Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_01.26.2017Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown January 26, 2017 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. 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. Co mmis s ion may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene an Executive S es s io n at the reques t of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any p urp o s e autho rized by the Op en Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code C hapter 551. 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 and possible actio n to approve the minutes o f the Dec ember 8, 2016 regular meeting. Karen Fro s t, R ecording Sec retary C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) fo r exterior alterations for the p ro p erty lo cated at 809 South Main Street, bearing the legal desc rip tion of City of Georgetown, Blo ck 52, Lo t 3 (S/PT), 0.1106 acres Matt Synats chk, His to ric Planner D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) fo r exterior alterations fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 1803 South Main S treet, b earing the legal desc rip tion of Eubank Ad d ition, Bloc k 4, Lo t 14-13 (PTS), 0.195 ac res . Matt Synats chk, His to ric Planner Page 1 of 57 E Public Hearing and possible ac tion o n a req ues t for a Certificate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) infill c o nstruc tio n for the p ro p erty loc ated at 205 Roc k Street, b earing the legal des c rip tion of City of Georgetown, Blo ck 9, Lot 5-6, 7-8 (W/PTS ) Matt S ynatsc hk, Histo ric P lanner F Staff update and reminder o f future meetings G Co mments o r Ques tions by Co mmis s ioners -in-Training. 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 57 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2016 regular meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rding Sec retary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Minutes 12.08.2016 Backup Material Page 3 of 57 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: December 12, 2016 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood, Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero. Commissioners in Training present: Lynn Williams Commissioners absent: CIT Michael Friends and CIT Jan Daum Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; 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 and possible action to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2016 regular meeting. Motion by Knight to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Bohls. Approved 7 - 0. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for removal of a historic structure for the property located at 15 East 7th Street, bearing the legal description of Shell Addition, Resub of Blk 21, Lot 1. Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval to remove the medium priority historic structure from its current location. Originally constructed ca. 1890, the structure has been significantly altered over time, including the removal of historic windows, installation of vinyl siding, and a complete renovation of the interior of the structure. Although the structure retains its original footprint, no other historically significant components remain intact. The HARC Demolition Subcommittee met on October 27, 2016 and agreed that the structure has no historic significance and recommended approval of the request. Mee asked if the applicant could move the building instead of demolishing it. Synatschk responded that the applicant is asking for that option, but approval of the COA would allow him to do that also. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Knight to approve the application for demolition as submitted. Second by Eason. Approved 7 – 0. D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition to a residential structure for the property located at 403 East 4th Street, bearing the legal description of Outlot Division C, Block 24 (PT) 0.472 acres. Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 962 square Page 4 of 57 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: December 12, 2016 foot addition to the northeast corner of the High Priority structure. The existing structure is 1,476 square feet, making the new addition approximately 65% of the current size. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines recommend that additions be small in scale, to minimize the impact on the historic structure. The Guidelines also recommend locating an addition at the rear of the building, or setting it back from the primary façade of the existing structure. The addition consists of a master suite and a screen porch. The proposed addition attaches to the rear corner of the structure, achieving the necessary setback to differentiate the addition from the historic structure. Overall, the massing, placement and materials of the addition make it subordinate to the primary structure, minimizing the visual impact to the existing historic home and limiting the impact upon its historic significance. The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval. There were no questions or comments by commissioners. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Romero to approve the application as submitted. Second by Bohls. Approved 7 – 0. E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction for the property located at 808 South Ash Street bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, Block 28, Lot 3 (N/PT) 0.10 acres. Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to reduce the required 2nd floor setback for a proposed infill project. The current structure, identified as a Low Priority structure on the 2007 survey, is deemed a dangerous structure under the City of Georgetown’s Dangerous Building ordinance and does not require demolition review by the Historic and Architectural review Commission. Residential and Two family infill projects in the Old Town Overlay District are exempt from the Certificate of Appropriateness review when the project complies with the base zoning district site requirements. The applicant is seeking approval to reduce the second floor setback from 10 to 6 feet for a second floor hallway measuring 16 feet in length. Overall, the proposed design maximizes the buildable area, while preserving a heritage tree and eliminating existing encroachments. Reducing the second floor setback to 6 feet does not create a significant impact on the surrounding residential properties and allows for the construction of the new residence. The proposed structure is compatible in massing, materials and scale, creating a comprehensive streetscape while differentiating the new construction from the historic structures in the district. Staff recommends approval of the application. There were no questions or comments by commissioners. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Bohls to approve the application as submitted. Second by Romero. Approved 7 – 0. F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a residential structure for the property located at 208 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 4 Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the High Priority historic structure located at 208 South Austin Avenue. The structure is listed in the National Register of Historic Places for its architectural integrity. The Page 5 of 57 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: December 12, 2016 1984 Historic Resource Survey form describes the structure as “a good example of a late 19th Century vernacular dwelling with some Victorian detailing.” The rear addition, constructed between 1890 and 1916, was deemed dangerous by the Chief Building Official and removed from the stricture in 2015. The applicant wishes to construct a new addition at the rear of the structure, creating additional space inside the building for residential use. The existing historic structure is 779 square feet and the addition is 706 square feet. The Design Guidelines allow for larger additions to historic structures if the addition is set back from the primary façade and subordinate to the overall design of the project. The proposed addition is set back from the façade and placed at the rear of the structure, helping create the required differentiation for the site. The grade change of the property creates a small challenge for the view from the west (Rock Street) but material differentiation and simplified design still create the required differentiation. Staff recommends approval of the application. There were no questions or comments by commissioners. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Motion by Eason to approve the application as submitted. Second by Mee. Approved 7 – 0. G. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for an amended Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction for the property located at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lot 1 – 8, 1.3104 acres. The approved design for the project include one level of surface parking, with a single level of structured parking, interior to the proposed structure. After further review, the applicant has determined that there is an additional demand for parking, and is proposing to increase the parking structure to one level of surface parking and three levels of structured parking. In addition, the parking structure will be extended to the north, and visible from Main Street, Austin Avenue and 5th Street. The proposed size of the parking garage creates a larger emphasis on the garage by increasing the height and visibility of the structure. The previously approved railing partially obscures the vehicles in the garage, but does not completely mitigate the overall impact of the parking structure on the site and surrounding sites. A solid wall would further reduce the visibility of the vehicles and the impact on the site. Chapter 8 of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines specify that surface parking lots and multi-floored parking structures must be obscured from view. These requirements can be met in several ways, included landscape buffering, fences or other walls, and wrapping the parking area within the proposed building. The proposed expansion of the parking structure creates additional street frontage for the structure, beyond the commercial and residential structures. In doing so, it expands the façade and creates a visible edge to the structure, emphasizing the vehicles within the garage. The street edge of infill construction and structured parking should create a visually attractive and active street edge. The curvature of the exposed portion of the garage helps mitigate the impact, but the open railing still emphasizes the automotive use of the structure. Based upon the review of the Design Guidelines, staff recommends constructing a solid wall on each floor of the parking structure, utilizing the material finish for each corresponding floor. The Page 6 of 57 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting: December 12, 2016 solid wall will obscure the vehicles from the street, reducing the impact of the parking garage on the surrounding properties and the Downtown Overlay District. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the Hearing, Motion by Mee to approve the extended parking garage with the condition that a solid wall be used on the east, west and north sides to screen the parking vehicles from the street views. Second by Eason. Commissioners discussed options. Hood prefers the more organic solution, possibly plantings to screen the vehicles, or perhaps to have a solid wall on the second floor and have a more open solution on the 3rd and 4th floors. Knight argued the mass of the building is incompatible with the surrounding area. Jeff Parker, speaking for the applicant suggested the railing matches the existing building railings and the cars will be set back from the railings and not visible from the street. Motion by Hood to amend the original motion by approving the application with the railings as shown on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, facing the east, west and north facades. Second by Bohls. Approved 6 – 1 (Knight opposed). Vote on original motion as amended, 6 – 1 (Knight opposed). H. Comments or Questions by Commissioner-in-Training. Lynn Williams asked what weight comments given by citizens carry with the commission and how those comments were received. Synatschk explained that comments are received by staff and presented to the commissioners in the staff report if received in time for posting. Otherwise comments are presented to the commission during the meeting and are considered. Knight and Bohls responded that they consider all the comments given and sometimes seek comments by neighbors for a case. Eason stated she weighs the comments given on a case-by-case basis. I. Updates on downtown Projects and Events • Historic Resource Survey: work is ongoing by the consultants. They are working on the forms and the GIS map. Staff is expecting a draft report by the end of December. There will be notifications of public meetings and a comment period for homeowners to meet with the consultants and/or staff. • The next HARC meeting will be Thursday, January 26th, 2017. • The next Breakfast Bites meeting will be held January 18th. Knight asked for the COA project updates list be added to the agenda for public discussion. Synatshck stated he would check with the city legal department to see if that was allowed since the list covers items that had past actions by the commission and those items were no longer open for discussion. Adjournment Motion by Hood, second by Romero to adjourn at 6:51 p.m. Approved 7 – 0. ___________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Lee Bain Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 7 of 57 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a reques t fo r a Certific ate of Appro p riatenes s (C OA) fo r exterior alteratio ns fo r the property lo cated at 809 South Main S treet, bearing the legal d es crip tion o f City of Geo rgeto wn, Bloc k 52, Lot 3 (S /P T), 0.1106 ac res Matt S ynatsc hk, Historic P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for exterio r alteratio ns to a his toric struc ture. Ac cording to the s ubmitted letter of intent, the ap p licant wishes to rec o nstruc t a p revious ly remo ved tie rod cano p y. Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the reques t meets the approval c riteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 the Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC), as o utlined in the attached S taff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-033 Staff Report Backup Material COA-2016-033 Exhibit 1 - Plans and Specifications Backup Material Page 8 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐033 809 South Main Street  Page 1 of 3  Meeting Date: January 26, 2017   File Number:  COA‐2016‐033    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior  alterations for the property located at 809 South Main Street, bearing the legal description of City of  Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 3 (S/PT), 0.1106 acres     AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  Sincerely Yours 1848 Canopy Reconstruction  Applicant:  Daniel Solano  Property Owner: Eric Visser  Property Address:  809 South Main Street  Legal Description:  City of Georgetown, Block 52, Lot 3 (S/PT), 0.1106 acres  Historic Overlay:  Downtown, Area 1  Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.     HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  1925  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High   2007 ‐ High  National Register Designation: Noncontributing structure to the Williamson County  Courthouse National Register District  Texas Historical Commission Designation: None    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction of a previously  removed tie rod canopy.     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  10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to the style of the building  is encouraged.  Complies  10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered. Complies  10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character‐defining features. Complies    Page 9 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐033 809 South Main Street  Page 2 of 3  STAFF ANALYSIS  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct a tie rod canopy on the  primary façade of the structure. The canopy will replace a previously removed awning, which replaced  the original tie rod canopy. The Design Guidelines state that reconstruction of missing architectural  elements shall be based upon documented evidence of the original element. The original tie rod hooks  remain embedded in the building façade, indicating the presence of the original canopy.     Canopies serve an important role for historic buildings, by providing shade and protection for the  entrance and storefront and represent a character defining feature of historic commercial buildings. The  proposed canopy will be of similar construction to the original one, and will be mounted between the  storefront windows and the transom windows. The project complies with the Downtown and Old  Town Design Guidelines as presented.      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.   B. Compliance with any design standards of the  Unified Development Code;  The proposed project complies with the  design standards for the Mixed Use  Downtown zoning district.  C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design  Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,  specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay  District;  The project complies with the Downtown  and Old Town Design Guidelines by  reconstructing a missing historic feature in  an appropriate manner.   D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is  preserved.  The proposed project does not have an  adverse effect on the structure.   E. New buildings or additions are designed to be  compatible with surrounding historic properties.  No new buildings or additions are proposed  with this project.   F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The proposed project enhances the  Downtown Overlay District by  reconstructing a missing character defining  feature on the structure.   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  No signage is proposed for this project.   Page 10 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐033 809 South Main Street  Page 3 of 3  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  permitted.  H. The following may also be considered by the  HARC when determining whether to approve a  Certificate for Design Compliance:  1. The effect of the proposed change upon the  general historic, cultural, and architectural  nature of the site, landmark, or District.  2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural  features, including parking and loading  spaces, which can be seen from a public street,  alley, or walkway.  3. The general design, arrangement, texture,  material, and color of the building or structure  and the relation of such factors to similar  features of buildings or structures in the  District, contrast or other relation of such  factors to other landmarks built at or during  the same period, as well as the uniqueness of  such features, considering the remaining  examples of architectural, historical, and  cultural values.  The proposed reconstruction of the canopy  replaces a character defining feature of the  structure, enhancing the building’s historic  significance, while having no adverse effect  on the surrounding historic district. The  project will benefit the structure and  improve the  pedestrian experience along  the east side of Main Street by providing  added shade and protection from the  elements.       STAFF RECOMMENDATION  Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project as submitted.     As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this project.     ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Plans and Specifications     SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 11 of 57 Page 12 of 57 Page 13 of 57 Page 14 of 57 Jeff Alvey 512-326-1670 Drawing not to scale Page 15 of 57 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a reques t fo r a Certific ate of Appro p riatenes s (C OA) fo r exterior alteratio ns for the p ro p erty loc ated at 1803 S o uth Main S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n of Eub ank Additio n, Blo c k 4, Lot 14-13 (PTS ), 0.195 ac res . Matt S ynatsc hk, Histo ric P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for exterio r alteratio ns to a his toric residence in the Old Town Overlay District. Acc o rd ing to the s ub mitted letter o f intent, the applic ant wis hes to remo ve an exis ting p o rch and c o nstruc t a new one for the struc ture. Staff rec o mmend s approval with c o nditio ns of the reques t b as ed on the find ings that the req uest meets the ap p ro val criteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC), as o utlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-045 Staff Report Backup Material COA-2016-045 Exhibit 1 - Letter of Intent and Specifications Backup Material Page 16 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐045 1803 South Main Street Page 1 of 4  Meeting Date: January 26, 2017   File Number:  COA‐2016‐045    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior  alterations for the property located at 1803 South Main Street, bearing the legal description of Eubank  Addition, Block 4, Lot 14‐13 (PTS), 0.195 acres    AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  Clay Residence Porch Replacement  Applicant:  Robyn Clay  Property Owner: Todd and Robyn Clay  Property Address:  1803 South Main Street   Legal Description:  Eubank Addition, Block 4, Lot 14‐13 (PTS), 0.195 acres  Historic Overlay:  Old Town Overlay District  Case History: This is the first review for this application.     HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  1947  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded   2007 – Low Priority  National Register Designation: None  Texas Historical Commission Designation: None    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of an existing porch and  construction of a new porch.    APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES  The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted  Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:    GUIDELINES FINDINGS  4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements. Does not comply  7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features Complies  7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character of the  main building  Does not comply  7.10 The roof form of a new building shall be in character with that of the  primary building  Complies      Page 17 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐045 1803 South Main Street Page 2 of 4  STAFF ANALYSIS  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Low Priority historic structure  located at 1803 South Main Street. The structure was built in 1947, and significantly altered in the 1970s.  The alterations included construction of a new porch with nontraditional details, specifically the  decorative porch columns. The alterations also included cladding a portion of the primary façade with  brick.     The proposed project removes the existing porch, brick cladding and vinyl siding from the house, and  constructs a new porch on the primary façade. The new porch would continue the front gable design of  the existing porch, but add inappropriate architectural elements to the structure. The house is generally  classified as a “Minimal Traditional” style, built from the mid‐1930s to the late 1940s. Minimal  traditional houses were simplistic in their design, but still offered many of the structural components of  earlier designs, including front porches. However, the front porches lacked the architectural detailing  of previous styles, including Craftsman, Italianate and other early 20th century designs.     The proposed porch is a simplified design, but incorporates one style feature from a different  architectural style. The proposed porch columns include a boxed base, indicative of a Craftsman style  porch. Adding conjectural features is not supported by the Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines, due to the adverse impact on the architectural style of the original structure.     Overall, staff supports the request for the new porch, but recommends a simple 6 x 6 porch column,  replacing the proposed boxed columns.     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.  B. Compliance with any design standards of the  Unified Development Code;  The proposed project complies with the  design standards of the underlying  Residential Single Family (RS) zoning  district.  C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design  Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,  specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay  District;  The project does not comply with the  Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines, as detailed in the staff analysis.  D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is  preserved.  the construction of an undifferentiated non‐ historic porch also adversely effects the  Page 18 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐045 1803 South Main Street Page 3 of 4  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  integrity by creating a false sense of history  for the structure.  E. New buildings or additions are designed to be  compatible with surrounding historic properties.  The new addition is compatible with the  surrounding properties.  F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The proposed project adversely impacts the  overall character of the district by reducing  the integrity of the historic structure through  the construction of a new porch that creates  a false sense of history for the structure.]  G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted  design standards, and are not in character with  the site or landmarks within the Historic or  applicable Overlay District in question will not be  permitted.  No signage is proposed with this project.  H. The following may also be considered by the  HARC when determining whether to approve a  Certificate for Design Compliance:  1. The effect of the proposed change upon the  general historic, cultural, and architectural  nature of the site, landmark, or District.  2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural  features, including parking and loading  spaces, which can be seen from a public street,  alley, or walkway.  3. The general design, arrangement, texture,  material, and color of the building or structure  and the relation of such factors to similar  features of buildings or structures in the  District, contrast or other relation of such  factors to other landmarks built at or during  the same period, as well as the uniqueness of  such features, considering the remaining  examples of architectural, historical, and  cultural values.  The proposed porch creates an adverse  effect on the structure by creating a false  sense of history. Utilizing identical materials  also limits the ability to assess the historic  integrity of the structure, further impacting  the integrity. Although this project has  limited impact on the district overall, it  significantly reduces the historic integrity of  the structure.    STAFF RECOMMENDATION  Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project with simplified  6 x 6 porch columns.    PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 19 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐045 1803 South Main Street Page 4 of 4  As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the request.      ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent  Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications     SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  Page 20 of 57 Page 21 of 57 Page 22 of 57 Page 23 of 57 Page 24 of 57 Page 25 of 57 Page 26 of 57 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) infill cons tructio n fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 205 Ro ck S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n o f C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Bloc k 9, Lo t 5-6, 7-8 (W/PTS) Matt Synats chk, His toric Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for infill cons truc tion in Area 2 o f the Downto wn O verlay Dis tric t. . Ac cording to the s ubmitted letter of intent, the ap p licant wishes c o nstruc t a new build ing fo r us e as a c hildren’s theater and ed uc ation c enter. Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t bas ed o n the find ings that the reques t meets the approval c riteria o f S ectio n 3.13.030 the Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC), as o utlined in the attached S taff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-031 Staff Report Backup Material COA-2016-031 Exhibit 1 - Plans and Specifications Backup Material Page 27 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐031 205 Rock Street Page 1 of 4  Meeting Date: January 26, 2017   File Number:  COA‐2016‐031    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) infill  construction for the property located at 205 Rock Street, bearing the legal description of City of  Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 5‐6, 7‐8 (W/PTS)    AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  Smith Education Center – Palace Theater Infill project  Applicant:  Gary Wang  Property Owner: San Gabriel River Place Foundation  Property Address:  205 Rock Street  Legal Description:  City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 5‐6, 7‐8 (W/PTS)  Historic Overlay:  Downtown Overlay District, Area 2  Case History: The project was presented for conceptual review at the August 25, 2016 HARC  meeting.    HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  NA  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: NA  National Register Designation: NA  Texas Historical Commission Designation: NA    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a theater and  education center located at the intersection of 2nd and Rock Streets.    APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES  The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted  Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:    GUIDELINES FINDINGS  13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies  13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. 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  13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street Complies  13.15  Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge Complies  Page 28 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐031 205 Rock Street Page 2 of 4  GUIDELINES FINDINGS  13.16  Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout  the site.  Complies    STAFF ANALYSIS  The applicant is proposing the construction of a Children’s Education Center and Theater on the  southeast corner or Rock and 2nd Streets.  The parcel is currently vacant, so no demolition or other site  preparation is required.     The project consists of a single structure, housing classrooms, offices and performance spaces, and is 40  feet in height. The Mixed Use Downtown zoning district allows for zero lot line development, with 95%  impervious cover, allowing for a dense development on a restricted parcel.     The applicant originally presented to the HARC for conceptual review at the August 25th meeting. The  original design incorporated metal on the second and third floors, with a synthetic stone for the first  floor. The proposed design incorporates the comments from the HARC, which included utilizing stone  on the first floor, with additional accents, and limiting the metal cladding. Staff also requested changes  to add building articulation, primarily along the west façade.     The majority of the structure is three stories in height, with the east side theater space only extending to  the second floor of the structure. The building walls are articulated through the use of different  materials, windows and the primary entrance.      The project incorporates a mix of materials, including metal panels on the third floor, with a mix of  metal and natural limestone on the first and second floors of the structure. The portions of the  limestone extend to the second floor to add articulation to the western wall, facing Rock Street. The  predominant materials in the Downtown Overlay District are brick, stone, wood and metal.     The primary entrance for the property is at the northwest corner of the site, emphasized by a two story  entrance, with balcony and other features creating a prominent entrance.     The architectural style of the structure creates a compatible structure for the Downtown Overlay  District, while maintaining a modern feel. The design protects the character of the district, but also  allows the project to be identified as new construction, which is appropriate for the district.       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 The application is deemed complete by staff.  Page 29 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐031 205 Rock Street Page 3 of 4  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  contained within the application is correct and  sufficient enough to allow adequate review and  final action;  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 the parking requirements and  materials.   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 new structure will have limited impact  on the surrounding structures. The site is  located in a section of the Downtown  Overlay District that is mostly comprised of  modern construction.   F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The project will not have an adverse effect  on the Downtown Overlay District based on  its design, and location.   G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted  design standards, and are not in character with  the site or landmarks within the Historic or  applicable Overlay District in question will not be  permitted.  No signage is proposed with this project.   H. The following may also be considered by the  HARC when determining whether to approve a  Certificate for Design Compliance:  1. The effect of the proposed change upon the  general historic, cultural, and architectural  nature of the site, landmark, or District.  2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural  features, including parking and loading  spaces, which can be seen from a public street,  alley, or walkway.  3. The general design, arrangement, texture,  material, and color of the building or structure  and the relation of such factors to similar  features of buildings or structures in the  The proposed project is located in a section  of the district mostly comprised of modern  structures. The overall design and materials  are compatible with those found in the  district. The project utilizes a unique style to  differentiate the structure from the historic  structures found throughout the Downtown  Overlay District.   Page 30 of 57 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐031 205 Rock Street Page 4 of 4  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  District, contrast or other relation of such  factors to other landmarks built at or during  the same period, as well as the uniqueness of  such features, considering the remaining  examples of architectural, historical, and  cultural values.      STAFF RECOMMENDATION  Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the project.      As of the date of this report, staff has received comments regarding the request.      ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent  Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications     SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 31 of 57 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design January 6, 2017 Historical and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: The Palace Children’s Theater, or The Smith Performance Center HARC Review Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: On behalf of the client, the Palace Theatre in Georgetown, I am pleased to submit here a package for review for a new building proposed at the Northwest corner of Rock and Second Street. Program for this building will include a black box theater, classrooms and other educational spaces for the children of Georgetown and the greater community. We believe this project will make a significant positive impact for the City of Georgetown and Williamson County. Attached are drawings for your review and consideration: 1) A Conceptual Rendering; 2) A Site Plan; 3) A Site Design Plan; 4-6) Ground Floor, Second and Third Floor Plans, sheets 210-212; 7-10) Rendered Elevations of the Design Proposal; 11) A Perspective View from Rock and Second Street; 12) A Detailed Elevation showing Stone; 13) Photos Examples of Proposed Materials; 14-21) Additional alternates requested by the City. Alternates that enhanced the design remain in the Proposal. Ones that did not are not preferred. From the beginning of this project, we were challenged to design a building for the Palace that is both an exceptional design for the children of the area, and one that is cost-effective. One of the Palace’s central missions is to provide quality educational opportunities to the community. Thus the Palace Building Committee (PBC) has continually strived to balance future funds being used on “building capital” versus programming needs - such as Acting with Autism and other worthwhile endeavors that rely upon scholarships and contributions from the Palace. However, after our conceptual review in August, the Palace decided to accept a number of increased costs for building construction. One significant increase in cost includes the addition of limestone as a material for the ground floor. While this material does push the budget farther out of reach for the Palace, we do believe that limestone will be a quality material and enhance the overall building design. In the past months, we have also had numerous meetings with City Staff. We have explored numerous design iterations and modifications per direction by the City. After these submissions and resubmissions were made to the City, the only remaining Administrative Exception required that pertains to HARC was for Materials. We did provide an alternate design that would satisfy the UDC for materials, but that alternate was not preferred by the Client, and was ultimately rejected by the City, so it is not being included here. Some alternates provided in this document do increase the percentage of stone used, but they are also not preferred by the PBC for design reasons, all cost issues aside. The last round of those alternates are included here for your benefit. We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on January 26. We will have additional information as well as material samples at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.677.9610. Thank you in advance for your time, and I look forward to seeing you in a few weeks. Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA, Principal Wang Architects LLC Page 32 of 57 Design Concepts for Review by HARC The Palace Children’s Theater January 6, 2017 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING 1Conceptual Rendering Page 33 of 57 2 EL MONUMENTO Site Plan SAN GABRIEL RIVER BLUE HOLE PARKING PARKING GARAGE THIRD STREET FOURTH STREET SECOND STREET AU S T I N A V E N U E RO C K S T R E E T Page 34 of 57 PROJECT INFORMATION Lot Area - 9840 sq. ft. Zoning District - MU-DT Proposed Use - Education and Assembly Proposed Construction Area - 5652 sq. ft. 2ND STREET PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TERRACE ABOVE 72' 9" 77' 9" 88' 7" 27' 2" 16' 3" EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING STRUCTURE RO C K S T R E E T 15' 9'5" PROPERTY LINE 3Site Design Plan Page 35 of 57 C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D C1 - D UP UP A3131 A312 A311 A310 1 1 1 B C E F G H I 1 4 5 6 PERFORMANCE HALL 102 FAMILY RESTROOM 105 MEN'S RESTROOM 106 STAGING AREA 107 CUST. 111 ENTRANCE 101A 1 A410 1 A411 1 A413 1 A414 102-1 A810 A811 A812 A810 A810 A811 A812 3B 1 4 3 2 24 9 10 11 12 1 56 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1C 1D 102-2 109-1 MACHINE- ROOMLESS ELEVATOR LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE HAND-SINK AND MILLWORK 1F A710 1 A720 1 A712 1 A240 1 3 UTILITY ROOM 110 WOMEN'S RESTROOM 104 ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK RISERS N.I.C 8" STEEL STUD WALL - SEE A.420 LINE OF TEMPORARY STAGE CARGO DOOR ALTERNATE: CUBBIES MILLWORK TGP FIREFRAMES INT. WINDOW WALL STOREFRONT W INDOW WALL + ENTRANCE DOOR OPTIONAL: BLACK-OUT CURTAINS 108-1 112-1 109-2 102-4 102-5 102-3 111-1 102B-1 105-1 1A BOX OFFICE 102B OFFICE 103 A812 11 12 13 14A8128 7 10 9 A810 5 7 EXIT DOORS GRAND STAIRCASE 100 2 ALTERNATE: MILLWORK BENCH FIRE ROOM 108 FIRE STAIR 109 63 CORRIDOR 112 LOBBY 101 DONOR WALL LOCATIONS A C DONOR WALL LOCATIONS D LINE OF DROPPED SOFFIT B 1G 1E 1H 1J 101-1101-2 100-2 D 8' - 0"7' - 10 1/2"32' - 0"11' - 11" 9' - 1 0 " 15 ' - 1 " 8' - 7 " 11 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 1 " 12' - 0 1/2" A 16 ' - 2 " 15 ' - 5 " 1K 1L 1I ALTERNATE: CAST IN PLACE STAIRS FIXED WINDOW/SLIDING DOOR 1N 1M POST INDICATOR VALVE A230 1 8" FURRING WALL FOR PLUMBING STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE ALTERNATE: CAST IN PLACE STAIRS 8" STEEL STUD WALL 100-1 111-2 108-1 104-1 106-1 ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK COUNTERTOP HOLD OPEN HM DOORS - SEE DOOR SCHEDULE HOLD-OPEN DOOR Ar ch 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 (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 © 2016 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A210 SMI T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GEO R G E T O W N , T X DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 85% - AUG 02, 2016 3/16" = 1'-0"1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN Page 36 of 57 DN UP UP DN A3131 A312 A311 A310 1 1 1 B C E F G H I 1 4 5 6 GRAND STAIR 200 CUSTODIAL 204 REHEARSAL ROOM 201-A TEACHER'S LOUNGE 205 FAMILY WC 206 GIRLS 207 BOYS 208 ARTS & CRAFTS 209 1 A410 1 A411 1 A413 1 A414 A820 1 2 3 4 A821 7 5 68 A821 9 10 11 12 A821 3 2 1 4 MONOLOGUE ROOM 211 W IRE RAILING LINE OF STAIR ABOVE PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM 2A 2B 204-1 206-1 207-1208-1 215-1 A710 3 A712 2 --- - A240 2 3 CURTAIN/SCREEN MACHINE- ROOMLESS ELEVATOR PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM FLEX SPACE 201-B OPEN TO BELOW W IRE RAILING FLOOR FINISH DENOTES STAGE LIGHTING + SOUND A821 13 14 15 16 2D 211-2 201-1 ALTERNATE: CUBBIES 2J A8208 6 7 5 2 203 201-2 ALTERNATE TALL MILLWORK FIRE STAIR 210 COUNTERTOP WITH SINK/STORAGE A822 3 2 1 4 LINE OF DROPPED GWB SOFFIT DRINKING FOUNTAINS (N.I.C) A230 3 TERRACE 212 D CORRIDOR 203 ALTERNATE: CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE STAIRS FLOOR : SEALED COATING FOR TRAFFIC. 1/8" SLOPE FOR DRAINAGE STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE ALTERNATE: CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BALCONY 202 CURTAIN HANGING SYSTEM INTEGRAL PICTURE RAILBAR TABLES, N.I.C 211-3 211-1 ALTERNATE: ALL TALL MILLWORK, EQUIPMENT SINK + COUNTERTOP NANA-WALL ACCORDIAN ALTERNATE : STORE-FRONT GLAZING STORE-FRONT GLASS DOOR - SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FR HOLD OPEN GLASS DOOR OVERHEAD SOFFIT 2M 2L Ar ch 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 (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 © 2016 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A211 SMI T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GEO R G E T O W N , T X DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 85% - AUG 02, 2016 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN Page 37 of 57 A3131 A312 A311 A310 1 1 1 B C E F G H I 1 4 5 6 GRAND STAIR 300 DANCE STUDIO 301-A STORAGE 302 MUSIC ROOM 303 CLASSROOM 1 304 CLASSROOM 2 305 ARTS & CRAFTS 306 BOYS BATHROOM 307 GIRLS BATHROOM 308 LANDING 309 1 A410 1 A411 1 A413 1 A414 A830 3 2 1 4 A830 5 6 7 8 A830 9 10 11 12 A831 1 2 3 4 A831 5 6 7 8 302-1 3F 3D 3C ROOF ACCESS DOOR 10' ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM COUNTERTOP WITH SINK + STORAGE A83112 9 10 11 A712 3 A710 5 A240 3 3 MIRRORS MACHINE- ROOMLESS ELEVATOR PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM FLOOR MOUNTED BALLET BARS MIRRORS, WALL MOUNTED 3B DANCE SHOE AREA 301-B ALTERNATE: STORAGE BENCH FOR DANCE SHOES 3A PIANO DRINKING FOUNTAINS 3I 3I 3K 3L 3M 3N 3P 2 302-2 ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK 3G FIRE STAIR 310 CORRIDOR 311 DROPPED SOFFIT UTILITY SINK D A231 1 301-1 ALTERNATE: CAST IN PLACE STAIRS ALTERNATE: CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE STAIRS A 3R EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY 301-2 STOREFRONT DOUBLE DOORS STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE 303-1 304-1 305-1 306-1 307-1 308-1 ALTERNATE: BLADE 310-1 FLOOR ON SLEEPERS, N.I.C 300-1 3Q Ar ch 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 (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 © 2016 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A212 SMI T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GEO R G E T O W N , T X DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 85% - AUG 02, 2016 3/16" = 1'-0"1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN Page 38 of 57 7West Elevation Page 39 of 57 8North Elevation Page 40 of 57 9East Elevation Page 41 of 57 10South Elevation Page 42 of 57 11Stone Pattern Typ. sizes 48” x 24” 48” x 15” Page 43 of 57 12Perpective View Page 44 of 57 13Materials PBD METAL PANEL - GAVALUME FINISH SIMILAR PRODUCT: METAL @ THINKERY SIMILAR PRODUCT: STONE @ GEORGETOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY LIMESTONE VENEER Page 45 of 57 14Alternate - with Cornice not preferredPage 46 of 57 15Alternate - with 2nd Storey Stone not preferredPage 47 of 57 16Alternate - with Shades not preferredPage 48 of 57 17Alternate - with Cornice not preferredPage 49 of 57 18Alternate - with 2nd Storey Stone not preferredPage 50 of 57 19Alternate - with Shades not preferredPage 51 of 57 20Alternate - with Cornice not preferredPage 52 of 57 21Alternate - with Shades not preferredPage 53 of 57 not preferred 22Alternate - with Cornice Page 54 of 57 23Alternate - with Shades not preferredPage 55 of 57 Alternate - with Cornice 24not preferredPage 56 of 57 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Staff up d ate and remind er of future meetings ITEM SUMMARY: 1. His toric Res ourc e Survey 2. Aus tin Avenue Bridges 3. F ixed Route Bus S ys tem 4. Do wntown Wes t 5. His toric Street Signs Next HARC Meeting - F eb ruary 23, 2017 FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner Page 57 of 57