Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda_HARC_12.14.2017
Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown December 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.) A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. Legislativ e Regular Agenda B Co nsideration of the Minutes from the Novemb er 9, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Secretary C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) of a four (4) sto ry mixed us e b uilding at 204 E. 8th S t., b earing the legal desc riptio n o f 0.33 ac . Glas s c o ck Addition, Bloc k 9, Lot 7 - 8. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriateness (COA) for the reno vation, to includ e the enc lo s ure o f an existing sc reening p o rch, to p ro p erty loc ated at 1414 S . Co llege, bearing the legal d es criptio n of 0.514 ac . Hughes Additio n, Blo ck 8 (SE/P T ). - Nat Waggo ner, AICP, Long R ange P lanner E Public Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriateness (COA) for the Page 1 of 91 demolition of a garage and renovation o f a res id enc e, to inc lude the c o ns truc tion o f a new wind o w opening on the eas t fac ade of the home, cons tructio n o f a new garage, and replac ement of an exis ting c o lumn, for a pro p erty loc ated at 1402 Hutto Road, bearing the legal des c rip tion of 0.411 ac. Univers ity Park, Bloc k 5, Lot 1-5. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner F Pres entatio n and disc ussion of c onceptual d es ign for the renovation of a res idential p ro p erty loc ated at 501 S. Elm S treet - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager G Up d ates of Downto wn P ro jects and up co ming meetings . Next regular HARC Meeting, January 25, 2018 Mad is o n T homas, new Histo ric Dis tric t Planner Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 2 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the November 9, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing Sec retary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes _HARC 11.09.2017 Backup Material Page 3 of 91 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: November 9, 2017 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Justin Bohls; Art Browner; Shawn Hood, Vice-Chair; Catherine Morales (alternate); Scott Revier (alternate) and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Karl Meixsell Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mark Moore, Acting Chief Building Official; Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration of the Minutes from the October 26, 2017 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Romero, second by Bohls to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0. C. Discussion and action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of property located at 1111 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 2.629 ac. being all that certain tract of land described in deed to Daniel Zavala Sr. out of the William Addison Survey. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner This item was continued from the last meeting. Waggoner presented the staff report to give more information that was gained since the last meeting. He explained that the applicants have agreed to the conditions of trying to salvage some of the materials and have provided a written archive of the history of the structure. The city attorney stated the commission cannot force the applicant to relocate the building. The applicant offered to answer any questions from the commission. Doug Welch, applicant, spoke about possible salvage items and likes the idea of trying to save some of the hand-hewn limestone and will work with staff to see if they can salvage these items if people will take them. This structure is on one lot and the area is being subdivided and is currently under review. This original parcel will remain a part of the overall development. Bain allowed speakers to come forth. The original Public Hearing was held at the previous meeting. Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, reported that in 2003 the owner received a letter that stated he should clean up the property or it would be demolished. He showed a picture of the 2014 house and asked that the owner allow him to fix the house and restore it. He asked for the commission to deny the demolition request and asked to save this house. John Lawton, contractor, says he has restored many homes in old town and does not believe this Page 4 of 91 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: November 9, 2017 one can be salvaged. Amanda Parr, 302 East 15th St, Preservation Georgetown (PG) President, (Susan Firth dedicated her three minutes to Ms. Parr), supports preservation and is an advocate for preserving the history of Georgetown. She also asked the commission to vote no and to be mindful of the historic structures in town. She expressed the demolition does not meet three of the four criteria for demolition as listed in the UDC and this is a case of demolition by neglect. She thinks the house is historically significant and asked the commission to deny approval of demolition. She stated PG is for development in the old town and downtown but stated the city needs to balance that with preserving the older structures, specifically the high priority structures. If this house is allowed to be demolished then they ask that a historical archive be done for this property. The Public Hearing was closed with no other speakers coming forth. Motion by Hood to approve the demolition COA with the conditions that the materials, the hand hewn limestone substructure pier bases and the longleaf pine flooring or beams and staircase, be preserved and sold or re-used if possible, and an archive be prepared by the owner and given to the city for historic documentation of the building. Second by Romero. Approved 6 – 1 (Bohls opposed.) D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for renovations of a commercial property located at 114 E. 7th Street, Suite 115. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner Waggoner presented the case. This was presented as a concept plan at the previous meeting. The applicant has requested approval for the renovation of multiple exterior elements of the commercial property including the removal of storefront windows and entry doors, the addition of an enclosed and covered patio and the installation of a shallow awning. According to the 1984, 2007 and 2016 Historic Resources Survey, this property’s significance lies in its year of construction. All three surveys note that the property lacks stylistic influences and an identifiable plan. The primary historical resources available to staff are primarily the Historic Resources Survey and in particular the 1984 survey. Photos included in the 1984 indicate that the current storefront configuration existed in 1984; three (3) entry doors each flanked by a set of storefront windows on both sides. Staff did not discover any older evidence of the storefront configuration. Staff does not believe the current windows are historic however the entryway doors and hardware appear to be of significant age and are a good representation of craftsmanship. Double wooden door entries are common on 7th Street and around the square. Retaining these doors, albeit recessed, preserves historic building material and also supports the character of surrounding properties including those within the same lot. Alterations to the façade of this low priority structure, as proposed will alter the storefront configuration that existed in 1984. Staff recommends that if the storefront is removed, the applicant can retain the character of the 1984 storefront by preserving the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in the building wall with the proposed material change (iron works). Staff recommends the window openings replaced with iron works carry the lateral lines created by the storefront windows to the east and west of the property. Preserving the lateral lines of the storefront will also support the characteristic of the surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the request for renovation with the recommendation that the Page 5 of 91 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: November 9, 2017 current entry door be incorporated into the recessed courtyard leading into the new storefront and that the modified storefront retain the size, shape, position and number of the 1984 storefront. Staff finds the sign design and paint selections in conformance of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The commission discussed the proposed front versus the existing and staff’s recommendation. The applicant requested the bottom of the window opening be higher than what is currently existing to accommodate a bench on the other side of the wall. Hood suggested a floating bench and then the opening can remain the same configuration as currently there. Chair Bain opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the hearing. Motion by Hood to approve the COA with the window opening height to remain the same as it currently exists and matching the other window configurations along the adjacent store fronts, and to approve the ironwork as submitted with it not to exceed 42 inches in height. Second by Browner. Approved 7 – 0. E. Discussion and possible action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for the renovation and expansion of a residential property located at 904 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of 0.248 acres, lot 2, 3 (N/PT) block 27 of the Addison Survey – Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager Waggoner presented the case. The applicant is proposing renovation of the existing structure including replacement of wooden windows, dilapidated siding and roof. The applicant is also proposing additions to the street facing façade including a new master bedroom suite and a garage. All alterations and improvements were described within the attached construction drawings, and are designed to meet the Design Guidelines of the Georgetown UDC including the fence addition, paint selection and in kind materials for windows and doors. Staff recommended approval of the COA. No public came forth for comments. Motion by Bohls, second by Hood to approve the COA as presented on the application. Approved 7 – 0. F. Presentation and discussion of a conceptual design of a mixed use development at 204 E 8th Street bearing the legal description of .3306 acres, Lot 7-8, Block 9 of the Glasscock Addition– Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP , Long Range Planning Manager Specifically, the applicant is seeking feedback from HARC regarding the Chapters 8 and 13 of the Design Guidelines. Waggoner reviewed those elements. Matt Synatschk, of Matkin-Hoover the applicant, reviewed the proposal. The building is proposed to be 56.5 feet tall with 3300 square feet of commercial space and three floors of residential. He stated it would be lower in height than the courthouse and the materials shown were stone and stucco. He stated they were asking for a variance for the height of the building. And that they would be trying to save the heritage tree on site. Commissioners offered feedback. They questioned the amount of parking needed for that size of building and expressed concern. They expressed concerns about the building being out of character of the neighborhood and out of scale. They cited Chapter 13, “The overall mass of a new building should convey a sense of human scale.” They did not feel this building responded Page 6 of 91 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 3 Meeting: November 9, 2017 to that guideline. Or to policy 13.4 “Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. They did not feel this building should have a 44 foot front on Church and 8th Streets, not providing a human or pedestrian scale. They noted 13.6 was not addressed and that although some articulation was provided, the building was not divided into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings in that area. It was suggested that they step back the different areas of the building to provide a better sense of scale from the street. Synatschk thanked the commission for their comments and stated he would review the building for possible changes. G. Updates of Downtown Projects and upcoming meetings. • Next HARC Demolition Subcommittee Meeting, November 15, 2017 • Next regular HARC Meeting, December 14, 2017 Adjournment Motion by Hood, second by Bohls to adjourn at 7:46 p.m. Approved 7 – 0. ________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Justin Bohls Page 7 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t fo r a C ertific ate o f App ro p riatenes s (COA) of a four (4) s tory mixed use building at 204 E. 8th St., bearing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.33 ac. Glassc o ck Addition, Blo ck 9, Lot 7 - 8. - Nat Waggo ner, AICP, Lo ng R ange P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The applic ant is req uesting a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s fo r the cons truc tion of fo ur-s tory mixed us e b uilding. T he firs t floor will c o nsist o f a 2,600 square fo o t commerc ial use and 30 parking s p aces . Flo ors 2-4 will sup port res idential units (26). City s taff has provid e the ap p licant d irect feed b ac k on the recommend ations related to variety o f materials and finishes . It is p o s s ib le that the ap p licant may make modific ations to the applic ation between the time of p ublic ation of this and the regular meeting of HARC 12/14/2017. Should that b e the case, staff will ens ure tho s e c hanges are highlighted for the Co mmis s ion during the p res entation p o rtion of the item’s cons id erations . Public Comments As req uired by the Unified Development Cod e, (1) s ign was posted on-s ite on No vember 28, 2017. To d ate, staff has rec eived zero (0) written c o mments regarding d emo lition from the interes ted p ublic . STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed build ing does acc o mp lis h variation in plane of the fac ad es , both horizontally and vertic ally; ac hieving mod ular d es ign whic h s upports human s cale. The incorporatio n of ac tive ground flo o r c o mmercial s pac e with outdoor s eating and land s c aping creates a welc o ming p ed es trian environment. Staff does recommend the applic ant and Co mmis s ion c o ns ider red uc ing the variation in materials in order to represent tho s e features that are mo s t commo n in the Do wntown Area and rep res ent a unified develo p ment pattern. Staff als o rec o mmends that the applic ant and Commission c o nsider adding a sc reening wall (green sc reen) alo ng the eas tern façade in o rd er to ad d res s the void b etween the 2nd floor and the to p of the wall adjac ent to the parking garage. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent and Supporting Materials Exhibit Page 8 of 91 Exhibit 3 - Staff Report Exhibit Page 9 of 91 EL M ST A SH ST R O C K S T E 7 TH ST E 5 TH ST E 8 TH ST E 6 TH ST S M A I N S T S M Y R TL E S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E S C O L L E G E S T WAL NUT S T W 9T H S T W 8T H S T W 6T H S T W 11TH ST W 10T H S T W 7T H ST E 1 0T H S T E 1 1 T H S T E U N IV ER S IT Y AV E MA R T I N L U TH E R KI N G JR S T FORE S T S T W U N I V E R SI TY AV E W 5 T H S T PI N E ST E 9 T H S T E 9 TH 1/2 S T T I N B A R N A LY WA L N U T S T F O R E S T S T P I N E S T E 1 0T H S T E 11T H S T E 9 TH ST E 9 T H S T COA-2017-033Exhibit #1 Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Feet Page 10 of 91 October 18, 2017 The Historic and Architectural Review Commission c/o Ms. Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Planning Director Dear Commissioners, The owners of the property at 204 East 8th Street are excited to present a new infill project for the Downtown Overlay District. This project will provide new retail and residential opportunities for Georgetown and continue the development patterns outlined in the 2013 Downtown Master Plan. The Master Plan identifies the blocks surrounding the property as an important opportunity area, utilizing the existing development as an anchor to draw new projects to the district. The upcoming sale and redevelopment of the historic US Post Office, currently utilized as the City of Georgetown municipal offices, provide a great opportunity for private investment to enhance the east side of the district. The project requires the demolition of an existing accessory structure on the site. The primary structure was heavily damaged by fire in 2016 and previously demolished. The existing structure is identified as a Low Priority historic structure on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. The wood frame structure was constructed ca 1930, and has been heavily modified over time. Rehabilitation of the structure would require replacing many of the original materials, removing the historic fabric of the structure. The structure does not possess any significant architectural features, nor does it represent the work of a specific architect or craftsman. The exterior cladding consists of cementitious fiber siding, and modern metal garage doors. In addition, the structure is wired with a Federal Pacific breaker box, which are prone to arcing and failure. The attached photos document the current condition of the structure, including the deterioration of existing materials and the lack of character defining features. The proposed project complies with the Unified Development Code, and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, and creates a mixed-use project as envisioned by the Downtown Master Plan. Thank you for your service to the City of Georgetown. We look forward to your approval and the completion of this project. Sincerely, 204 East 8th Street Project Team Page 11 of 91 UP UP DUMPSTER COMMERCIAL SPACE 2,637 SF WA L K W A Y COVERED AREA COVERED AREA OPEN ABOVE MECH. OUTDOOR SEATING AREA ALONG CHURCH ST. 120' - 0" 12 0 ' - 0 " OPEN ABOVE ELEV. ELEVATOR LOBBY STAIR 120' - 0" 12 0 ' - 0 " CH U R C H S T . 8TH STREET EXISTING STREET PARKING HC STALL SIDEWALK SI D E W A L K OH AWNING DUMPSTER TRUCK DRIVE AISLE TRANS. BOX EX I S T I N G B R I C K W A L L - O F F P R O P E R T Y 18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0" 18 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " STAIR PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0"9' - 0"10' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0" 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 3 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS @ CHURCH ST. 60 61 MOTORCYCLE PARKING PROPERTY LINE 59 ' - 6 " 8x8 UNDERGROUND VAULT 9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"14' - 0"9' - 0" 18 ' - 0 " 6" 2' - 9 1 / 2 " 8' - 0 " 2' - 9 1 / 2 " NEW TREE W. SILVA PLANTING SYSTEM NEW TREE W. SILVA PLANTING SYSTEM GREEN SPACE NEW TREE W. SILVA PLANTING SYSTEM GARAGE ENTRY DRIVE AISLE GARAGE EXIT DRIVE AISLE EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE EXISTING DRIVEWAY 120' - 0" 12 0 ' - 0 " CH U R C H S T . 8TH STREET EXISTING STREET PARKING HC STALL 120' - 0" SIDEWALK SI D E W A L K EX I S T I N G B R I C K W A L L - O F F P R O P E R T Y UNDEVELOPED SITE 12 0 ' - 0 " Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com 1" = 10'-0" A7 SITE PLANS WS-DE 20 4 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X DO W N T O W N E A S T BU I L D I N G 12-04-17 1" = 10'-0"1 ARCH SITE PLAN 30 FULL-SIZED PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY 4 MOTORCYCLE SPACES ON PROPERTY 34 TOTAL PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY 9 EXISTING PARKING SPACES @ 8TH ST. 3 PROPOSED PARALLEL SPACES ON CHURCH ST. 46 TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES 1" = 10'-0"2 EXISTING SITE PLAN N LOT AREA ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING & PROPOSED USE EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA EXISTING FAR PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA PROPOSED CONC. ON SITE PROPOSED FAR/IMPERV. 14,400 sf C-1 MIX-USE COMMERECIAL 528 sf 3.7% 3,130 sf 9,483 sf 93.4% PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION REFERENCE MAP PROJECT SITE COURTHOUSE Page 12 of 91 1st FLOOR 0' - 0" 2nd FLOOR 12' - 0" 1st FLOOR PH 10' - 0" 2nd FLOOR PH 21' - 0" (9' - 0") 3rd FLOOR PH 31' - 6" 4th FLOOR PH 42' - 0" 3rd FLOOR 22' - 6" 4th FLOOR 33' - 0" ROOF DECK 43' - 3" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (F.F.E. = 751' - 3") STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE RED BRICK CAST STONE BANDING RED BRICK RED BRICK SANDSTONE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM - BRONZE YELLOW BRICK SANDSTONE METAL AWNING BRONZE DARK DOOR TRIM 12' - 8" 8' - 0 " 13' - 0" 8' - 0 " 10' - 0" 8' - 0 " 9' - 0"6' - 0 " YELLOW BRICK BEIGE STUCCO 8' - 0"3' - 0" 6' - 0 " OPEN TO PARKING AREA BEIGE STUCCO GRAY BRICK 2' - 0"14' - 10 3/4"2' - 0"23' - 1 1/4"2' - 0"4' - 6 1/2"17' - 10"6' - 10"31' - 8"10' - 7 1/2"2' - 0" 117' - 6" 18' - 7 1/4"13' - 0"11' - 10 1/2"5' - 0 3/4"4' - 5 1/4"9' - 0"4' - 5"6' - 10"29' - 9 1/2"14' - 6" A3 3 8' - 0" SANDSTONE MAX BLDG. HT. 44' - 0" GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL 10 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 11 ' - 5 3 / 4 " GRAY TRIM STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF DARK TRIM STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF3.5 12 6 12 6" GRAY BRICK GRAY TRIM 9' - 0" 6' - 0 " 8' - 0" 6' - 0 " 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 8' - 0 " 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 0" 6' - 0 " 3' - 0" 2' - 0 " 3' - 6 " VERTICAL METAL RAILING YELLOW TRIM BALCONY RED BRICK DARK TRIM HORZ. METAL RAILING DARK TRIM BALCONY BEIGE STUCCO CAST STONE CORNICE METAL SHED ROOF CAST STONE CORNICE 9' - 0"6' - 0 " 3' - 0" 4' - 0"4' - 0 " BRONZE GUTTER PIPE3' - 0" 3' - 0"3' - 0 " YELLOW BRICK 3' - 6 " GLASS RAILING SYSTEM GRAY TRIM BALCONY DARK TRIM DARK TRIM DARK TRIM GLASS RAILING SYSTEM YELLOW BRICK CREAM TRIM 3' - 6 " 9' - 0" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0" 8' - 0 " 3' - 6 " WHITE TRIMWHITE TRIM 3' - 0" 3.5 12 GRAY BRICK GRAY BRICK GRAY BRICK YELLOW BRICK CREAM TRIM DARK TRIM CHURCH ST. ELEVATION SIDEWALK STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE RED BRICK SANDSTONE SANDSTONE SANDSTONE METAL AWNING BRONZE OPEN TO PARKING AREA BEIGE STUCCO W. DARK TRIM 14' - 1 1/2"25' - 1 3/4"12' - 0"12' - 1 1/4"12' - 0"36' - 8"7' - 5 1/2" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 14' - 1 1/2"2' - 0"2' - 11"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"17' - 0"2' - 0"7' - 5 1/2" SANDSTONE LIGHT BRICK GRAY BRICK WHITE TRIM 8' - 0 " SANDSTONE 119' - 6" BEIGE STUCCO W. DARK TRIM LIGHT BRICK DARK TRIM GRAY TRIM RED BRICK GRAY TRIM DARK TRIM 3 12 CAST STONE CORNICE 8' - 0" WHITE BACK LIT LETTERS @ 24" H. Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com As indicated A3 8TH & EAST ELEVATIONS WS-DE 20 4 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X DO W N T O W N E A S T BU I L D I N G 12-04-17 3/16" = 1'-0"2 8th St. ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES NAME RED BRICK YELLOW BRICK GRAY BRICK STONE STUCCO CORNICE/BANDING ROOFING DARK TRIM WHITE TRIM CREAM TRIM GRAY TRIM GLASS RAIL SYS. METAL SCREEN WALL GREEN SCREEN WALL DESCRIPTION ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER" ELP-430, 810998 ACME BRICK - "ELDERWOOD" DTP-184, 728405 BORAL BRICK - FOUNDATION HEWN LIMESTONE "DESERT BEIGE" MERLEX P-174 AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 6160 BEST BRONZE SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 7757 WHITE SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 7012 CREAMY SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 2740 MINERAL GRAY HANSEN ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS - COMMERCIAL RAILING MARCO SPECIALTY STEEL - www.marcospecialtysteel.com JAKOB ROPE SYSTEMS - www.jakob-usa.com 3/8" = 1'-0"3 CALLOUT of SIGNAGE ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE IS BEING APPLIED AND APPROVED SEPARATELY Page 13 of 91 1st FLOOR 0' - 0" 2nd FLOOR 12' - 0" 1st FLOOR PH 10' - 0" 2nd FLOOR PH 21' - 0" 3rd FLOOR PH 31' - 6" 4th FLOOR PH 42' - 0" 3rd FLOOR 22' - 6" 4th FLOOR 33' - 0" ROOF DECK 43' - 3" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (F.F.E. = 751' - 3") STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE GRAY BRICK RED BRICK RED BRICK SANDSTONE LIGHT BRICK SANDSTONE METAL AWNING BRONZE OPEN TO PARKING AREA GRAY BRICK RED BRICK BEIGE STUCCO BEIGE STUCCO STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM - BRONZE 2' - 0"5' - 0"14' - 6"17' - 0"21' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"2' - 0"14' - 0"2' - 0" 2' - 0"7' - 0"14' - 6"17' - 0"21' - 0"13' - 0"21' - 4 1/2"12' - 0 1/2"13' - 7" 6' - 0"6' - 0 " 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 3' - 0" 6' - 0 " 171 MAX BLDG. HT. 44' - 0" 119' - 6" OVERHEAD GLASS DOOR SYSTEM - BRONZE 8' - 0 " OVERHEAD GLASS DOOR SYSTEM - BRONZEOUTDOOR SEATING AREA 9' - 0"6' - 0 " 6' - 0"4' - 0" 3' - 0 " 4' - 0" 4' - 0 " 9' - 0" 3' - 6 " 8' - 0" 3.5 12 3.5 12 6 12 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE RED BRICK GRAY TRIM GRAY BRICK GRAY TRIM CAST STONE CORNICE GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL VERTICAL METAL RAILING WHITE TRIM BALCONY DARK TRIM HORZ. METAL RAILING DARK TRIM BALCONY 8' - 6 " GRAY BRICK GRAY BRICK 2' - 6"4' - 0" 8' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 9' - 0"6' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 10' - 0" 8' - 0 " 4' - 0"4' - 0 " PLANTER BOX WHITE TRIM DARK TRIM GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL DARK TRIM DARK TRIM YELLOW TRIM YELLOW BRICK YELLOW BRICK 3' - 0" GRAY TRIM DARK TRIM WHITE TRIM WHITE TRIM WHITE TRIM BEIGE STUCCO BEIGE STUCCO CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE GLASS RAILING SYSTEM CREAM TRIM GRAY BRICK STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE DARK TRIM STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROZE GRAY BRICK RED BRICK RED BRICK SANDSTONE RED BRICK SANDSTONE METAL AWNING BRONZE OPEN TO PARKING AREA RED BRICK 6' - 0"8' - 0" BEIGE STUCCO 33' - 3"14' - 0"27' - 3 1/2"9' - 6 3/4"12' - 0"14' - 10 3/4" BEIGE STUCCO BEIGE STUCCO 6' - 6"2' - 0"17' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"7' - 11 1/2"9' - 7"20' - 6 3/4"2' - 0"11' - 10 3/4"2' - 0" 117' - 6" 8' - 0" 6' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 8' - 0 " RED BRICK YELLOW BRICK GRAY BRICK RED BRICK 4' - 0"4' - 0 " GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL GREEN SCREEN & METAL MESH DECORATIVE WALL WHITE TRIM DARK TRIM DARK TRIM GRAY TRIM DARK TRIM DARK TRIM CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com As indicated A4 CHURCH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS WS-DE 20 4 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X DO W N T O W N E A S T BU I L D I N G 12-04-17 3/16" = 1'-0"1 CHURCH St. ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES NAME RED BRICK YELLOW BRICK GRAY BRICK STONE STUCCO CORNICE/BANDING ROOFING DARK TRIM WHITE TRIM CREAM TRIM GRAY TRIM GLASS RAIL SYS. METAL SCREEN WALL GREEN SCREEN WALL DESCRIPTION ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER" ELP-430, 810998 ACME BRICK - "ELDERWOOD" DTP-184, 728405 BORAL BRICK - FOUNDATION HEWN LIMESTONE "DESERT BEIGE" MERLEX P-174 AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 6160 BEST BRONZE SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 7757 WHITE SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 7012 CREAMY SHERWIN WILLIAMS - 2740 MINERAL GRAY HANSEN ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS - COMMERCIAL RAILING MARCO SPECIALTY STEEL - www.marcospecialtysteel.com JAKOB ROPE SYSTEMS - www.jakob-usa.com Page 14 of 91 Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com A9 PRESENTATION SHEET WS-DE 20 4 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X DO W N T O W N E A S T BU I L D I N G 12-04-17 8th STREET NORTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE 8th STREET NORTHEAST CORNER PERSPECTIVE ACME BRICK - "CACTUS FLOWER" ELP-430, 810998 ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 BORAL BRICK - COUNTRY LEDGESTONE - ASPEN METAL ROOFING, FACIA & TRIM REGAL BRONZE, STANDING SEAM CAST STONE CORNICE BANDING - AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700MAE, AA16232 ACME BRICK - "ELDERWOOD" DTP-184, 728405 DARK TRIM - SW 6160 BEST BRONZE WHITE TRIM - SW 7757 WHITE CREAM TRIM - SW 7012 CREAMY Page 15 of 91 Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com A10 PRESENTATION SHEET WS-DE 20 4 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X DO W N T O W N E A S T BU I L D I N G 12-04-17 AERIAL FROM COURTHOUSEAERIAL TO COURTHOUSE SW CORNER @ CHURCH ST. Page 16 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 1 of 7 Meeting Date: December 14, 2017 File Number: COA-2017-033- New Construction AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) of a four- story mixed use building at 204 E. 8th Street. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Downtown East Condos Applicant: John Readyhough, 7 Six Consulting Property Owner: Eric Visser Property Address: 204 E. 8th St, Georgetown, Texas 78628 Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District Case History: The Commission provided conceptual review 11/9/2017. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: n/a Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: n/a National Register Designation: n/a Texas Historical Commission Designation: n/a APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of four-story mixed use building. The first floor will consist of a 2,600 square foot commercial use and 30 parking spaces. Floors 2-4 will support residential units (26). APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies 13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back, define the edge of the property with landscape elements. – Transformer & dumpster (SW and NE Corners) are setback from property line and are screened with plantings. Complies 13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by the following: - variation in the plane of the front façade, variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building modules (4). Complies Page 17 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 2 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. - Façade (or parapet) heights varied at the front. Complies 13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure. Does Not Comply 13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings. A typical building module should not exceed 30 feet in width. The building module should be expressed with at least one of the following: A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet A change in primary facade material for the extent of the building module A vertical architectural element or trim piece 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. Complies 13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse. Complies 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Complies 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies 13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally. – brick and stone materials proposed. Staff is seeking direction from HARC regarding the number and type of roof styles proposed and whether or not gabled roofs, which reflect traditional residential development are most appropriate. Complies 13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. Complies 13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. Complies 13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians. Complies 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. Complies 13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. Complies 13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. – 0 lot line; aligns with Union on 8th Complies 13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. - one-story entry element that is similar in size to those seen traditionally, commercial programming on the first floor along with landscaping and building modulation all support pedestrian scale development considerations/ Complies 13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. - A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller, surrounding structures. Does Not Comply Page 18 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 3 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Complies 13.21 A porch on a converted residential structure should remain in place. N/A 13.22 New interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS According to Chapter 13 of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, commercial streets in Area 2 surrounding the Town Square Historic District should develop in a manner that is inviting to pedestrians while also accommodating automobiles. Development should include a mix of building types, including older structures and more contemporary ones. Each should reflect the design trends of its own time, while also contributing to a sense of visual continuity and strengthening the pedestrian experience. In addition, a combination of uses is encouraged, including residential, office, and retail. Downtown and Old Town Overlay Design Guidelines provide design goals for Area 2. As presented the application generally supports all the goals with the exception of preserving native vegetation. To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians. To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscape design that can be understood by pedestrians. To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles. To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths. Retain native vegetation with project design. Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately con- verted residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain. To utilize similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks. The applicant is proposing the construction of a four story mixed use building. The parcel is mostly vacant with a garage on the southeastern portion of the property. The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the low priority structure . The Commission will consider the demolition request in their regular meeting January 11th following the 60 day demolition delay period. The project consists of a single four story structure that is approximately 44 feet at its highest point. The proposed structure is built to the property line on all four sides. The primary entrance to the commercial space on the ground floor will be at the corner of 8th and Church Streets. Residents will access their properties through stairwells within the first floor parking garage. The applicant provided a conceptual review on November 9, 2017. The Commission generally supported the differentiation in materials and the applicant has retained the use of brick, limestone, and stucco. The Commission provided feedback and guidance for the following topics: Height of Building- applicant proposed 57’ Mass Page 19 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 4 of 7 Relationship to neighboring residential properties Since the conceptual review by HARC on 11/9/2017, the applicant has made significant changes to the proposal including a 10% reduction in the number of units; reduction in overall height and changes to materials and finishes. The proposed building does accomplish variation in plane of the facades, both horizontally and vertically; achieving modular design which supports human scale. The modular treatments reduce massing appearance, are supported by the variation of material, paint and roof types. However, the applicant and Commission may consider reducing the variations in order to represent those features that are most common in the development patterns in the Downtown Overlay and represent a more unified project. 3 façade materials (stone, stucco and brick) 4 trim colors 3 brick colors 4 roof types (flat, shed, hipped and gabled) 3 balcony railing systems (horizontal, vertical iron balcony railings and glass) The incorporation of active ground floor commercial space with outdoor seating and landscaping creates a welcoming pedestrian environment. The varying sizes of windows and canopied patios break up all four sides of the building with present on all sides of the building and contribute to the reflection of human scale. The architectural style of the project creates a compatible structure for the Downtown Overlay District, while establishing a modern feel. The proposed building supports the primary design considerations of the Design Guidelines for infill development in area 2 of the Overlay.; horizontal and vertical articulation, modulation through varying materials and setback, incorporation of active ground floor commercial space and traditional recess of entry ways, screened parking as desired by the design guidelines. 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 does not comply with the standards of the UDC. The applicant has filed for an Administrative Exception to address parking requirements. Additionally, the applicant is seeking approval to exceed Page 20 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 5 of 7 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS maximum building height (40’) through an Administrative Exception per UDC 3.16.020, under which the Director or Building Officials is authorized to grant up to 10% adjustment. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. There is no existing structure on the site. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed building does accomplish variation in plane of the facades, both horizontally and vertically; achieving modular design which supports human scale. The incorporation of active ground floor commercial space with outdoor seating and landscaping creates a welcoming pedestrian environment. Staff does recommend the applicant and Commission consider reducing the variation in materials in order to represent those features that are most common in the Downtown Area and represent a unified development pattern. Staff also recommends that the applicant and Commission consider adding a screening wall (green screen) along the eastern façade in order to address the void between the 2nd floor and the top of the wall adjacent to the parking garage. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The project does incorporate design elements common to the Downtown and Old Town districts including materials particularly limestone and brick as well as roof designs (gabled roofs reflecting residential design as well as flat roofs with parapets). Staff does recommend the applicant and commission consider reducing the variety of materials and Page 21 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 6 of 7 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS finishes to further solidify the rhythm of design along 8th and Church Streets. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. N/A. Building signage will be applied for separately. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. 1. This project may provide a positive cultural impact to the Downtown District with commercial activity on the ground floor and providing an increase in residential densities. 2. Parking is accommodated within the site as recommended in Chapter 13. 3. The project incorporates materials common to the Districts including limestone and brick, as seen at 113 E. 8th and 124 E. 8th (City Hall, 600 Degrees) as well as arrangements (horizontal) as seen at 500 S. Austin (Tamiro Plaza). City staff has provide the applicant direct feedback on the recommendations related to variety of materials and finishes. It is possible that the applicant may make recommendations to the application between the time of this reports publication and the regular meeting of HARC 12/14/2017. Should that be the case, staff will ensure those changes are highlighted for the Commission during the presentation portion of the item’s considerations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request and recommends consideration of reducing the variation in materials in order to represent those features that are most common in the Downtown Area and represent a unified development pattern . Staff also recommends that the applicant and Commission consider adding a screening wall (green screen) along the eastern façade in order to address the void between the 2nd floor and the top of the wall adjacent to the parking garage. Page 22 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission COA-2017-033 204 E. 8th Street Page 7 of 7 As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 23 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) fo r the renovation, to inc lude the enc lo s ure o f an exis ting s creening porc h, to property lo cated at 1414 S. Co llege, b earing the legal d es cription of 0.514 ac . Hughes Ad d ition, Blo ck 8 (S E/PT). - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The two sto ry, L-Plan ho me loc ated at 1414 S. C o llege, is id entified as a high p rio rity struc ture in the City’s 2016 His to ric Resources Surveys Reports (HRS R). Known as the Eid man-Nunn Hous e, this res id ential struc ture was b uilt in 1894 b y M.L. Langfo rd and is an exc ellent example o f an L Plan. The ap p licant propos es enc lo s ing a s treet fac ing s creened -in p o rch to ho us e a new P o wder Bath and Utility Ro o m. The new exterio r wall of the Powd er Bath and Utility Ro o m will b e s heathed in ho rizo ntal lap Hardi-Sid ing. New wind o ws will b e c o mp os ite fiberglas s from Anderson (100 s eries ) with lite patterns and configuration s imilar to the existing windows o f the o riginal ho use. There will als o be a new exterio r door. Additio nally, the applic ant is s eeking to rep lac e two existing garage d o o rs fac ing 15th S treet. The rep lacement garage d o o rs , in an ad d ition also added at an unkno wn date, will be s teel d o o rs in a histo rically s ensitive s tyle o f ribbed, planked o r flus h panel. Ac cording to the 2016 and 2007 Histo ric Res o urc es S urvey as well as Williams o n County Ap p rais al District (WCAD), the s creened in porc h and garage were ad d ed in 2007. Public Comments As req uired b y the Unified Develo p ment C o d e one (1) s ign was pos ted on-s ite on November 28, 2017. To d ate, staff has rec eived zero (0) written c o mments regarding renovations fro m the interes ted p ublic . Findings Staff finds that the propo s ed renovations to the rear, non-histo ric additio n, maintain the c harac ter of this high p rio rity s truc ture as well as s urrounding properties . Staff rec o mmends approval as s ubmitted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent and Supporting Material Exhibit Exhibit 3 - HRSR Survey (Reno)Exhibit Page 24 of 91 Exhibit 4- Staff Report Exhibit Page 25 of 91 A SH ST PI N E ST EL M S T E 1 5 T H S T E 1 3 T H S T MA PLE S T S M A IN S T S C H U R C H S T O LI VE S T S A U S TI N AV E E U N IV ER S IT Y AV E S C O LL E G E S T E 1 1 T H S T E 1 8 T H S T S M Y R TL E S T E 1 6 T H S T E 1 4T H S T S A N J O S E S T LA U R E L S T WA L N U T S T K N I G H T S T E U B A N K S T SO U LE D R C Y R U S A V E W 17T H S T W 16T H S T W 11TH ST E 1 7TH ST A N N I E P U R L D V H O L L Y S T GEOR GE S T W U N I V E R SI TY AV E E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T W 18T H S T H O G G S T E 1 9 T H S T W R U T E R S V I L L E D R E 1 9 T H S T E 1 4T H S T E 1 7T H ST E 1 4T H S T E 1 6T H S T E 11T H S T WA L N U T S T E 1 6T H S T E 1 7T H S T E 1 7 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T E 1 6TH ST E 1 7T H 1/2 S T COA-2017-034Exhibit #1 Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Feet Page 26 of 91 1 City of Georgetown Planning and Development Services/HARC Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC Submission for CDC Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 November 13th, 2017 The Project Scope Summary: This applica)on for CDC is for the par)al remodel to an exis)ng structure at 1414 S. College Street. The remodel primarily consists of work to be done to the Kitchen, including the enclos- ing of a street facing screened-in porch to house a new Powder Bath and U)lity Room. The remodel also includes a couple of bathrooms with no effect to the exterior. Two exis)ng gar- age doors also facing 15th Street will be replaced during this remodel as well. The exis)ng Kitchen and screened-in porch are housed in an addi)on that was added to the original home at an unknown date. The new exterior wall of the Powder Bath and U)lity Room will be sheathed in horizontal lap Hardi-Siding. New windows will be composite fiber- glass from Anderson (100 series) with lite pa;erns and configura)on similar to the exis)ng windows of the original house. There will also be a new exterior door; see photo included in submi;al packet. The color of the new exterior walls will match that of the exis)ng house (Sherwin Williams Historical Collec)on “Classic Light Buff” SW 0050). The replacement garage doors, in an addi)on also added at an unknown date, will be steel doors in a historically sensi)ve style of ribbed, planked or flush panel. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC. Sincerely, J. Bryant Boyd, AIA Page 27 of 91 2 HARC submittal for CDC November 13th, 2017 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 28 of 91 3 HARC submittal for CDC November 13th, 2017 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 29 of 91 4 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC submittal for CDC November 13th, 2017 VIEW FROM 15th STREET VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTY Page 30 of 91 5 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC submittal for CDC November 13th, 2017 GARAGE AND PORCH ADDITIONS FROM WEST EXISTING GARAGE DOORS EXISTING SCREENED-IN PORCH Page 31 of 91 6 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC submittal for CDC November 13th, 2017 Page 32 of 91 7 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Wren Remodel 1414 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC submittal for CDC November 13th, 2017 Page 33 of 91 ϴ 68%-(&73523(57< :UHQ5HPRGHO +$5&VXEPLWWDOIRU&'& 1RYHPEHUWK 3URSRVHG 1HZ([WHULRU'RRU Page 34 of 91 65 HardiePlank® Lap Siding Product Description HardiePlank® lap siding is factory-primed fiber-cement lap siding available in a variety of styles and textures. Please see your local James Hardie® product dealer for product availability. HardiePlank lap siding comes in 3657mm (12 ft) lengths. Nominal widths from 133mm (5 ¼ in) to 305mm (12 in) create a range of exposures from 100mm (4 in) to 210mm (8 ¼ in). HardiePlank lap siding is also available with ColorPlus® Technology as one of James Hardie’s prefinished products. ColorPlus® Technology is a factory applied, oven-baked finish available on a variety of James Hardie siding and trim products. See your local dealer for details and availability of products, colors, and accessories. The HZ5® product line is right at home in climates with freezing temperatures, seasonal temperature variations, snow and ice. HZ5® boards are the result of our generational evolution of our time-tested products. We’ve evolved our substrate composition to be specifically designed to perform in conditions found in these climates. To ensure that its beauty matches its durability, we’ve engineered the surface for higher performance, giving it superior paint adhesion and moisture resistance. In addition, we’ve added a drip edge to the HardiePlank® HZ5® lap siding product to provide improved water management in conditions specific to HZ5® climates. Cedarmill ©Smooth Beaded Smooth Colonial Roughsawn Beaded Cedarmill © Colonial Smooth Sloped Edge Nail Line Drip Edge Ge n e r a l Pr o d u c t In f o r m a t i o n Wo r k i n g Sa f e l y To o l s f o r Cu t t i n g a n d Fa s t e n i n g Ge n e r a l In s t a l l a t i o n Re q u i r e m e n t s Ge n e r a l Fa s t e n e r Re q u i r e m e n t s Fi n i s h i n g a n d Ma i n t e n a n c e Ha r d i e T r i m ® B o a r d s / B a t t e n s Ha r d i e S o f f i t ® P a n e l s Ha r d i e P l a n k ® L a p S i d i n g Ha r d i e S h i n g l e ® S i d i n g Ha r d i e P a n e l ® V e r t i c a l S i d i n g Ap p e n d i x / Gl o s s a r y CC M C Re p o r t Page 35 of 91 SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS 100 SERIES DURABLE • Virtually maintenance-free • Rigorously tested to deliver years* of smooth, reliable operation • Fibrex material construction provides long-lasting* performance • Durable, low-maintenance finish won’t fade, flake, blister or peel* • Fibrex material is twice as strong as vinyl Andersen® 100 Series single-hung windows allow ventilation through a single operable lower sash that slides up and down. Classic rectangular shapes are available, or use an arched top for added elegance. Made with our revolutionary Fibrex® composite material, 100 Series products are durable, environmentally smart and energy efficient. 100 Series products are available in deep, rich colors that complement virtually any architectural style. For added style, we offer a wide range of grille patterns and patterned glass options. ENERGY EFFICIENT • Weather-resistant construction for greater comfort and energy efficiency • Weatherstripping is designed to seal out drafts, wind and water • Variety of Low-E glass options are available to help control heating and cooling costs in any climate • Many 100 Series single-hung windows have options that make them ENERGY STAR® v. 6.0 certified throughout the U.S. BEAUTIFUL • Clean, attractive corner seams • Six exterior color options • Attractive matte finish interiors available in four colors • Add style with grilles or patterned glass Dark BronzeWhiteSandtoneTerratoneCocoa Bean Black EXTERIOR COLORS *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. “ENERGY STAR” is a registered trademark of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Page 36 of 91 For more information, visit andersenwindows.com/100series Fibrex® material combines the strength and durability of wood with the low-maintenance of vinyl. The wood fibers are reclaimed from our own factories, which makes this product sustainable and environmentally responsible. 100 SERIES SINGLE-HUNG WINDOWS HARDWARE FRAME OPTIONS 1-3/8" flange setback, 1" flange setback with stucco key or replacement configuration. INTERIOR OPTIONS HIGH-PERFORMANCE GLASS OPTIONS • Low-E glass • Low-E glass with HeatLock® technology • Low-E SmartSun™ glass • Low-E SmartSun glass with HeatLock technology Tempered glass and other glass options are available. Contact your Andersen dealer. PATTERNED GLASS Ideal for letting light into the home while obscuring vision. Available in four attractive patterns. ADDITIONAL FEATURES • Sash lock engages automatically when operable sash is closed • Operable sash has a meeting stile cover with a unique raised profile design, allowing the sash to be opened and closed easily ReedObscure FernCascade Colonial PrairieTall Fractional *Dark Bronze and Black interiors are only available with Dark Bronze and Black exteriors respectively. Printing limitations prevent exact color and finish duplication. See your Andersen dealer for actual finish samples. “Andersen” and all other marks where denoted are trademarks of Andersen Corporation. ©2017 Andersen Corporation. All rights reserved. SS_015 02/17 Optional lift handle matches the window’s interior. Single-hung windows feature hardware that automatically locks when windows are closed. Hardware color matches the window’s interior. Dark Bronze* Dark Bronze Black*White Sandtone New metal Slim Line hardware is available in White, Sandtone, Dark Bronze, Black, Satin Nickel and Antique Brass. GRILLES Choose from the following grille options: • Finelight™ grilles-between- the-glass • Finelight with exterior grilles • Simulated divided light • Full divided light All grille options are available in a variety of patterns. For help finding an Andersen product or dealer near you, please call us at 877.577.7655 or visit andersenwindows.com. Page 37 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1414 College St 2016 Survey ID:125329 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042802Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1894 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: vinyl siding; rear additions) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:1311 ID:660 *Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey. 2007 Survey 1984 Survey Current/Historic Name Eidman-Nunn House ID:125329 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.631048 Longitude -97.672043 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: West Page 38 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1414 College St 2016 Survey ID:125329 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 39 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-034] –. 1414 S. College St. Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 File Number: COA-2017-034 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the renovation of property located at 1414 S. College, bearing the legal description of 0.514 ac. Hughes Addition, Block 8 (SE/PT). - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Wren House Residential Remodel Applicant: Heather Donahue, J. Bryant Boyd Property Owner: Curtis and Charis Wren Property Address: 1414 S. College St., Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.514 ac. Hughes Addition, Block 8 (SE/PT) Historic Overlay: Old Town Case History: This is the first review for this application. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1880 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High 2007 - High 2016 - High National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing renovation of the existing screened in porch and garage including the addition of hard-siding to enclose the porch, the addition of matching wood windows, and the replacement of garage doors. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing it on a primary surface. Complies 6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque materials. Complies 6.13 Preserve the functional and decorative features of an historic window or door. Complies Page 40 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-034] –. 1414 S. College St. Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the original design as closely as possible. Complies 6.22 Preserve the original roof form of an historic structure. Complies 11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building that coordinates all the façade elements. Complies 11.3 A muted color is preferred for the base color of most buildings. Complies 11.5 In general, use bright colors for accents only. Complies 11.7 Wooden structures must be painted. Complies 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. – The primary structure has wood siding. The applicant proposed Hardi-siding for it's longevity as a product and it's comparable fit and finish to the existing wood siding. The applicant is willing to use true wood siding if that is the direction from HARC. Does not Comply 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed. Complies 14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and architectural style with the main building. Complies 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant proposes enclosing a street facing screened-in porch to house a new Powder Bath and Utility Room. The new exterior wall of the Powder Bath and Utility Room will be sheathed in horizontal lap Hardi-Siding. New windows will be composite fiberglass from Anderson (100 series) with lite patterns and configuration similar to the existing windows of the original house. There will also be a new exterior door. Additionally, the applicant is seeking to replace two existing garage doors facing 15th Street. The replacement garage doors, in an addition also added at an unknown date, will be steel doors in a historically sensitive style of ribbed, planked or flush panel. According to the 2016 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey as well as Williamson County Appraisal District (WCAD), the screened in porch and garage were added in 2007. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: Page 41 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-034] –. 1414 S. College St. Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies, see Exhibit 3 C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Complies, see Exhibit 2 D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Complies E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. N/A H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. 1. Complies 2. Complies 3. Complies STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposed renovations to the rear, non-historic addition, maintain the character of this high priority structure as well as surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval as submitted. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey Exhibit 6 – Texas Historical Commission PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 42 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-034] –. 1414 S. College St. Page 4 of 4 SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Page 43 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) fo r the d emo lition o f a garage and reno vation o f a residenc e, to inc lude the c o ns truc tion o f a new wind o w opening o n the east fac ad e o f the home, cons truc tion o f a new garage, and replac ement o f an exis ting column, fo r a p ro p erty lo cated at 1402 Hutto Road , b earing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.411 ac . University P ark, Bloc k 5, Lot 1-5. - Nat Waggo ner, AICP, Long Range P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The garage lo c ated at 1402 Hutto Ro ad , is id entified as a low priority s tructure in the City’s 2016 His toric Resources Surveys Reports (HRS R). This ac c es s o ry s tructure is estimated to have b een b uilt in 1952, ad jacent to a med ium p rio rity single s tory res id enc e of the same year. The ap p licant is renovating the primary struc ture and is seeking to rec tify the exis ting nonconfo rmanc e with the Unified Development Code (UDC). The garage is currently les s than 8’ fro m the p ro p erty line, whereas current requirement is 20’. T he existing driveway is 94’ lo ng. If paved , as req uired b y Code, this d riveway would require o ver 1000SF of concrete area. Furthermo re, the driveway inters ec ts the corner of Hutto and 14th and requires d ifficult turning mo vements to ac ces s the property. Mo ving and repositio ning the s tructure is not feas ible given the struc tural d efic iencies and d eterioratio n of materials . The struc ture does not possess any s ignificant architec tural features , nor d o es it represent the work of a spec ific architec t o r crafts man. The s ingle story, minimal ranch style home loc ated at 1402 Hutto Road, is identified as a med ium p rio rity s tructure in the City’s 2016 His toric Res o urc es Surveys Rep o rts (HRSR). This ac ces sory struc ture is es timated to have been built in 1952. The ap p licant propos es to convert the existing family ro o m (with a firep lace) into the Master Bedroom. One o f the wes ternmo s t b ed ro o ms bec o mes the mas ter bathroom and mas ter c lo s et; the o ther bedroom is converted into a new family room that has direc t acc es s to the exterio r c o urtyard . T he two bedrooms that face Hutto remain as is , for all intents and purp o s es – exc ep t fo r the ad d itio n o f a wind o w which will add to the street fac ing faç ad e of the residence. In ad d ition to the wind o w o n the eas t facing façade (Hutto Rd), the applic ant p ro p o s es to replac e the existing c olumn with a steel dec o rative c olumn. Lastly, the app lic ant is s eeking to c o nstruc t a new garage at the rear o f the lot fac ing no rth to 14th Street. The ap p licant propos es to matc h the materials and d es ign of the new garage with tho s e of the residence. Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all p roperty owners within a 200 fo o t radius of the sub jec t p ro p erty that are loc ated within City limits were notified of the rezoning app lic atio n (20 no tic es mailed), and o ne (1) s ign was pos ted o n-s ite on No vember 28, 2017. To d ate, s taff has rec eived two (2) written comments regard ing demolitio n fro m the interes ted pub lic. Findings of Demolition Request This lo w p riority s tructure d o es no t confo rm to the Unified Develo p ment Code and s tructural d eficiencies Page 44 of 91 render the rep o s itioning of the garage infeasib le. T he HARC Demo lition Sub c ommittee inc luding the HPO and Chief Building Official conferred on 11/15/2017 and confirmed the applic ant’s s ummary o f struc tural is s ues. The subc o mmittee did find s o me materials which c o uld p ro vide s alvage value includ ing the header ab o ve the garage door as well as s o me original wo o d s iding. Findings of Renovation Request Staff find s that the proposed renovations and ad d itions maintain the charac ter o f the minimal ranc h s tyle home and rec o mmends ap p ro val. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent and Supporting Material Exhibit Exhibit 3- HPO Recommendation Exhibit Exhibit 4- HRSR Survey (Demo)Exhibit Exhibit 4- HRSR Survey (Reno)Exhibit Exhibit 5- Public Comment Exhibit Exhibit 6 - Demolition Subcommittee Report Exhibit s taff report Cover Memo Page 45 of 91 S O U THW E S T E R N B L V D M A P L E S T E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E F M 1 4 6 0 N E I N N E R L O O P S M A I N S T H U T T O R D S A U S T I N AV E SOUTHWESTERN BLVD SE INNER LOOP E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E COA-2017-035Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 ¼½Mi Page 46 of 91 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com November 14, 2017 Historical and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: The Residence at 1402 Hutto Road, Georgetown HARC Conceptual Review Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: On behalf of my client, Evan and Courtney Lykes, I am pleased to submit here a drawing package for a renovation for the residence at 1402 Hutto Road in Georgetown. In your purview is the following scopes of work: 1) A renovation to the existing home, including a. The addition of a window to the façade at Hutto Rd, and b. The replacement of the existing porch column with a steel column 2) The demolition of an existing garage, to be replaced by a new garage facing 14th Street The request for garage demolition is outlined in a separate document attached at the end of this document for reference. Background: The existing house has a wonderful courtyard space and currently has 4 bedrooms: two in the front facing Hutto, and two in the back towards the West. As an older structure, this house does not have features that we need to live in today’s world, such as a master bedroom with an attached master bath and closet. As such, when we were first brought in to design this renovation, the client asked us to convert the front 2 bedrooms facing Hutto into one master suite with a master bedroom, master bath and master closet area. While we certainly could have done this well, we proposed a different solution that we believed would ultimately take best advantage of the existing courtyard and provide natural daylighting to the most spaces. Proposal: The proposed design converts the existing family room (with a fireplace) into the Master Bedroom. One of the westernmost bedrooms becomes the master bathroom and master closet; the other bedroom is converted into a new family room that has direct access to the exterior courtyard. The two bedrooms that face Hutto remain as is, for all intents and purposes – except for the addition of a window for your review. At the main entrance, we propose to replace the existing column with a steel decorative column. Garage: The existing garage has several issues, as described in the letter attached below. The existing garage has an awkward relationship with 14th Street, where it is parallel to the house but oblique to 14th. The new garage proposes to be perpendicular to and directly face 14th Street and observe the 20’ setback per the Georgetown UDC. Attached are drawings for your review and consideration: 1) Conceptual Rendering 2) Site Map 3) Site Plan 4) Roof Plan Page 47 of 91 5) Plan Diagrams 6) Model Diagram 7-8) Floor Plans 9) Exterior Elevations – For Information Only 10-11) Rendered Elevations 12) Courtyard View – For Information Only 13) Materials + Finish 14) Existing Conditions - Garage 15) Existing Conditions - House We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on December 14. We will have additional information at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you in advance for your time. Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Wang Architects Page 48 of 91 1Conceptual Rendering Design Concepts for Review by HARC The Courtyard Residence November 15, 2017 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 49 of 91 N 2Site Map Nov 15, 2017 Page 50 of 91 Nov 15, 2017 3Site Plan 1/8” = 1’-0” E 1 4 T H S T NEW CONC. DRIVEWAY NEW CURB CUT NEW 6' PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C PROPERTY LINE HUTTO RD NEW PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C EXISTING TREE 10' SETBACK NEW CURB CUT PROPOSED GARAGE 600 SQ FT NEW SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDE PORCH EXISTING BUILDING APPROX 2340 SQ FT EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING TREE EXISTING COURTYARD DECK NEW CONCRETE PORCH WITH BRICK PIERS PROPERTY LINE EXISTING TREE PROJECT INFORMATION: LOT AREA: 17,942 SQ FT ZONING DISTRICT: RS PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED CONST AREA: 600 SQ FT GARAGE SIDE SETBACK: 6' REAR SETBACK: 10' FRONT SETBACK: MIN 20' SIDE SETBACK 0 5 10 20 NEW METAL POST N FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 3 Page 51 of 91 4Roof Plan 1/8” = 1’-0” E 1 4 T H S T NEW CONC. DRIVEWAY NEW CURB CUT NEW 6' PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C PROPERTY LINE HUTTO RD NEW PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C EXISTING TREE 10' SETBACK NEW CURB CUT ALTERNATE TERRACE, SEE A. NEW GARAGE NEW SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDE PORCH STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH KYLAR FINISH, SELECTED BY ARCH/OWNER EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING SHINGLES TO BE REMOVED, SHEATHING PREPPED FOR METAL ROOF EXISTING TREE EXISTING COURTYARD DECK NEW CONCRETE PORCH WITH BRICK PIERS 0 5 10 20 SIDE SETBACK N FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 5 Nov 15, 2017 Page 52 of 91 EXISTING RAMP EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY RAISED BUMP EXISTING TREE LOCATION - DIAMETER TO BE CONFIRMED LINE INDICATES SIDEWALK EXISTING BUILT-IN MILLWORK EXISTING FURNACE EXISTING RAMP EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY RAISED BUMP EXISTING TREE LOCATION - DIAMETER TO BE CONFIRMED LINE INDICATES SIDEWALK EXISTING BUILT-IN MILLWORK EXISTING FURNACE N DINING KITCHEN LIVING LAUNDRY/MUD 5Plan Diagrams PLAN DIAGRAM - WHAT THEY “ASKED FOR” Nov 15, 2017 EXISTING PLAN CIRCULATION SEMI-PRIVATE PRIVATE - BDRMS SERVICE PUBLIC BEDROOM #1 SHRD. BATH BEDROOM #2 FAMILY ROOM BATH BDRM #1 BDRM #2M. CLOSET M. BATH M. BEDROOM DINING KITCHEN LIVING LAUNDRY/MUD BEDROOM #1 SHRD. BATH BEDROOM #2 FAMILY ROOM NEW PWDR RM NTS PWDR Page 53 of 91 6Model Diagram NTSNov 15, 2017 CIRCULATION SEMI-PRIVATE PRIVATE - BDRMS SERVICE PUBLIC NEW PWDR RM MASTER BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING ROOM FOYER DINING ROOM BEDROOM #1 BEDROOM #2 MUD ROOM + LAUNDRY FAMILY ROOM MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET Page 54 of 91 Nov 15, 2017 7Ground Floor Plan 1/4” = 1’-0” BEDROOM #1 107 KITCHEN 103 LIVING ROOM #2 112 MASTER BEDROOM 117 DECK 118 LIVING ROOM #1 102 DINING 104 BEDROOM #2 108 CORRIDOR B 111 TALL MILLWORK ALT: BENCH FOYER 101 MUD/LAUNDRY 110 NEW GLASS DOOR M. BATHROOM 114 PWDR RM 105 TALL MILLWORK EXISTING FRONT DOOR TO BE SHIFTED NEW WINDOW RESURFACE EXISTING FIREPLACE NEW FOLDING WINDOW, ALT: SEE 3/A211 CLOSET BASE: FOLDING DOORS ALT: (2) FIXED PANEL, (2) SLIDING DOORS, SEE 3/A211 EXISTING TREE LOCATION 60" SOAK TUB DOUBLE VANITY WALK IN SHOWER WITH GLASS PANELS FULL SIZE FULL SIZE KING SIZE OPTIONAL GRILL/COUNTER AREA NEW WINDOWS: EXISTING TO BE FILLED IN NEW DOOR WITH DOG ENTRY DINING OR LOUNGE 7' DINING TABLENEW 6 FT PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C NEW 6 FT PRIVACY FENCE WITH GATE, N.I.C BRICK PLATFORMS WITH STONE TOPS (4) RISERS, EQ HEIGHT 411 4 5 6 1J 410 1 2 3 4 410 5 6 7 8 NEW WINDOW NEW TUB MILLWORK CLST SHRD BATH 109 30" GAS RANGE 30" SINGLE SINK 410 9 412 5 6 7 8 412 9 10 7 12 411 7 8 9 10 CORRIDOR A 106 413 1 2 3 4 413 5 6 7 8 EXISTING SIDE PORCH 413 9 10 7 12 414 5 6 7 8 414 9 10 11 12 101-1107-2 108-1 107-1 105-1 109-1 108-2 110-1 110-2 103-1 111-1 117-2 117-1 ANTE A 113 115-1 1G 1F NEW TOILET 414 1 2 3 4 EXISTING SKYLIGHT A330 1 STCKD W/DSTRGE DOG SHOWER WITH HOSE BIB A330 1 SEE 2/A211 FOR ALTERNATE PORCH QUARTZ TOP (4) RISERS @ EQ HEIGHT TO REPLACE EXISTING RAMP N 310 8 311 1 310 2 3112 320 411 1 2 3 ANTE B 115 M. CLOSET 116 MILLWORK: OVERCOUNTER VANITY CABINETS SAFE BOOKSHELVES NEW PATH NEW ATTIC HATCH FREESTANDING TUB FILLER NEW WINDOW - SEE SCHEDULE 412 1 2 3 4 1H 1E 1D 1C EXISTING SINK TO BE RELOCATED HERE PULL DOWN ROD FOR CLOTHES DRYING CABINETS ABOVE NEW METAL POST NEW PATH POCKET DOOR ALTERNATE: WINDOW HERE 1B 1A A C D E FG I H J L M N O P Q R S U V W X YZ AA BB CC DD EE OPEN SHELVING - SEE ELEVATIONS 34" HOOD FURRED OUT PLUMBING WALL g h i j l n o pq FURRED OUT PLUMBING WALL RECESSED AREA IN WALL, SEE INT ELEV. GG FF A211 3 SLIDING DOORS A000 X COFFERED CEILING ABOVE, SEE RCP ALTERNATE CONCRETE PORCH HEADER HIDDEN IN CEILING, SEE STRUC. B K T EXISTING DECK 1I ALT: CEDAR CLADDING COUNTER EXTENDS 8" FROM EXTERIOR WALL STRUCTURE ABOVE CEILING N 0 5 10 20 FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 6 Page 55 of 91 8Garage Floor Plan 1/8” = 1’-0” EXISTING TREE NEW CURB CUT NEW DRIVEWAY 10' SETBACK NEW CURB CUT EXISTING TREE 8' X 16' WOOD GARAGE DOOR WITH LITES GARAGE DOOR ALT: GLASS PANEL GARAGE DOOR OPTIONAL FUTURE COUNTER 3201 320 1 320 2 320 2 NEW PATH 100-3 UTILITY SINK - SEE SCHEDULE 220 V OUTLET, SUBPANEL NEW WINDOWS - SEE SCHEDULE 1M 1L aa HH 1K 100-1 100-2 FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 7 BEDROOM #1 107 KITCHEN 103 LIVING ROOM #2 112 MASTER BEDROOM 117 DECK 118 LIVING ROOM #1 102 DINING 104 BEDROOM #2 108 CORRIDOR B 111 TALL MILLWORK ALT: BENCH FOYER 101 MUD/LAUNDRY 110 NEW GLASS DOOR M. BATHROOM 114 PWDR RM 105 TALL MILLWORK EXISTING FRONT DOOR TO BE SHIFTED NEW WINDOW RESURFACE EXISTING FIREPLACE NEW FOLDING WINDOW, ALT: SEE 3/A211 CLOSET BASE: FOLDING DOORS ALT: (2) FIXED PANEL, (2) SLIDING DOORS, SEE 3/A211 EXISTING TREE LOCATION 60" SOAK TUB DOUBLE VANITY WALK IN SHOWER WITH GLASS PANELS FULL SIZE FULL SIZE KING SIZE OPTIONAL GRILL/COUNTER AREA NEW WINDOWS: EXISTING TO BE FILLED IN NEW DOOR WITH DOG ENTRY DINING OR LOUNGE 7' DINING TABLE HEADER ABOVE NEW 6 FT PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C NEW 6 FT PRIVACY FENCE WITH GATE, N.I.C BRICK PLATFORMS WITH STONE TOPS (4) RISERS, EQ HEIGHT 411 4 5 6 1J 410 1 2 3 4 410 5 6 7 8 NEW WINDOW NEW TUB MILLWORK CLST SHRD BATH 109 30" GAS RANGE 30" SINGLE SINK 410 9 412 5 6 7 8 412 9 10 7 12 411 7 8 9 10 CORRIDOR A 106 413 1 2 3 4 413 5 6 7 8 EXISTING SIDE PORCH 413 9 10 7 12 414 5 6 7 8 414 9 10 11 12 101-1107-2 108-1 107-1 105-1 109-1 108-2 110-1 110-2 103-1 111-1 117-2 117-1 ANTE A 113 115-1 1G 1F NEW TOILET 414 1 2 3 4 EXISTING SKYLIGHT A330 1 STCKD W/DSTRGE DOG SHOWER WITH HOSE BIB A330 1 SEE 2/A211 FOR ALTERNATE PORCH QUARTZ TOP (4) RISERS @ EQ HEIGHT TO REPLACE EXISTING RAMP N 310 8 311 1 310 2 3112 320 411 1 2 3 ANTE B 115 M. CLOSET 116 MILLWORK: OVERCOUNTER VANITY CABINETS SAFE BOOKSHELVES NEW PATH NEW ATTIC HATCH FREESTANDING TUB FILLER NEW WINDOW - SEE SCHEDULE 412 1 2 3 4 1H 1E 1D 1C EXISTING SINK TO BE RELOCATED HERE PULL DOWN ROD FOR CLOTHES DRYING CABINETS ABOVE NEW METAL POST NEW PATH POCKET DOOR ALTERNATE: WINDOW HERE 1B 1A A C D E FG I H J L M N O P Q R S U V W X YZ AA BB CC DD EE OPEN SHELVING - SEE ELEVATIONS 34" HOOD FURRED OUT PLUMBING WALL g h i j l n o pq FURRED OUT PLUMBING WALL RECESSED AREA IN WALL, SEE INT ELEV. GG FF A211 3 SLIDING DOORS A000 X COFFERED CEILING ABOVE, SEE RCP ALTERNATE CONCRETE PORCH HEADER HIDDEN IN CEILING, SEE STRUC. B K T EXISTING DECK 1I ALT: CEDAR CLADDING COUNTER EXTENDS 8" FROM EXTERIOR WALL STRUCTURE ABOVE CEILING N 0 5 10 20 FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 6 Nov 15, 2017 Page 56 of 91 9Exterior Elevations 1/4” = 1’-0” FINISHED FLOOR 2'-7" NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ALTERNATE: 4 X 4 WOOD POSTS WITH RAILING 1J CEILING HEIGHT 8'-0" a.f.f NEW WINDOW, TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING - SEE SCHEDULE PORCH 0'-8" BRICK PLATFORMS (4) RISERS , CONCRETE 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING NEW CONC. SKIRT ALTERNATE: PORCH EXTENSION NOTES: HATCH INDICATES NEW WINDOW OR DOOR LOCATIONS DASHED INDICATES EXISTING WINDOW OR DOOR OPENINGS TO BE FILLED IN 101-1 EXISTING COLUMN ALT: STEEL POST, SEE STRUC. PORCH 2'-3" SIDE DECK 2'-3" CEILING HEIGHT 8'-0" a.f.f NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF HORIZONTAL SIDING - SEE SCHEDULE NEW WINDOWS - SEE SCHEDULE EXISTING SIDE DECK + STAIRS EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW CONC. SKIRT 1E1D 1A FINISHED FLOOR 2'-7" FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 8West Elevation - For Information Only FINISHED FLOOR 2'-7" CEILING HEIGHT 8'-0" a.f.f 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING STANDING SEAMMEATL ROOF NEW WINDOWS, EXISTING OPENINGS FILLED IN - SEE DEMO - SEE SCHEDULE EXISTING SIDE PORCH + STAIRS NOTES: HATCH INDICATES NEW WINDOW OR DOOR LOCATIONS DASHED INDICATES EXISTING WINDOW OR DOOR OPENINGS TO BE FILLED IN 110-1 1H1G1F ALT: NEW WINDOW HERE - SEE SCHEDULE 5-PANEL FOLDING DOORS - SEE SCHEDULE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF FINISHED FLOOR 2'-7" CEILING HEIGHT 8'-0" a.f.f 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING CHIMNEY BASE: NEW PORCH, EXISTING COLUMN ALT: STEEL FRAME AS SHOWN BRICK PLATFORMS 111-1 CONCRETE SKIRT ALT: 4" VERTICAL SIDING, CEDAR ACCENT FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 9 North Elevation - For Information Only FINISHED FLOOR 2'-7" CEILING HEIGHT 8'-0" a.f.f 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING STANDING SEAM MEATL ROOF NEW WINDOWS, EXISTING OPENINGS FILLED IN - SEE DEMO - SEE SCHEDULE EXISTING SIDE PORCH + STAIRS NOTES: HATCH INDICATES NEW WINDOW OR DOOR LOCATIONS DASHED INDICATES EXISTING WINDOW OR DOOR OPENINGS TO BE FILLED IN 110-1 1H1G1F ALT: NEW WINDOW HERE - SEE SCHEDULE 5-PANEL FOLDING DOORS - SEE SCHEDULE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF FINISHED FLOOR 2'-7" CEILING HEIGHT 8'-0" a.f.f 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING CHIMNEY BASE: NEW PORCH, EXISTING COLUMN ALT: STEEL FRAME AS SHOWN BRICK PLATFORMS 111-1 CONCRETE SKIRT ALT: 4" VERTICAL SIDING, CEDAR ACCENT FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 9 South Elevation - For Information Only Nov 15, 2017 Page 57 of 91 1/8” = 1’-0” 10Hutto Rd Elevation - Rendered Nov 15, 2017 Page 58 of 91 1/8” = 1’-0” 11E 14th St Elevation - Rendered Nov 15, 2017 Page 59 of 91 1/8” = 1’-0” 12Courtyard View - For Information Only Nov 15, 2017 Page 60 of 91 EXISTING + NEW SIDING: BENJAMIN MOORE WHITE DOVE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF: DARK BRONZE WINDOW + TRIM: DARK BRONZE 13Materials + Finish Nov 15, 2017 Page 61 of 91 14Existing Conditions - Garage Nov 15, 2017 Page 62 of 91 15Existing Conditions - House Nov 15, 2017 Page 63 of 91 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com November 9, 2017 Demolition Subcommittee C/O Nat Waggoner, COG City of Georgetown Re: Garage at 1402 Hutto Road, Georgetown Dear Demolition Subcommittee, Mr. Waggoner and the City of Georgetown, This is a residential renovation project for clients Evan and Courtney Lykes, who are a couple moving here from Austin. The proposal calls for the demolition of an existing garage on the property. The request is permission for demolition of the existing garage structure with the following considerations: 1) The existing garage is not in compliance with current City setback requirements per the UDC: It is currently less than 8’ from the property line, whereas current requirements are 20’. See page 2 below. While the existing structure is ‘grandfathered’, it currently sticks out farther than all the other buildings on the street. Furthermore, it would need to be completely rebuilt to satisfy current construction standards (for structure itself, and also sheathing and waterproofing). Also see page 6 for existing photos. 2) The existing ‘driveway’ area is 94’ long. If paved, this driveway would require over 1000SF of concrete area. Furthermore, it intersects the corner of Hutto and 14th. This not only awkward, it creates an impossible U-turn entry to access the drive from 14th Street. See page 3 below. 3) Several options were considered before fully designing the garage in the proposed location on page 4 and 5. One option was rotating the entry to the garage to 14th Street in the same location. However, the client wanted to save the existing tree. Such an alteration would also then trigger the 20’ UDC setback. We believe the proposed garage location (page 4 and 5 below) satisfies the concerns listed above and furthers the goals of the UDC, whereas the existing structure does not. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any additional information. Respectfully submitted, Gary Wang, AIA Wang Architects Page 64 of 91 N 2Site Map Existing garage structure violates current setback requirements. Nov 09, 2017 current city setback req u i r e d existing garage Page 65 of 91 Nov 07, 2017 3Existing/Demo Plan EU N I C E CO U R T HUTTO RD EXISTING GARAGE TO BE DEMO'ED EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE + CURB TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE DEMO'ED EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE REMOVED - TO BE CONFIRMED BY CLIENT EXISTING PORCH TO BE REMOVED EXISTING RAMP TO BE REMOVED OPENING FOR NEW WINDOW ALL KITCHEN MILLWORK TO BE DEMO'ED DOOR LOCATION SHIFTED NORTH EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMO'ED OPENING FOR NEW WINDOW SLAVAGE EXISTING SINK EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOWS REMOVED DOOR LOCATION SHIFTED WEST EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMO'ED EXISTING WALLS AND FIXTURES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SHOWER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED/FILLED IN EXISTING MILLWORK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW REMOVED NEW OPENING IN WALL EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMO'ED OPENING FOR NEW WINDOW EXISTING WINDOWS REMOVED EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMO'ED EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED + REPLACED N SALVAGE EXISTING VENT GRILLE VANITY + TOILET TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ATTIC HATCH TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING COFFER TO BE MODIFIED EXISTING HEADER REMOVED 0 5 10 20 SIDE SETBACK N FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 3 approx. 1,000 SF 94 f e e t d r i v e w a y impossible u-turn for vehicle existing tree 14 T H S T R E E T *Paving the existing drive would require over 1,000 SF ofconcrete with an impossible u-turn from 14th Street. Page 66 of 91 EU N I C E CO U R T NEW CONC. DRIVEWAY NEW CURB CUT NEW 6' PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C PROPERTY LINE HUTTO RD NEW PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C EXISTING TREE 10' SETBACK NEW CURB CUT PROPOSED GARAGE 600 SQ FT NEW SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDE PORCH EXISTING BUILDING APPROX 2340 SQ FT EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING TREE EXISTING COURTYARD DECK NEW CONCRETE PORCH WITH BRICK PIERS PROPERTY LINE EXISTING TREE PROJECT INFORMATION: LOT AREA: 17,942 SQ FT ZONING DISTRICT: RS PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED CONST AREA: 600 SQ FT GARAGE SIDE SETBACK: 6' REAR SETBACK: 10' FRONT SETBACK: MIN 20' SIDE SETBACK 0 5 10 20 N FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 4 Page 67 of 91 EU N I C E CO U R T NEW CONC. DRIVEWAY NEW CURB CUT NEW 6' PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C PROPERTY LINE HUTTO RD NEW PRIVACY FENCE, N.I.C EXISTING TREE 10' SETBACK NEW CURB CUT ALTERNATE TERRACE, SEE A. NEW GARAGE NEW SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDE PORCH STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH KYLAR FINISH, SELECTED BY ARCH/OWNER EXISTING CHIMNEY EXISTING SHINGLES TO BE REMOVED, SHEATHING PREPPED FOR METAL ROOF EXISTING TREE EXISTING COURTYARD DECK NEW CONCRETE PORCH WITH BRICK PIERS 0 5 10 20 SIDE SETBACK N FOR: HARC SUBMITTAL ISSUED: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Ar c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Wa n g A r c h i t e c t s LY K E S R E S I D E N C E 14 0 2 H U T T O R D GE O R G E T O W N , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 3 5 Page 68 of 91 Nov 07, 2017 6Existing Photos Rotating the garage in same location does not work for multiple reasons, including thatwe would like to keep this tree. Floor heaving behind door on left. The impossible u-turn / entry from14th Street to a 94’-drive. Page 69 of 91 Page 70 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1402 Hutto Rd 2016 Survey ID:125619 B City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R048152Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 4/20/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1952 Bungalow Other Center Passage Shotgun Open2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s) Note: See additional photo(s) on page 2 General Notes: Explain:Property lacks significance Geographic Location Latitude:30.63214 Longitude -97.662229 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 1193b ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125619 B2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: West Page 71 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1402 Hutto Rd 2016 Survey ID:125619 B City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 72 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1402 Hutto Rd 2016 Survey ID:125619 A City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R048152Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 4/20/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1952 Bungalow Other Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s) Note: See additional photo(s) on page 2 General Notes: Explain Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Minimal Ranch Geographic Location Latitude:30.632022 Longitude -97.662103 Current/Historic Name:None/None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 1193a ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125619 A2016 Survey High Medium Low Photo direction: Southwest Page 73 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1402 Hutto Rd 2016 Survey ID:125619 A City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos WestPhoto Direction Page 74 of 91 Page 75 of 91 CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Comments From Neighboring Property Owners You are being notified as a requirement of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances. You are invited to express your views or concerns regarding the -described petition by returning this comment form and/or by a ttending one or both of the scheduled public hearings on the matter. Project Name: Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Historic Structure Project Case Number: COA-2017-035 Case Manager: Nat Waggoner HARC Date: December 14, 2017 NameofRespondent: /JJtlfU!f/' F );fL-/C£~ (Please print name) Signature of Respondent: ___,,z.....' __!:://:...._/ t=-·~ __ --z,.._-·_....,.,_"...::~=---r-· :;z::~::!z:::;z._ __ Address of Respondent:$ / LfC / fi () TJb F/l (Address required for protest) I am in FAVOR: _--=:.V ______ _ I O BJECT:-------- Additional Comments: Written comments may be sent to City of Georgetown Planning Department, P. 0. Box 1458 Georgetown, Texas 78627. Emailed comments may be sent to planning@georgetown.org. Any such comments may be presented to the Commission. Page 3 of3 Page 76 of 91 Page 77 of 91 Page 78 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-035] –. 1402 Hutto Rd. Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 File Number: COA-2017-035 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the renovation of property located at 1402 Hutto Road, bearing the legal description of 0.411 ac. University Park, Block 5, Lot 1-5. - Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Lykes Residential Remodel Applicant: Gary Wang, Wang Architects Property Owner: Evan and Courtney Lykes Property Address: 1402 Hutto Rd., Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.411 ac. University Park, Block 5, Lot 1-5 Historic Overlay: Old Town Case History: This is the first review for this application. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1952 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A 2007 - Medium 2016 - Medium National Register Designation: No Texas Historical Commission Designation: No APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing the addition of a window to the façade at Hutto Rd, the replacement of the existing porch column with a steel column and the addition of a new garage facing 14th 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 5.4 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing it on a primary surface. Complies 6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque materials. Complies 6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall. Does not Comply Page 79 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-035] –. 1402 Hutto Rd. Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 6.15 Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood. Complies 6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the replacement to the original design as closely as possible. Complies 6.22 Preserve the original roof form of an historic structure. Complies 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies 11.1 Develop a color scheme for the entire building that coordinates all the façade elements. Complies 11.3 A muted color is preferred for the base color of most buildings. Complies 11.5 In general, use bright colors for accents only. Complies 11.7 Wooden structures must be painted. Complies 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies 13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally (Metal and shingle roofs are preferred) Complies 13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. Complies 13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Complies 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback. Complies 14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be maintained and respected when additions are proposed. Complies 14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies 14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Complies 14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and architectural style with the main building. Complies 14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. Complies 14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The single story, minimal ranch style home located at 1402 Hutto Road, is identified as a medium priority structure in the City’s 2016 Historic Resources Surveys Reports (HRSR). This accessory structure is estimated to have been built in 1952. The applicant proposes to convert the existing family room (with a fireplace) into the Master Bedroom. One of the westernmost bedrooms becomes the Page 80 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-035] –. 1402 Hutto Rd. Page 3 of 4 master bathroom and master closet; the other bedroom is converted into a new family room that has direct access to the exterior courtyard. The two bedrooms that face Hutto remain as is, for all intents and purposes – except for the addition of a window which will add to the street facing façade of the residence. In addition to the window on the east facing façade (Hutto Rd), the applicant proposes to replace the existing column with a steel decorative column. Lastly, the applicant is seeking to construct a new garage at the rear of the lot facing north to 14th Street. The applicant proposes to match the materials and design of the new garage with those of 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; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Complies, see Exhibit 3 C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Complies, see Exhibit 2 D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Complies E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. N/A H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. 1. Complies 2. Complies 3. Complies Page 81 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2017-035] –. 1402 Hutto Rd. Page 4 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval. As of the date of this report, staff has received two (2) written comment in support. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey Exhibit 6 – Texas Historical Commission SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 82 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Presentatio n and d is cus s io n of c o nc ep tual d es ign fo r the reno vatio n of a res idential property loc ated at 501 S. Elm Street - Nat Waggo ner, AICP, Long R ange P lanning Manager ITEM SUMMARY: and Old To wn Des ign Guidelines . Conceptual review allo ws the opportunity fo r dialogue with the Commission and s taff to d is cus s the compo nents o f the p ro ject, inc luding the p ro p o s ed size, sc ale, mas s ing, and materials for the projec t. Site develo p ment plan c o mp o nents, s uc h as parking, s ite lighting, landsc ap ing and o ther features will b e reviewed by s taff prior to the formal C ertific ate o f Appropriateness review. No formal actio n will b e taken on this applic ation at this meeting. A fo rmal Certific ate o f Appropriatenes s review will o cc ur at a future meeting. The ap p licant is s eeking feed b ack from the Commis s ion on the fo llo wing reques ts : 1. Rear ad d ition (new s treet fac ing faç ade) to res id enc e 2. Mo d ificatio n o f no rth faç ad e (5th S treet) a. R emo val o f bay windows b . P o s s ib le additio n o f Frenc h doors 3. Ad d itions includ e a. new mas ter b ed ro o m s uite b. garage 4. Street facing p o rch additio n Public Comments N/A Findings The fo llo wing items will require HARC ap proval: 1. Rear ad d ition (new s treet fac ing faç ade) to res id enc e 2. Mo d ificatio n o f no rth faç ad e (5th S treet) 3. G arage ad d ition 4. Street facing p o rch additio n FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Page 83 of 91 Description Type Exhibit 1 - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit Exhibit 2- Pre Application Notes with HRSR Exhibit Page 84 of 91 The Turpin Residence 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, Texas 17038 REVIEW SET NOT FOR REGULATORY PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION CM 12.04.17 12.08.17 A1 A1 1 EXISTING PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" Page 85 of 91 The Turpin Residence 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, Texas 17038 REVIEW SET NOT FOR REGULATORY PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION CM 12.04.17 12.08.17 A2 18' 1 1/2" 16' 3 1/4" 12' 8 3/4" 9' 1/4" 12' 11 1/4" 13' 4 1/2" 5' 0" 11' 8 1/2" 11' 5" 16' 5"8' 0" 16' 5"12' 8 3/4" 14' 3" 22' 9" 28' 2 1/2" 8' 1" 23' 4 3/4" 19' 8 1/2" 20' 7"5' 11 1/2" 20' 7" 10' 11 1/4" 11' 8 1/2" A2 1 PROPOSED PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" MUSIC RM. 12'9" X 9'0" 9' CLG. LIVING RM. 18'1" X 16'3" 9' CLG. KITCHEN 12'9" X 14'3" 9' CLG. DINING 8'0" X 16'5" 9' CLG. MSTR. BDRM. 12'11" X 13'4" 9' CLG. MSTR. BA. 9' CLG. W.I.C. 5'0" X 11'8" 9' CLG. SCREENED PORCH 11'5" X 16'5" 9' CLG. DOUBLE GARAGE 22'9" X 28'2" 9' CLG. DN DN BA. 2 9' CLG. ALCOVE 9' CLG. 30" RANGE W/ DBL. OVEN PANT. CBNT. DBL. SINK D.W. 36" REF. CBNT.CBNT. CBNT. UP COURTYARD 19'8" X 20'7" LAV.LAV. GARDEN TUB 36" X 36" SHWR. SEAT W.C. W.C. TUB / SHWR. SH. / RD. SH. / RD. SH. / RD. LINEN ABOVE LAV. COV'D. PORCH 8'1" X 23'5" 9' CLG. PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 15' BLDG. SETBACK LINE 6' BLDG. SETBACK LINE 10' BLDG. SETBACK LINE 20' BLDG. SETBACK LINE WASH.DRY. 30" F.P. EXSTG. FENCE EXISTING FENCE AREA TOTALS TOTAL LIVING AREA: TOTAL COVERED AREA: FLATWORK: TOTAL LOT SIZE: IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE: 1360 2590 586 7199 44% GUEST BDRM. 10'11" X 11'8" 9' CLG. CBNT. COV'D. PORCH 6'0" X 20'7" 9' CLG. 14' 6"14' 6" 8' 10"8' 10" UPPER FLOOR ABOVE 17' 8" 28' 9 1/2" 12' 0" 5' 8" Page 86 of 91 Pre-Application Meeting - Planner Comments Note: This meeting is for informational purpose. Any preliminary analysis provided by staff during this meeting does not constitute a formal review of the project, imply subsequent approval, nor preclude future comments. It is the responsibility of the applicant to read and comply with all applicable ordinances and requirements in effect on the submittal date. An application must be submitted within 180 days of the meeting or a new Pre-application Meeting will be required. Future meetings may be required for subsequent applications. Project Name: Meeting Date: Pre-Meeting Background: Address: City / ETJ Platted? Yes /No Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Overlays: Future Land Use: Utility Providers: Electric: Water: Sewer: or Septic Other pertinent information: Meeting Comments: Questions Requiring Follow-Up: Authorization to Submit Form completed and given to Applicant: Yes - for No – reason: Page 87 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:501 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:124302 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042564Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/1/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1940 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: porch replaced, new door) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:926 ID:609 *Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey. 2007 Survey 1984 Survey Current/Historic Name None/None ID:124302 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.639019 Longitude -97.673912 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northwest Page 88 of 91 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:501 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:124302 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos WestPhoto Direction SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 89 of 91 Pre-Application Meeting - Planner Comments Note: This meeting is for informational purpose. Any preliminary analysis provided by staff during this meeting does not constitute a formal review of the project, imply subsequent approval, nor preclude future comments. It is the responsibility of the applicant to read and comply with all applicable ordinances and requirements in effect on the submittal date. An application must be submitted within 180 days of the meeting or a new Pre-application Meeting will be required. Future meetings may be required for subsequent applications. Project Name: Meeting Date: Pre-Meeting Background: Address: City / ETJ Platted? Yes /No Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Overlays: Future Land Use: Utility Providers: Electric: Water: Sewer: or Septic Other pertinent information: Meeting Comments: Questions Requiring Follow-Up: Authorization to Submit Form completed and given to Applicant: Yes - for No – reason: Page 90 of 91 Pre-Application Meeting - Summary Note: This meeting is for informational purpose. Any preliminary analysis provided by staff during this meeting does not constitute a formal review of the project, imply subsequent approval, nor preclude future comments. It is the responsibility of the appl icant to read and comply with all applicable ordinances and requirements in effect on the submittal date. An application must be submitted within 180 days of the meeting or a new Pre-application Meeting will be required. Future meetings may be required for subsequent applications. Project Name: Meeting Date: Meeting Facilitator Comments: Questions Requiring Follow-up from City Staff: Questions Requiring Follow-up from Applicant: Applications Required (in approval sequence): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Other Items to Prepare for Submittal: 1) Utility Evaluation 2) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) 3) Drainage Study 4) Tree Survey 5) Legal Lot Verification 6) Geological Assessment Project Ready for Submittal? Yes No Additional Meetings Needed Prior to Submittal? Yes No Page 91 of 91