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_01.09.2020
Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown January 9, 2020 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. The H istor ic and Ar chite ctural R evie w Commission, appointed by the M ayor and the C ity Counc il, is re sponsible for he aring and taking final ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppropriateness base d upon the City C ouncil adopte d Downtown De sign Guide line s and Unifie d De ve lopme nt Code. Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s: · S taff P re se ntation · Applic ant P r esentation (L imited to ten minutes unle ss state d othe rwise by the C ommission.) · Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant · C omments from C itize ns * · Applic ant Re sponse · C ommission De libe rative P roc ess · C ommission A ction * Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the r oom, to the r ec ording se cr etar y be for e the item the y wish to addre ss be gins. E ach speaker will be pe rmitte d to addr ess the Commission one time only for a maximum of thre e minute s. L egislativ e Regular Agenda A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the Dec ember 12, 2019 regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a 12.3’ setback mo d ificatio n fo r the ad d ition o f a carport at the property loc ated at 1606 S . Walnut S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n of Eidman Addition, BL O C K 5, Lot 2 (E/P T ), AC R ES 0.17. (2019-60-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a req uest fo r a C ertific ate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new signage that is inc o ns is tent with the applic ab le G uid elines at the p ro p erty loc ated at 206 W. 2nd S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n of T HI R D & R O C K C O UR T S UB, BLO C K A, Lot 2, AC R E S 0.226. Page 1 of 38 (2019-78-C O A) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner D Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 38 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 9, 2020 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the December 12, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Minutes Backup Material Page 3 of 38 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2 Meeting: December 12, 2019 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes December 12, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Josh Schroeder; Amanda Parr; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Call to order by Chair Schroeder at 6:00 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 10, 2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve Item A as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Romero. Approved (6-0), with Commissioner Nunn abstaining because she was not present at the October 10 meeting. B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an alteration to a commercial property located at 712 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of Georgetown City of BLOCK 41, Lot 5(PT), ACRES 0.06. (20109-66-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report presented by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the modification of the existing ground floor storefront, which is not original to the building, to return the façade to an appearance more consistent with two story buildings of the turn of the 20th century time period. The new façade would have an inset double door for the first floor, a left side door for the interior stair leading to the second floor, and a deep metal awning reminiscent of the deep awning visible in historic photos of the building. Additionally, the building would have a new paint scheme, new upper floor windows to replace the existing wood windows and new brick on the ground floor façade to replace the painted brick that was modified for the non-original storefront installation. Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for alterations to the façade of this high-priority structure, with the exception that the wood windows on the upper floor be repaired and repainted rather than replaced. The proposed façade design is consistent with the Design Guidelines as well as with buildings of that era and with the Downtown Historic District, and the proposed design enhances the District by returning ground level features that are characteristic of buildings from the Victorian era and by removing features that were not character-enhancing. Kris Kasper, the applicant, explained to the Commission that when the windows were replaced, they were not able to save the casement but did run trim to match. Although it is recommended to use storm windows, this creates a non-workable space as it gets hot in the upstairs part of the Page 4 of 38 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Meeting: December 12, 2019 house. In regards to the brick on the first floor, he couldn’t tell if brick was used or not, or if the brick provides additional support. Chair Schroeder opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item B (2019-66-COA) as presented by Commissioner Parr. Second by Commissioner Romero. Approved (7-0). C. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Nelson provided a brief overview of the parking garage item that will be coming to HARC next month. Commissioner Romero asked about if City Council has set any start/end times during the day for construction. Nelson commented that she will follow up and check the City Code. Chair Schroeder asked if the Commission can meet to review examples of other garages done in other cities, prior to the item presented at HARC. Nelson commented that can be done. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Parr. Meeting adjourned at 6:26 P.M. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary Page 5 of 38 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 9, 2020 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and possible action on a req uest fo r a C ertific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (C O A) for a 12.3’ s etbac k modific ation for the ad d ition of a carport at the property lo cated at 1606 S . Walnut S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n of Eid man Ad d ition, BL O C K 5, Lo t 2 (E/P T ), AC R ES 0.17. (2019-60-C O A) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is propos ing the addition of a 23’-0” deep c arport to the front of the non-historic res idential s tructure, whic h would encroac h 12.3’ into the required 25’ s treet-facing garage setback. T he res id ential s truc ture is c urrently s et bac k 35.7’ fro m the front property line. T he right o f way along Walnut S treet is 60’ wide and there is approximately 9.5’ b etween the s treet c urb and the front property line. In to tal, the existing res id ential struc ture is approximately 45’ fro m the s treet curb . If the c arport addition was approved, the front of the c arport would be loc ated approximately half the distanc e between the street curb and the front of the house. T he proposed des ign of the c arport, whic h would be able to ac commodate two vehicles, is of a s tyle, s cale and materials that are c o mp atible with the exis ting struc ture. T he proposed carport has a s imilar roof pitch, would have the s ame roofing material, and wo uld have c o lumns and trusses that combine wo o d and stone to coordinate with the sto ne exterio r of the res idenc e. W hile the existing residential s tructure is no t his toric , the proposed carport addition would c omply or partially comply with the applicable Des ign G uidelines . F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 – Drawings and Specifications Exhibit Page 6 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-60-COA – 1606 S. Walnut St. Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: Thursday, January 9, 2020 File Number: 2019-60-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a 12.3’ setback modification to the 25’ setback for the addition of a carport at the property located at 1606 S. Walnut Street, bearing the legal description of Eidman Addition, BLOCK 5, Lot 2 (E/PT), ACRES 0.17. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1606 S. Walnut Carport Addition Applicant: Claudia Espinoza Property Owner: Claudia Espinoza Property Address: 1606 S. Walnut Street Legal Description: Eidman Addition, BLOCK 5, Lot 2 (E/PT), ACRES 0.17 Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1995 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: Setback modification HPO: Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (non-contributing structure) STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the addition of a 23’-0” deep carport to the front of the non-historic residential structure, which would encroach 12.3’ into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback and result in a 12.7’ setback if approved. Along S. Walnut Street the residential structures are primarily low priority structures or not designated as historic, and they vary in distance to front property lines. Residential structures along the west side of S. Walnut Street are typically situated further back from front property lines and street curbs than are the residential structures along the east side of the street, due to the alignment of the right of way. The structures on the east side of the street are a similar distance back from the street curb as the structures on the west side, providing for a somewhat uniform appearance along the block. Part of the evaluation criteria in UDC 3.13.030.D for a setback modification Page 7 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-60-COA – 1606 S. Walnut St. Page 2 of 6 is whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located, and whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block. In this block of S. Walnut Street, the proposed setback would be set closer to the street than other units within the block. The residential structure is currently set back 35.7’ from the front property line. The right of way along Walnut Street is 60’ wide and there is approximately 9.5’ between the street curb and the front property line. In total, the existing residential structure is approximately 45’ from the street curb. If the carport addition was approved, the front of the carport would be located approximately half the distance between the street curb and the front of the house. The proposed design of the carport, which would be able to accommodate two vehicles, is of a style, scale and materials that are compatible with the existing structure. The proposed carport has a similar roof pitch, would have the same roofing material, and would have columns and trusses that combine wood and stone to coordinate with the stone exterior of the residence. While the existing residential structure is not historic, the proposed carport addition would comply with the applicable Design Guidelines. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER 7 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that have occurred to the building. An addition should be made distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new structures may help to define an addition. The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should match that of the original building, in appearance, detail, and material. Even applying a new trim board at the connection point between the addition and the original structure can help define the addition. Complies Proposed addition can be identified as such and is distinguishable from the original building. Page 8 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-60-COA – 1606 S. Walnut St. Page 3 of 6 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Complies Proposed addition is to the front of the primary façade and not subordinate to the existing facade. However, the addition of a carport to the rear or side of the structure is infeasible due to the lot width and the width of the existing structure, and the proposed addition does not obscure the character- defining feature of the gabled porch. The addition is of a similar scale and design character to the gabled porch with its own gabled end and similar proportions. 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Complies Proposed addition is similar in form and has compatible materials and character with the main building. The scale of the addition is necessary to accommodate the proposed use, and while it is not subordinate to the primary building, the primary building is not historic, and the proposed addition is appropriate for and consistent with the residential type. The design is appropriately simple and includes mainly functional components of columns and roof framing under a roof that will match with and tie into the existing roof. 7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for commercial buildings in the downtown area. Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original roof, and Complies Roof of proposed addition is a gable roof like that of the primary building with a similar slope and materials. The addition connects to the primary building via the roof but does not change the shape of the primary roof. Page 9 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-60-COA – 1606 S. Walnut St. Page 4 of 6 GUIDELINES FINDINGS should have a roof form compatible with the original building. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Partially Complies Proposed carport addition encroaches into required setback and requires a setback modification. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Not Applicable Property is a non-contributing structure on the edge of the Old Town Historic Overlay. 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Complies Proposed addition complies with two and partially complies with two of the applicable Chapter 7 Guidelines. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies Proposed addition does not diminish the integrity of the building. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies Some surrounding properties have carports or carport additions, but those are generally located to the side and not to the front of the buildings. However, the proposed carport addition does not take away from the surrounding properties. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies Proposed addition does not diminish the character of the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Not Applicable No signage proposed. Page 10 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-60-COA – 1606 S. Walnut St. Page 5 of 6 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a request for COA for a setback modification: SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; Partially Complies Addition of a carport is for the convenience of covered parking for the owner’s vehicles, however, there is not a feasible alternative location for the carport on the property. b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Complies Addition of a carport does not have sufficient room on the site without a setback encroachment. c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; Partially Complies Two properties to the north, including the property adjacent, have structures that are located closer to the front property lines than the subject property. d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; Partially Complies Structures on the same side of the block are generally situated farther back from front property lines than the proposed addition, structures on the opposite side are generally situated similarly to front property lines as the proposed addition. e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; Not Applicable No structures removed. f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Not Applicable No previously existing structure. g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; Not Applicable No previously existing structure. Page 11 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-60-COA – 1606 S. Walnut St. Page 6 of 6 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; Complies The scale of the proposed addition is appropriate to the scale of the existing house. i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; Complies Proposed structure is consistent with the size of other structures within the block. j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; Complies Proposed addition does not negatively impact adjoining properties and is not proposed to encroach into a side setback. k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Complies Proposed carport addition does not restrict room for maintenance. l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. Not Applicable Large trees or significant features not proposed to be removed for addition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for a setback modification for the construction of a carport addition. The carport is compatible with the scale and character of the primary building, complies or partially complies with the applicable guidelines and review criteria, and is not out of character with surrounding properties. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Drawings & Specifications SUBMITTED BY Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 12 of 38 ASH S T PINE ST E 15TH ST E 13TH S T MAP LE S T S M AI N S T EL M S T S C H U R C H S T E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E E 1 8 T H S T E 1 9 T H S T OLI V E ST S AUS TIN AVE S C O L L E G E S T S A N J O S E S T E 1 6 T H S T VINE S T E 14TH ST WALNUT ST E 2 0 T H S T S M Y RTLE S T LAURE L ST H O G G S T E U B A N K S T K N I G H T S TCYRUS A V E PAIG E ST A L L E Y JA ME S ST E 1 7 TH S T BRUSH Y ST W 17TH S T W 16TH S T E 1 9 T H 1 /2 S T A N N I E P URL DV W 18TH ST H O L L Y S T W 1 9 T H S T GEORGE ST E 1 7 TH 1 /2 S T W UNIVERSITY AVE E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T E 1 7 T H S T E 1 4 T H S T WALNUT ST E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T L A U R E L S T E 16TH ST V I N E S T E 16TH ST E 1 7 T H S T E 14TH S T E 17TH ST E 2 0 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T E 1 9 T H S T E 16TH ST E 17TH ST H O L L Y S T 2019-60-COAExhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 250 500Fee t Page 13 of 38 Page 14 of 38 Page 15 of 38 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 9, 2020 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and possible action on a req ues t fo r a C ertific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (C O A) for new s ignage that is incons is tent with the applic ab le G uidelines at the property lo cated at 206 W. 2nd S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n of T HI R D & R O C K C O URT S UB, B L O C K A, Lo t 2, AC R ES 0.226. (2019-78-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he proposed s ignage for the P erformanc e C enter inc ludes two (2) signs, both of whic h are larger than s upported by the G uidelines and one of whic h makes use of a lighting s tyle disc ouraged by the Des ign G uidelines. T he proportions and loc ations of the signs in relation to the s cale of the building, however, are cohes ive with both the des ign of the building and the location on a c orner lot, whic h provides for two s treet-facing facades and a larger total façade area for the building. T he building’s asymmetric al main faç ade provides a s ign area near the top of the struc ture, which is used to dis play the name of the building. As the loc ation of the sign is approximately three s tories above the street level and the proportions of the s ign are des igned to fit within an architec tural element (defined by the exterior building material), the additional s quare footage for the flus h-mounted sign does not detrac t from the design of the building or overwhelm any of the architec tural features. T he projec ting s ign is located on the s econdary or side s treet-facing façade, whic h is approximately 90 feet in length and approximately three s tories tall. T he s cale of the façade facing R ock S treet lends itself to a larger projecting sign than would be s upported by the Des ign G uidelines , in part becaus e the building has a s ingle us er rather than a multi-tenant condition in whic h multiple signs over multiple entrances might be propos ed. T he projec ting s ign references the sign on the main faç ade of the P alac e T heater, assoc iating this building and us e with a well-known location just south of the C ourthouse S quare on Aus tin Avenue. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Drawings & Specifications Exhibit Page 16 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 1 of 7 Meeting Date: Thursday, January 9, 2020 File Number: 2019-78-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new signage that is inconsistent with the applicable Guidelines for the property located at 206 W. 2nd Street, bearing the legal description of THIRD & ROCK COURT SUB, BLOCK A, Lot 2, ACRES 0.226. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Doug Smith Performance Center Exterior Signage Applicant: Aaron Salinas (Facility Solutions Group) Property Owner: Georgetown Palace Theater Inc. (Michael Davis) Property Address: 206 W. 2nd Street Legal Description: THIRD & ROCK COURT SUB, BLOCK A, Lot 2, ACRES 0.226 Historic Overlay: Downtown Historic Overlay District Case History: COA-2016-031- New Construction HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: New Construction Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: New signage that is inconsistent with Design Guidelines 9.7 and 9.10 STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed signage for the Performance Center includes two (2) signs, a flush-mounted wall sign on the front (north) façade of the building facing W. 2nd Street, and a projecting sign or blade sign on the west façade facing S. Rock Street. The flush-mounted wall sign is positioned near the top of the building, and is constructed of aluminum channel letters with a matte black finish that are internally-lit for a halo lighting effect – the illumination will surround the letters on the face of the building rather than the letters themselves being lit. This flush-mounted sign is 75.9 sq. ft. in size, measured as a rectangle around the individually-mounted letters. The projecting or blade sign is located on the west street-facing façade and is placed on the upper half of the building, near the northwest corner. The blade sign constructed of aluminum panels with a burgundy finish, and the letters spelling out “PALACE” are cut out of the aluminum panels. A diffuser film will be installed in the letter cut-outs so that the “PALACE” letters will be illuminated from within. The sign is constructed with the aluminum panels at an angle to each other and references the Palace Theater sign on S. Austin Avenue. Page 17 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 2 of 7 The building’s asymmetrical main façade provides a sign area near the top of the structure, which is used to display the name of the building. As the location of the sign is approximately three stories above the street level and the proportions of the sign are designed to fit within an architectural element (defined by the exterior building material), the additional square footage for the flush-mounted sign does not detract from the design of the building or overwhelm any of the architectural features. Flush- mounted wall or façade signs are limited to 1 square foot per 1 linear foot of façade width. The building façade width is 73’-4”, which allows for a sign with an area of 73.33 sq. ft. The proposed flush-mounted sign is 75.9 sq. ft, approximately 2.5 sq. ft. larger than the size supported by the Design Guidelines. The halo lighting of the façade sign is not supported by the Design Guidelines as a lighting type, but in the context of a new building with contemporary design using contemporary building materials in an area of new construction (primarily commercial but also including multi-family), the halo lighting type is more fitting than it would be in other areas of the Downtown Historic Overlay District. The projecting sign is located on the secondary or side street-facing façade, which is approximately 90 feet in length and approximately three stories tall. The scale of the façade facing Rock Street lends itself to a larger projecting sign than would be supported by the Design Guidelines, in part because the building has a single user rather than a multi-tenant condition in which multiple signs over multiple entrances might be proposed. The projecting sign references the sign on the main façade of the Palace Theater, associating this building and use with a well-known location just south of the Courthouse Square on Austin Avenue. It also orients pedestrians and vehicles on Rock Street to the use of the building from both Rock Street and from the connection point to the City’s Trail system at Blue Hole Park, and a sign fitting within the maximum size established by the Guidelines may not, in this instance, appear to be properly scaled to the new performance center. Projecting signs shall not be more than fifteen square feet in size with a maximum sign height of five feet. The proposed projecting sign or blade sign is 53.96 sq. ft; and 17’- 6” in height, effectively 39 sq. ft. larger and 12.5’ taller than the requirements of the Design Guidelines. The internal illumination of the projecting sign complies with the Guidelines in that only the letters are proposed to be illuminated and not the sign in its entirety. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER 9 9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program. Coordinate a sign within the overall façade composition. A sign should be in proportion to the building, such that it does not dominate the appearance. Complies Proposed signs are coordinated with the design of the facades and relate to the composition, placement of exterior materials and openings, and scale of the building. 9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition. Complies Page 18 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 3 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS A sign should appear to be in scale with the façade. Locate a sign on a building such that it will emphasize design elements of the façade itself. Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural features. Use the shape of the sign to help reinforce the horizontal lines of moldings and transoms seen along the street. Proposed signs are in scale with the façade and emphasize the design elements of the building, as well as fit within architectural features. 9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. To avoid driver confusion, the information on the primary sign should be in a large enough font or design that it is easily viewable from a vehicle. The sign should contain only enough information to alert the viewer in a vehicle to the location of the business or entity at the building. Whenever possible, other signs should be utilized for information geared towards pedestrian or other viewers. The primary sign should be easily viewable from a vehicle with as little visual clutter as possible. Complies Proposed primary sign identifies the use of the building and is clear, without clutter and is sufficiently large to be viewable from a vehicle. 9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or businesses offered within. Typically, a secondary sign is intended to capture the attention of pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. The sign should contain only enough information to alert the viewer on a sidewalk to the location of the business or entity at the building. The secondary sign should be easily viewable from the sidewalk with as little visual clutter as possible. Complies Proposed secondary sign is oriented toward pedestrians, is easily viewed from the sidewalk, and clearly identifies use of the building. 9.7 A flush-mounted wall sign shall not exceed one square foot for every one foot of linear façade width. • For instance, a building with twenty feet of street frontage would be eligible for a sign of twenty square feet (20 x 1 = 20). In true sign Does Not Comply The building façade width is 73’-4”, which allows for a size with an area of 73.33 sq. ft. The proposed flush-mounted sign is 75.9 sq. ft. Page 19 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 4 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS dimensions, this would be a sign of approximately two feet by ten feet. • Note that the formula establishes the maximum permitted sign area, when all other factors of scale, proportion, and compatibility are met. A sign does not have to be as large as this equation allows. The first consideration shall be compatibility with the size and character of the façade. • In a case where a building has more than one face exposed to a public way, the allowed sign area may not be combined. 9.10 A projecting sign may be considered. A projecting sign should appear to be in proportion with the building. It should not overwhelm the appearance of the building or obscure key architectural features. A projecting sign shall provide a minimum clearance of eight feet between the sidewalk surface and the bottom of the sign. • A projecting sign shall be no more than fifteen square feet in size with a maximum sign height of five feet. • Additionally, a projecting sign shall in no case project beyond ½ of the sidewalk width. Signs should not obscure the view of any windows, existing signs, and/or adjacent buildings to an unreasonable extent. A large projecting sign is not permitted unless other types of signage are not appropriate for the building. A large projecting sign, if approved, should be mounted higher, and centered on the façade or positioned at the corner of a building. Generally, a projecting sign should not be located above the second floor. • “Blade” signs are considered projecting signs and should follow the guidelines for projecting signs. Partially Complies Proposed projecting sign is in proportion to the building, provides more than the required minimum clearance and is mounted higher on the building in proportion to its size. The proposed projecting sign or blade sign is 53.96 sq. ft. and 17’-6” in height. It projects over more than half of the sidewalk width immediately below the sign, but not more than half of the sidewalk paving below the sign as a whole. The design of the sign places the two faces of the sign at an angle rather than back-to-back as described by the Guideline. Page 20 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 5 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS • Any two-sided sign shall be designed to be back-to-back and in no case shall both sides of the sign be visible at any time to the reader. 9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that of the building façade. A simple, easy-to-read sign design is preferred. Typefaces that are in keeping with those seen in the area traditionally are encouraged. Select letter styles and sizes that will be compatible with the building front. Generally, those are typefaces with serifs. Avoid hard-to-read or overly intricate type- face styles. Painted wood and metal are appropriate materials for signs. Their use is encouraged. Unfinished materials, including untreated wood, are discouraged because they are out of character with the context of the Overlay Districts. Plastic is not permitted, except for flush, adhesive, professionally installed lettering. Highly reflective materials that will be difficult to read are inappropriate. Painted signs on blank walls were common historically and may be considered. Complies Sign materials and fonts are consistent with building façade and consistent with referenced historic buildings. 9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with those of the building front. Sign colors should be limited. In general, no more than three colors should be used. For these Guidelines, black and white are not counted as colors. HARC may consider different shades of a color similar enough to count as one color in the determination of the numbers of colors being allowed. Signs with photo images, including multiple colors, are appropriate on A-frame/sandwich board type signs only. Complies Sign colors are limited and compatible with the building. Page 21 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 6 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 9.21 If internal illumination is used, it should be designed to be subordinate to the overall building composition. Internal illumination of an entire sign panel is discouraged. If internal illumination is used, a system that backlights only the sign text is preferred. Neon and other tubular illumination may be considered. However, use neon in limited amounts so it does not become visually obtrusive. Internal illumination of an awning is inappropriate. Complies Sign illumination is halo-style illuminated channel letters for the façade sign and internally illuminated metal sign with lighting behind diffuser-filmed letters for the projecting sign. In both cases the sign text is backlit by the illumination type. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Not Applicable Proposed signage is not historic, nor is it for a historic structure or property 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies Proposed signage exceeds size limitations for signage in the Downtown Historic Overlay and uses a lighting style that is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, but meets requirements for scale, proportion and consistency with the architectural features of the building. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies Proposed signage is consistent with cultural and architectural aspects of the new use of this site and the approved structure. Page 22 of 38 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2019-78-COA – 206 W. 2nd St. Page 7 of 7 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies Proposed signage has similarities to signage on nearby properties and is appropriate for the area of new construction on the north edge of the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies Proposed signage does not diminish the character of the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable Proposed signage for single tenant only and specific to use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for signage. The area in which the performance center is located is newly developing with its own identity and does not face historic commercial properties such as those found on the Courthouse Square and surrounding blocks. Additionally, the proposed signage does not face directly onto residential properties or neighborhoods and is consistent with the style, scale and use of the building upon which it is proposed to be installed. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Drawings & Specifications SUBMITTED BY Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 23 of 38 Location 2019-78-COA Exhibit #1 SCENICDR MARTINLUTHERKINGJRST N A U S T I N A V E FORESTST RO C K S T S A U S T I N A V E S M A I N S T WEST S T W 4TH ST E 4TH ST E 3RD STW 3RD ST W2NDST E 2ND STW2NDST BLUEHOLEPARKRD 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels City Limits Georgetown ETJ Page 24 of 38 Doug Smith Performance Center Certificate of Appropriateness Application On behalf of my client Structura representing the the Georgetown Palace Theatre organization I am seeking a variance for a non conforming projecting sign in your historical downtown district. There are several reasons why we believe an exception should be made in this very unique instance. Given the historical nature of the existing Palace theatre which has a grandfathered in non complying sign we believe it is appropriate to pay homage to the original branding and spirit of early 1900’s cinema with an iconic historically appropriate blade sign as depicted in the attached artwork files and plans. I recognize that on its face we are exceeding the allotted square footage of 15 according to section 9.10 in chapter 9 of your code however I believe several reasons make that small of square footage unreasonable provided the size and unique nature of this new construction a sign of 15 sq ft only would be illegible anb ineffective. Going down the bullet points of 9.10. Our sign appears in proportion to the building. Meets the minimum clearance of 8 ft. No sidewalk issue. Does not obscure any visibility. No other signs are appropriate for this unique instance. This sign is mounted above the second floor. Please consider what the Palace theatre has brought to the fabric of the City of Georgetown this is a historical landmark that is functioning that many small towns would envy. They are highly successful and cultivate and enrich the community through community education and fun. This is a very special place and we want to honor that with paying homage to the original theatre that we may continue to thrive for 100 more years to come. Page 25 of 38 Page 26 of 38 EE 5000 695.43 CP 5000 5001 693.98 CP 5001 5002 698.64 IRF 3/8 5003 699.09 NG 5004 697.95 NG 5008 697.26 NG 5010 696.94 NG 5011 695.84 NG 5012 694.84 NG 5013 694.49 NG 5014 695.16 NG 5015 695.28 NG 5016 695.50 NG 5017 695.43 NG 5021 695.77 AC 5024 696.61 NG 5025 696.27 NG 5026 695.87 NG 5027 697.25 NG 5038 696.75 EC EPCOR 5039 696.86 GUT 5040 696.89 FOC COR 5041 696.82 BOC COR 5043 697.05 EC AT ECCOR 5044 696.96 EC COR 5045 698.75 EC POL 5046 698.79 EC EP 5047 699.60 EC EP 5048 699.57 EP POL 5053 699.52 EC EP COR 5054 699.60 EC COR 5055 699.01 NG 5061 698.94 ASPH SE 5062 698.13 ASPHSE 5075 697.02 YPM E 5076 693.87 IRF 3/8 5077 696.82 BM CHK 5079 697.57 CP 5079 5088 694.46 BOC 5089 694.45 FOC 5090 694.41 NG 5091 693.99 GUT 5092 693.97 EC EP 5093 693.82 EC EP 5094 693.80 GUT 5095 693.81 EC EP 5096 693.85 CL 5097 694.12 CL 5098 693.98 EC EP 5099 693.97 GUT 5100 693.96 EC EP 5106 695.64 NG 5107 696.13 NG 5119 694.49 CL 5120 694.36 WTR VLV 5125 694.01 GUT 5134 694.08 EC EP POL 5135 694.07 EC EP POL 5148 693.44 CLN OUTXXX 3 0.00 HACK-2-9IN-6IN-24' 4 0.00 HACK-4IN-12FT 5 0.00 TREE-6IN-12FT 6 0.00 TREE-10IN-30FT 8 0.00 HACK-8IN-24FT 17 0.00 HACK-2-16IN-12IN-36FT 697.52NG697.20 NG 696.67NG 696.85 NG 696.75 NG 697.09 SE 697.38 SE 697.02 NG 698.08NG 698.81NG 699.71NG 699.50NG 698.56NG 698.15NG 697.38 NG 697.08 NG 698.35 NG 698.47 NG 698.79NG 698.90NG 699.31NG 700.39NG 695.86 FOC 696.40 FOC 696.77 BOC ANG 696.98 BOC END 697.14 ASPH PI 697.22 BOC PI 697.15 BOC ANG 696.68 FOC 697.47FOC 697.77 BOC 697.82 NG 698.60 NG 697.27 NG 698.17FOC 698.66 BOC 698.60 NG 699.34 NG 698.69CLRD 697.82CLRD 696.55CLRD 696.61NG 696.84 BOC 696.40 FOC 697.04 FOC 697.43 BOC 697.30NG 697.96NG 698.07 BOC 697.68 FOC 698.37 FOC 698.76 BOC 698.74NG 701.71 SE 701.62 SE 700.38 NG 700.58NG 693.93SE 693.17SE 692.68SE 692.95SE 693.25SE 693.54 SE 693.86 SE 693.94SE 693.70 SE 693.50 SE 693.38SE 696.94NG 697.37NG 697.83NG 697.22NG 697.20 NG 693.14NG 694.72NG 698.09NG 692.17NG 692.14NG D S D D S S W W W W W S S S CONCRETERAMP CONCRETESLAB CONCRETE CURBAND GUTTER GAS SIGN 0.558 ACRES 0.332 ACRES UP UP DN S02° 41' 11"E 119.80' N02° 46' 10"W 119.97' N87° 42' 39"E 38.15' S02° 41' 11"E 119.80' N02° 46' 10"W 119.97' 6107 0.558 ACRES 0.332 ACRES PIV FDC M BFP BFP M FH 6032 6165 MM FH BFP PIV FDC BFP W. 2ND STREET S. R O C K S T R E E T 5'6'-6" D S S S A202 1 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 (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 -60 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS FOR: PERMIT DOCUMENT. AUGUST 1, 2017. FOR: 100% BID DOCUMENT. AUGUST 16, 2018. A201 DO U G S M I T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GE O R G E T O W N , T X 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED RESIDENCES EL MONUMENTO PARKING LOT EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING CITY PARKING RESIDENCE DUMPSTER LOADING AREA EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING STORM DRAIN GRATE INLET COURTYARD WALL WITH ALTERNATE LIGHTING PROPERTY LINE ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE LIGHTING BY OTHERS + 697' - 6" + 697' - 6"+ 697' - 6" + 697' - 6" + 694' -0" 206 W 2ND NEW SIDEWALK + WALL FOR SIDEWALK LOW WALL REFER TO LANDSCAPE FOR INFORMATION EXISTING CITY PARKING NEW CURB N SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS NEW TRANSFORMER LOCATION - CONFIRM WITH CIVIL Page 27 of 38 UP DN X X X X X X X // // // // // // // // FIG 5.0 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 20 6 W e s t 2 n d S t r e e t Ge o r g e t o w n , T X 7 8 6 2 6 (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 - 6 0 1 2 DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2015 WANG ARCHITECTS 52'0%'441#&57+6' $1'40'6':#5 1((+%' (#: %+8+.'0)+0''455748';145.#0&2.#00'45 %105647%6+10/#0#)'45%1057.6#065 21$1: 6':#54')+56'4'&'0)+0''4+0)(+4/(Ä Page 28 of 38 B REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.CLIENT APP COPYRIGHT 2018 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROVAL: Design: Ben Anglin Sales: Aaron Salinas Start Date: 02/10/2019 Last Revision:10/26/19 Job#92J10053 Dwg. #92J10053bv4s2 Doug Smith Performance Center 9208 Waterford Centre Blvd Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78758 10212 METRIC BLVD. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 800-327-1104 / 512-494-0002 fsgi.com UL Installation Requirements: B02 CHANNEL LETTERS Scale: 1 1/2”= 1’-0” Fabricate and install one (1) set of internally illuminated channel letters built to UL specifications; twEFFQMFUUFSTUPIBWFBMVNJOVNGBDFTBMVNJOVNTJEFXBMMT BOE #7328 white plex backs for halo-illumination; t(&8IJUF-&%DPNQPOFOUT t-FUUFSGBDFTBOETJEFXBMMTöOJTIFEJO.BUUIFXT.BUUF#MBDLQPMZVSFUIBOF t-FUUFSTUPQJONPVOUXJUIwTQBDFSTUPDPSSVHBUFEQBOFMGBÎBEF t&MFDUSJDBMSFRVJSFNFOUUPWUPCFTVQQMJFEBUTJHOMPDBUJPOCZPUIFST WHITE 7328 PLEX BACK FOR HALO-ILLUM. LED POWER SUPPLY PASS-THRU .090 ALUM. FACE .063 ALUM. SIDEWALL WHITE L.E.D. 3” SPACER ALL-THREAD &91"/4*0/0350((-&"/$)03 CONDUIT TO PRIMARY REMOTE DISCONNECT 3" ALUMINUM ENCLOSURE North Elevation scale: 1/8"=1'-0"1 1'-9 1/2" 42’-4 7/8” 1'-9 1/2" 42’-4 7/8” 75.9 SF A 206206 12'-0" 73'-4" 61’-4" 42'-4 1/2" Page 29 of 38 A ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.CLIENT APP COPYRIGHT 2018 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROVAL: Design: Ben Anglin Sales: Aaron Salinas Start Date: 02/10/2019 Last Revision: 9/20/19 Job#92J10053 Dwg. #92J10053av3s2 Doug Smith Performance Center 9208 Waterford Centre Blvd Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78758 10212 METRIC BLVD. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 800-327-1104 / 512-494-0002 fsgi.com UL Installation Requirements: 3’-5" 17'-6" 20.5” Fabricate and install one double-faced blade sign t Welded tubular alum. framework with .090 alum. sheet; tFaces routed-out and backed with .5” clear push- thru plex; Second -surface diffuser film; t(& White Tetramax LED illumination; t” deep Escutcheon to conceal mounting; Finished to match building color; tCabinet to mount with approved non-corrosive hardware; Engineering tbd; t&MFctrical requirement: 120v to be supplied at sign location by others; 90'-2" 42'-4 1/2" Page 30 of 38 A ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN Scale: 1/2” = 1’-0” DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.CLIENT APP COPYRIGHT 2018 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROVAL: Design: Ben Anglin Sales: Aaron Salinas Start Date: 02/10/2019 Last Revision: 9/20/19 Job#92J10053 Dwg. #92J10053av3s3 Doug Smith Performance Center 9208 Waterford Centre Blvd Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78758 10212 METRIC BLVD. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 800-327-1104 / 512-494-0002 fsgi.com UL Installation Requirements: t Welded tubular alum. framework with .090 alum. sheet; tFaces routed-out and backed with .5” clear push-thru plex; Second -surface diffuser film; t(& White Tetramax LED illumination; t” deep Escutcheon to conceal mounting; Finished to match building color; tCabinet to mount with approved non-corrosive hardware; Engineering tbd; t&MFctrical requirement: 120v to be supplied at sign location by others; 3'-5” 10” 4 1/2" 3'-1 1/4" 3'-5" 9 1/8" 10" Custom w 3'-1" 2'-1/2" 20 1/2" Page 31 of 38 A ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.CLIENT APP COPYRIGHT 2018 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROVAL: Design: Ben Anglin Sales: Aaron Salinas Start Date: 02/10/2019 Last Revision:9/20z/19 Job#92J10053 Dwg. #92J10053av3s1 Doug Smith Performance Center 9208 Waterford Centre Blvd Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78758 10212 METRIC BLVD. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 800-327-1104 / 512-494-0002 fsgi.com UL Installation Requirements: Routed-out .090 Aluminum Face Clear .5” Push-thru plex w/ white diffuser film second-surface 1” x 3” Aluminum Rectube Frame .090 Aluminum escutcheon Welded tubular alum. frame GE™ White Tetramax LED .5” Clear Push-thru plex letters w/ 2nd-surface diffuser 1” x 3” Alum Rectube frame Internal attachment tbd SUGGESTED COLOR RANGE PLAN VIEW t Welded tubular alum. framework with .090 alum. sheet; tFaces routed-out and backed with .5” clear push-thru plex; Second -surface diffuser film; t(& White Tetramax LED illumination; t” deep Escutcheon to conceal mounting; Finished to match building color; tCabinet to mount with approved non-corrosive hardware; Engineering tbd; t&MFctrical requirement: 120v to be supplied at sign location by others; Page 32 of 38 A ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.CLIENT APP COPYRIGHT 2018 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROVAL: Design: Ben Anglin Sales: Aaron Salinas Start Date: 02/10/2019 Last Revision: 9/20/19 Job#92J10053 Dwg. #92J10053av3s2 Doug Smith Performance Center 9208 Waterford Centre Blvd Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78758 10212 METRIC BLVD. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 800-327-1104 / 512-494-0002 fsgi.com UL Installation Requirements: 3’-5" 17'-6" 20.5” Fabricate and install one double-faced blade sign t Welded tubular alum. framework with .090 alum. sheet; tFaces routed-out and backed with .5” clear push- thru plex; Second -surface diffuser film; t(& White Tetramax LED illumination; t” deep Escutcheon to conceal mounting; Finished to match building color; tCabinet to mount with approved non-corrosive hardware; Engineering tbd; t&MFctrical requirement: 120v to be supplied at sign location by others; Page 33 of 38 DN DN A3131 A312 A311 1 1 B C E F G H I 1 4 5 6 GRAND STAIR 300 DANCE STUDIO 301-A UTILITY/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 A412 1 A413 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 ROOF ACCESS DOOR 10' ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM COUNTERTOP WITH SINK + STORAGE A83112 9 10 11 A713 3 A710 5 A240 3 3 MIRRORS MACHINE- ROOMLESS ELEVATOR PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM DOUBLE RAIL ADJUSTABLE FLOOR MOUNTED BALLET BARRES, TYP. MIRRORS, WALL MOUNTED DANCE SHOE AREA 301-B ALTERNATE: STORAGE BENCH FOR DANCE SHOES PIANO DRINKING FOUNTAINS WITH BOTTLE FILLER 2 302-2 ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK ALTERNATE: TALL MILLWORK FIRE STAIR 310 CORRIDOR 311 DROPPED SOFFIT HERE UTILITY SINK D A231 1 301-1 A EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY 301-2 STOREFRONT DOUBLE DOORS STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE STAND PIPE FOR DRAINAGE 303-1 304-1 305-1 306-1 ALTERNATE: BLADE 310-1 FLOOR ON SLEEPERS, N.I.C 307-1 308-1 DOUBLE RAIL ADJUSTABLE FLOOR MOUNTED BALLET BARRES, TYP. 1' - 1 0 " 1' - 10" 1' - 10" 304-2 302-1 3A3B 3C 3F 3H 3I 3J 3K 3L LADDER TO 3RD FLOOR ROOF L K DDD D D J F F k l m n p BLACK OUT BLINDS BLACK OUT BLINDS TYP. FOR 2 SCUPPER FOR OVERFLOW ONLY SCUPPER I I I H H METAL PAN STAIRS WITH PIPE RAILING METAL PAN STAIR WITH PIPE RAILING 3G M 3R 3M 3N 3O 3P 3Q CONCRETE OVERPOUR 2" RECESS H H H G G A715 1 1' - 6" 3' - 1 0 1 / 2 " MECHANICAL CHASE A910 3 SEE RCP PLAN FOR DRAINAGE 11' - 0"12' - 0 1/2"6' - 10 1/2" 22' - 3"9' - 9 1/2" 3' - 7 1/2" 1' - 5 1 / 2 " 1' - 5 1 / 2 " 1' - 1 " 15 ' - 1 " 3' - 1 0 " 4' - 9 " 15 ' - 5 " 3' - 1 0 " 7' - 1 1 " 2' - 5 " 1' - 7 1 / 2 " 2' - 2 1 / 2 " 9' - 1 0 " 1' - 1 " 8' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 5' - 1 0 " 2' - 9 " 5' - 5 " 8' - 0 1 / 2 " 1' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 5' - 11"19' - 7"2' - 5"24' - 0 1/2" 2' - 3 " 7' - 2" 3' - 11 1/2"3' - 7" 1' - 4 1 / 2 " 5' - 2 1 / 2 " 2' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 4' - 3 1 / 2 " 2' - 1 " 4' - 5 " 2' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 4' - 8 " 5' - 8 " 2' - 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 5 " 2' - 9 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 " 2' - 5" ALIGN 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 (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 -60 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS FOR: PERMIT DOCUMENT. AUGUST 1, 2017. FOR: 100% BID DOCUMENT. AUGUST 16, 2018. A212 DO U G S M I T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GE O R G E T O W N , T X 3/16" = 1'-0"1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN N Page 34 of 38 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 697' - 6" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 712' - 2" THIRD FLOOR PLAN 724' - 6" B C E F G H I1 A410 1 A411 PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEMCORNER STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM WIRE RAILING AT TERRACE SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS T.O. PARAPET WALL 741' - 6" 107-1 LINE OF SIDEWALK GRADE DA 2D POST INDICATOR VALVE METAL ANGLES LIMESTONE CLADDING 1H 1I 2G 2I 2J 2K 2L 2H 3F 3G 3H 3I 3J 3K SIGNAGE 1 A420 2 A420 2 A420 SIM 3 A420 A715 2 A910 4 10' - 0" 10' - 8" 10' - 0" 8' - 0" 10' - 0" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" STOREFRONT GLAZING STOREFRONT GLAZING FRAME COLOR TBD BY ARCH FRAME COLOR TBD BY ARCH FRAME COLOR TBD BY ARCH 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 (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 -60 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS FOR: PERMIT DOCUMENT. AUGUST 1, 2017. FOR: 100% BID DOCUMENT. AUGUST 16, 2018. A311 DO U G S M I T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GE O R G E T O W N , T X 1/4" = 1'-0"1 West Page 35 of 38 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 697' - 6" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 712' - 2" THIRD FLOOR PLAN 724' - 6" 1 4 5 6 PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM 9' METAL CARGO DOORS PARAPET WALL EXTENDS 42" MIN 3 T.O. PARAPET WALL 741' - 6" 2 SIGNAGE CONCRETE BLOCK WALL, SEE PLAN FOR WALL HEIGHT PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM METAL ANGLES LIMESTONE CLADDING 2M 3L 3N 1K 2N 109-2 102-4 102-5 3M LINE OF STEME WALL BEHIND STONE - SEE 2/A423 FOR DETAIL 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 (5 1 2 ) 8 1 9 -60 1 2 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS FOR: PERMIT DOCUMENT. AUGUST 1, 2017. FOR: 100% BID DOCUMENT. AUGUST 16, 2018. A312 DO U G S M I T H P E R F O R M A N C E C E N T E R GE O R G E T O W N , T X 1/4" = 1'-0"1 South Page 36 of 38 SHEET #DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER BLADE SIGN 1 OF 1 SHEET TITLE: YJINC.www.yjinc.com NOTES : P.O. BOX 802050 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91380 TEL. (661)259-0700 FAX. (661)259-0900 Sep 27, 2019 July 2, 2019CHK BY: DRN BY:140419_Doug Smith Performance Center_Blade Sign_Waterford Center Blvd_Austin TX.dwgJTS_PROJECT JOB # : PROJECT LOCATION : DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER 9208 WATERFORD CENTER BLVD. AUSTIN, TX. REVISED BYREV. DATEREV. NO. 1 2 3 09/27/2019 --/--/-- --/--/----- --- I.G. plotted by: Georgina on 9.27.2019 @ 4:32 PM REV BY: T.J. T.J. I.G. · SIGN DESIGN IS BASED ON ADEQUATE EXISTING SUPPORT ELEMENTS. · PROVIDE ISOLATION OF DISSIMILAR MATERIALS. · COAT ALUMINUM IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE WITH ZINC RICH PAINT. · THERE IS NO PROTECTION ZONE AS DEFINED IN AISC 341-10. · PROVIDE FULLY WELDED END CAPS AT EXPOSED OPEN ENDS OF STEEL / ALUM. TUBES, MATCH THICKNESS LIKE FOR LIKE. · SLOPE TOP OF EXPOSED FOOTING AWAY FROM DIRECT BURIAL POSTS · ALL EXPOSED STEEL TO BE PRIMED & PAINTED OR ALTERNATIVELY USE GALVANIZED STEEL. · BRAND NAME APPROVED POST INSTALLED ANCHORS SPECIFIED ON PLANS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BY APPROVED EQUAL. DESIGN AND FABRICATION ACCORDING TO 2015 IBC · PLATE, ANGLE, CHANNEL TEE, AND WIDE FLANGE: ASTM A36 · ROUND PIPE: ASTM A53 GRADE B OR EQUIVALENT. · HSS ROUND, SQUARE, AND RECTANGULAR TUBE: ASTM A500 GRADE B · OR EQUIVALENT ALL ANCHORS BOLTS SHOULD BE: ASTM F1554 · ALL STEEL MACHINED BOLTS SHOULD BE: ASTM A307 · ALL STAINLESS STEEL MACHINED BOLTS SHOULD BE: ASTM A276 · ALL BOLTS TO BE ZINC COATED BY (HOT DIPPED): ASTM A153 OR F2329 · BEARING TYPE CONNECTION REINFORCING REBAR: ASTM A615 GRADE · 60 DEFORMED BARS DESIGN AND FABRICATION ACCORDING TO 2015 ALUM. DESIGN MANUAL PLATES, ANGLES, CHANNELS, TEE, AND SQUARE TUBING: ALUMINUM · ALLOY 6061 - T6 WITH 0.098 LBS PER CUBIC INCH. STEEL DESIGN AND FABRICATION ACCORDING TO AWS D1.1. · AWS CERTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR ALL STRUCTURAL WELDERS. · E70 XX ELECTRODE FOR SMAW PROCESS. · E70S XX ELECTRODE FOR GMAW PROCESS. · ER7 XX ELECTRODE FOR GTAW PROCESS. · E70T XX ELECTRODE FOR FCAW PROCESS. ALL WELDS SHALL BE MADE WITH A FILLER METAL THAT CAN PRODUCE WELDS THAT HAVE A MINIMUM CHARPY V-NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF 20FT-LB AT ZERO 0° AS DETERMINED BY THE APPROPRIATE AWS A5 CLASSIFICATION TEST METHOD OR MFG'S. CERTIFICATION. ALUMINUM DESIGN AND FABRICATION ACCORDING TO AWS D1.2. ALL WELDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AWS A.5.10. FILLER ALLOYS PER TABLES M.9.1 & M.9.2 OF 2015 ALUMINUM DESIGN MANUAL. DATE LAST REVISED: PROJ. START DATE: SCALE: AS SHOWN GENERAL :STEEL :WELDING : ANCHORS :ALUMINUM : 17'-6" 3'-1"3'-5" 17'-6" ELEVATION N.T.S. SIDE ELEVATION N.T.S. WELDING DETAIL N.T.S. 1/8"TYP.1/8"TYP. NOTE: FOR FRAME WELDING SEE DETAIL "A" RT 3" X 3" X 0.125" ALUM. SQ. TUBE TYP. PLAN VIEW N.T.S. A 1/2" DIA. x 3" EFFECTIVE MIN. EMBED GALV. ST'L LAG SCREW, TYP RT 3" X 3" X 0.125" ALUM. SQ. TUBE TYP. 44 ' - 0 " M A X TO G R A D E (E) METAL SIDING OVER DENS GLASS OVER 7/8" AIR GAP OVER STUD WALL 3'-5" 3'-1 1/4" 10" 9 1/8" PROVIDE 2 LAYERS OF 3/4" PLYWOOD BLOCKING RT 3" X 3" X 0.125" ALUM. SQ. TUBE OUTTRIGGER, TYP. 2'-0" 6'-9" 6'-9" 2'-0" Job #JTS_140419_R Project Doug Sm ith Perma nce Arts Center - Blade Sign Job Location 9208 Waterford Center Blvd. Aus tin , TX. INPUT DATA Expos ure category (B, C or D)=C Ris k Category =II Nom inal Des ign Winds pe ed VULT =115 MPH Topographic factor Kzt =1 Flat Height of the s ign h =44 FT Vertical dim ens ion (for wa ll, s = h)s =17.5 FT Horizontal dim ens ion B =3.083 FT Dim ens ion of return corner Lr =0.83 FT ANALYSIS Velocity pressure qh = 0.00256 Kh Kzt Kd V2 =30.50 PSF where: qh = velocity pres s ure at height h. (Eq. 29.3-1, pag e 24 9) Kh = velocity pres s u re expos ure coefficient =1.06 evaluated at height above gRnd. level, h (Tab. 2 9.3-1, page 251) Kd = wind directionality factor. (Tab. 26.6-1, page 194)=0.85 Wind Force Case A: resultant force through geometric center (Se c. 29.4.1 & Fig. 29.4-1) Max horizontal wind pres s ure ==47.643 PSF where:G = gus t effect factor. (Sec. 26.9, p age 198).=0.85 Cf = net force coefficien t. (Fig. 29.4-1 , page 252)1.84 As = B s = the gros s area =54.0 FT2 Estimated sign weight =1079 LBS DESIGN SUMMARY Allow able Stress Design Wind Fa ctor =0.6 Design W ind Pressure = 28.59 PSF Design W indforce, F =1.5423 KIPS Moment Arm =1.54 FT Design Mome nt = F x moment arm =2.3782 KIP-FT TRIBUTARY DESIGN SUMMARY Tributary area =20.69 FT2 Allow able Stress Design Wind Fa ctor =0.6 Design W ind Pressure = 28.59 PSF Design W indforce, F =0.5914 KIPS Moment Arm =1.54 FT Design Mome nt = F x moment arm =0.912 KIP-FT Outrigger Design Alum. SQ. Tube Sec. Mod. Req'd.USE 6061-T6 S =1.62 Anchor Design Galv. St'l . Lag Screw Pull-out Req'd.USE A307 P =1103 Base Plate Alum. Plate Thickness Req'd.USE 6061-T6 t =0.45 1/2 " Dia., x 3" Effective P=1,134 Min. Embed. PL 8" x 8" x 1/2"t=0.50 p = qh G Cf 0.6 x p = 28.59 x As = Sign Design Based On 2015 IBC 0.6 x p = 28.59 x As = RT 3 x 3 x 0.188 S=1.87 1/2" DIA. GALV. ST'L. THRU-BOLTS, TYP. TRIBUTARY AREA 3/8" THK. MOUNTING ALUM.PLATE, TYP. RT 3" X 3" X 0.125" ALUM. SQ. TUBE OUTTRIGGER, TYP. 1/2" DIA. x 3" EFFECTIVE MIN. EMBED GALV. ST'L LAG SCREW, TYP B BASE PLATE N.T.S.t=1/2" 1/2" DIA. x 3" EFFECTIVE MIN. EMBED GALV. ST'L LAG SCREW, TYP RT 3" X 3" X 0.125" ALUM. SQ. TUBE OUTTRIGGER, TYP. 8" 8" 6" 1" 1" 1"6"1" 1/8"TYP. PL 8" x 8" x 1/2" ALUM. PLATE, TYP PL 8" x 8" x 1/2" ALUM. PLATE, SEE DETAIL "B", TYP PROVIDE 2 LAYERS OF 3/4" PLYWOOD BLOCKING PL 8" x 8" x 1/2" ALUM. PLATE, SEE DETAIL "B", TYP 3/8" THK. MOUNTING ALUM.PLATE, TYP. 1/2" DIA. GALV. ST'L. THRU-BOLTS, TYP. PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Page 37 of 38 B REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” DOUG SMITH PERFORMANCE CENTER / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.CLIENT APP COPYRIGHT 2018 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ROVAL: Design: Ben Anglin Sales: Aaron Salinas Start Date: 02/10/2019 Last Revision:10/26/19 Job#92J10053 Dwg. #92J10053bv4s2 Doug Smith Performance Center 9208 Waterford Centre Blvd Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78758 10212 METRIC BLVD. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 800-327-1104 / 512-494-0002 fsgi.com UL Installation Requirements: B 02 CHANNEL LETTERS Scale: 1 1/2”= 1’-0” Fabricate and install one (1) set of internally illuminated channel letters built to UL specifications; twEFFQMFUUFSTUPIBWFBMVNJOVNGBDFTBMVNJOVNTJEFXBMMT BOE #7328 white plex backs for halo-illumination; t(&8IJUF-&%DPNQPOFOUT t-FUUFSGBDFTBOETJEFXBMMTöOJTIFEJO.BUUIFXT.BUUF#MBDLQPMZVSFUIBOF t-FUUFSTUPQJONPVOUXJUIwTQBDFSTUPDPSSVHBUFEQBOFMGBÎBEF t&MFDUSJDBMSFRVJSFNFOUUPWUPCFTVQQMJFEBUTJHOMPDBUJPOCZPUIFST WHITE 7328 PLEX BACK FOR HALO-ILLUM. LED POWER SUPPLY PASS-THRU .090 ALUM. FACE .063 ALUM. SIDEWALL WHITE L.E.D. 3” SPACER ALL-THREAD &91"/4*0/0350((-&"/$)03 CONDUIT TO PRIMARY REMOTE DISCONNECT 3" ALUMINUM ENCLOSURE North Elevation scale: 1/8"=1'-0"1 1'-9 1/2" 42’-4 7/8” 1'-9 1/2" 42’-4 7/8” 75.9 SF A 206206 Page 38 of 38