)
3Page 29 of 62
Item Under Consideration
4Page 30 of 62
Historic
County Jail
5
Tamiro Plaza
Monument
Cafe
Page 31 of 62
Current Context
6Page 32 of 62
1916 & 1925 Sanborn Maps
7Page 33 of 62
c. 1934 Aerial Photos From SU Special Collections
8Page 34 of 62
c. 1934 Aerial Photo from SU Special Collections
9Page 35 of 62
1964 Aerial Photo
10Page 36 of 62
1974 Aerial Photo
11Page 37 of 62
“Before 1991” Aerial Photo –Portal to Texas History
12Page 38 of 62
Current Context
13Page 39 of 62
Current Context
14Page 40 of 62
Replat of Block 24
15Page 41 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Site Plan
16Page 42 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
17Page 43 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
18Page 44 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
19Page 45 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
20Page 46 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Materials
21Page 47 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Materials
22Page 48 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Materials
23Page 49 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Material Samples
24
EIFS (Stucco Coating)
Natural Limestone
Cast Stone
Black
Aluminum
Storefront
Dark Bronze
Aluminum
Storefront
Page 50 of 62
Downtown Materials
WILCO Courthouse –Brick & Cut Stone Stromberg-Hoffman –Stucco, Williamson Museum –Cut Stone
25
Page 51 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Design
26Page 52 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Design
27Page 53 of 62
R Bank –Proposed Design
28Page 54 of 62
Current Context
29
View from northwest View from southwest
Page 55 of 62
Current Context
30
Parking lot to west Residential to east
Page 56 of 62
Current Context
31
Historic Courthouse
57.5’ Top of Railing
Riverplace
48’ Top of Parapet
Tamiro Building
51’ Building Height
Hitch Hall
33’-8” Top of Dome
Masonic Lodge
44’ Top of Parapet
WILCO Justice Center
31’-63’ Building Height
Performance Center
44’ Top of Parapet
Watkins Building
34’ Top of ParapetPage 57 of 62
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 32Page 58 of 62
Public Notification
•Three (3) signs posted for meeting on October 8, 2020
•One (1) comment opposed received for meeting on October 8, 2020
•One (1)comment in favor made during public hearing on October 8, 2020
•No additional comments received
33Page 59 of 62
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
34Page 60 of 62
HARC Motion –2020-45-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
35Page 61 of 62
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 22, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of the Downtown & O ld Town Design G uidelines update.- Britin Bostick,
Downtown and His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
P res entation of the Downtown & O ld Town Design G uidelines update proc es s , inc luding initial input
questions, and introduction of P ost O ak P res ervation S olutions, c onsultant for the project.
At this meeting, the staff and c onsultant will provide an overview of the update including a recap of the
C ity C ounc il direc tion from 2019, the projec t timeline and stakeholder engagement plan.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
Page 62 of 62