Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.26.2018Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown April 26, 2018 at 5:00 PM at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.) A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. Policy Dev elopment/Rev iew Workshop B Presentation and discussion o f the ro le and value of the Texas Historic C o mmis s io n Certified Lo cal Government P ro gram - Madison Tho mas , AIC P, His toric and Do wntown P lanner Legislativ e Regular Agenda C Co nsideration of the Minutes from the Ap ril 12, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing Secretary D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a single s to ry res id enc e lo c ated at 705 W. 10th, b earing the legal desc riptio n o f 0.2896 ac . Lo t 7, Blo ck H South San Gab riel Urb an Renewal (unrecorded). – Madison T homas, AICP, Downtown and His toric Planner E Pres entatio n and d is cus s ion of conceptual alterations and c hanges of a two (2) story offic e building Page 1 of 83 loc ated 511 S . Main Street, b earing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.33 ac . Glas s coc k Ad d ition, Blo ck 26, Lo ts 5-6. - Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric and Do wntown Planner F Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) of a four (4) sto ry c o mmercial retail and offic e b uilding at 204 E. 8th S t., bearing the legal d es criptio n of 0.33 ac . Glassc o ck Ad d ition, Blo ck 9, Lot 7 - 8. - Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Historic and Do wntown Planner Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, 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 83 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the role and value o f the Texas His toric Commis s ion Certified Loc al Go vernment Program - Mad is o n Thomas, AICP, His to ric and Downto wn Planner ITEM SUMMARY: City s taff is d eveloping recommend ations fo r an annual wo rk p lan and is seeking recommend ations from the Co mmis s ion on areas o f foc us. Madeline Clites , the Certified Loc al Go vernment Co o rd inato r for the Texas His toric Commis sion, will p ro vide an overview of the program including informatio n related to tec hnical as s is tanc e, training, grants and p rofes s ional netwo rks available to His toric Co mmis s io ns thro ugh the CLG p rogram. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Pres entation Pres entation Page 3 of 83 Page 4 of 83 Texas Historical Commission Madeline Clites, Certified Local Government Program Coordinator Empowering Local Preservation Programs: Intro to the Certified Local Government Program Page 5 of 83 What is the CLG Program? Why should I care? What Texas Historical Commission programs do I need to know about? How can I learn more about preserving my community’s historic resources? Page 6 of 83 National Park Service Texas Historical Commission Local Government (City or County) Page 7 of 83 CLG Technical Assistance Network Training Grants Page 8 of 83 Te c h n i c a l As s i s t a n c e Page 9 of 83 Ne t w o r k Page 10 of 83 Tr a i n i n g Page 11 of 83 Gr a n t s Page 12 of 83 Texas Historical Commission History Programs National Register Cemeteries Historical Markers Archaeology Community Heritage Development Certified Local Government Main Street Heritage Tourism Architecture Regional Reviewers Texas Preservation Trust Fund Courthouse Page 13 of 83 “Our preservation commission needs help interpreting and applying the local design standards.” Community Heritage Development •Certified Local Government Program •Texas Main Street •Town Square Initiative •Heritage Trails •Heritage Tourism Page 14 of 83 “We finished the historic resources survey, and want to nominate a district to the National Register” •National Register Program •Historic Resources Survey Program •Cemetery Program •Historical Marker Program History Programs Page 15 of 83 “The owner of a local landmark and Recorded Texas Historic Landmark wants to demolish the property.” Architecture •Regional Reviewers (review work on state and federally designated properties, Section 106) •Texas Preservation Trust Fund Grant Program •Texas Courthouse Preservation Program Page 16 of 83 •Georgetown is doing well! •HPO now appointed •Historic Resources Survey update in 2016 •Education and Outreach with the public •Training for HPO and Commission •Ordinance updates •Local landmark program Results of Recent Four Year Evaluation •22% of City CLGs made changes to their preservation ordinance •Only 7% designated new local districts •36%designated new local landmarks •14%updated their design guidelines Texas CLGs by the numbers (FY17): Common Design Issues: Windows, Paint, Signage & New Construction Georgetown Avg. City CLG of similar size Protected Properties 1,676 567 COAs Received 44 43 COAs Reviewed Administratively 18 17 COAs Reviewed by Commission 26 26 Page 17 of 83 Education and Training Opportunities Opportunities around the corner •JULY 18-22 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) biennial conference, FORUM, Des Moines, Iowa •AUG 17 CLG Regional Training in Uvalde, August 17th •FALL 2018 CLG Regional Training, focus on diversity and inclusion, fall 2018 •NOV 13-16 National Trust for Historic Preservation, PastForward Annual Conference •JAN 16-18 Real Places 2019 Page 18 of 83 Georgetown-specific Training •CLG staff-led training in Georgetown •THC staff-led training •Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program (CAMP) Trainings Page 19 of 83 Training Anytime •CLG Program Webinar Series •THC Webinars •Other preservation organization webinars-announced through the CLG listserv Page 20 of 83 Madeline Clites CLG Program Coordinator Phone: (512) 463-9063 Madeline.Clites@thc.texas.gov Photo of downtown Paris, TX Page 21 of 83 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the Ap ril 12, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes _HARC_04.12.2018 Backup Material Page 22 of 83 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: April 12, 2018 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice-Chair; Amanda Parr (alternate); Kevin Roberts (Alternate) and Lawrence Romero. Absent: Karl Meixsell; and Catherine Morales; Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Chair Browner at 6:01 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session B. Consideration of the Minutes from the March 22, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Bain, second by Romero to approve the minutes. Approved 7 – 0. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a medium priority structure located at 2101 Airport Rd – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Planning Director Nelson presented the staff findings and recommendation of the demolition subcommittee. The subcommittee found that this structure has a significant loss of significance, and it is not economically feasible to salvage any of the materials or structure. Hood and Romero concur that although the structure looks okay in photographs and from 150 feet away, up close it is evident that there are structural holes in the walls, lack of windows, and no redeeming architectural features. Chair Browner opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forth closed the hearing. Motion by Hood, second by Romero to approve the COA for demolition of the historic resource listed at 2101 Airport. Approved 7 – 0. D. A Conceptual Review for a proposed addition and residential renovation for the property located at 1227 Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.2 ac. Cody Addition, Block 1, Lot 16 (COA-2018-003). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner Thomas gave an overview of proposed application. Commissioners expressed concerns about the height and asked for heights of surrounding properties, specifically locating 1.5 and 2 story structures. They discussed each of the issues separately. Setback modifications were discussed first. Most commissioners were okay with this. Then they discussed building height exception. They requested other home heights be provided to them to establish context. They are concerned about the Myrtle side as well and don’t want this blocking or overwhelming the other homes here. Hood calls out page 78 of the DG and says that this situation is special in that the applicant is setting the second story addition back, but because they Page 23 of 83 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: April 12, 2018 have a second street facing façade there is a challenge. He suggested that it is imposing on the Myrtle Street side but offered suggestions to alter the second floor to make it feel less massive and tall. Matthew McConnell, the applicant, spoke and stated 15 feet will not get them the second floor. The other houses that are 15 feet seem to be a story and a half. The pitch of the new roof matches the pitch of the existing roof, as requested by the commission previously. He explained their situation and what the homeowner is trying to appreciate. Commissioners gave opinions that the proposed height is objectionable and they would not be able to support it. McConnell asked for a number or roof height that they could support. They asked for a visual picture of the front elevation with the adjacent houses included so they can identify how this will fit. They also asked for the view from Myrtle Street. Hood suggests removing the window above the garage door to alleviate any misperception that it is a living space. Hood expressed support for general use of hardi-siding since the original siding has decayed underneath the vinyl siding. He is also in approval of the window type that is proposed. Residential addition comments were overall supportive with the exception of the scale and massing in comparison to the original structure, sections 14.12 and 14.16. Thomas also explained that for every three feet stepped back from the property line, they are allowed to increase an extra five feet in height. Hood says he can’t support an exception to the detriment of the neighbors. The board recessed for dinner at 7:14 pm. Chair Browner reconvened the meeting at 7:49 pm. E. Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Historic Resources Survey Report and demolition process and review authority for projects within a historic district. Nelson gave a presentation of the resources. There are 1033 properties within the district and 643 properties listed outside the historic district. The Unified Development Code was updated in 2015 and allowed for landmark status properties along with setting the requirements for the commission’s scope of work. She reviewed what is currently viewed as contributing and non- contributing resources. Nelson reviewed the current code and the recommended changes. The biggest proposed change would be that low priority structures outside the district would not be reviewed, and would just be required to get a demolition permit through permitting. Nelson explains that this is not a result of a complaint against the subcommittee, but is an efficiency of process. Low priority structures contribute to the district, but the thought is that they should not have the same requirements as the other resources. This would help with property owners knowing what the difference is between a low, medium or high priority resources. Commissioners commented that they want to review all demos in the historic overlay district, regardless of priority status. They expressed concern with the addition or demo of the front facing façades not being reviewed for low priority structures by the commission. Hood wants to keep the medium priority structures under HARC’s review to hopefully increase some of them to the high level. Romero agreed. Parr agrees that the mid-century modern homes along 17th and 18th Streets could become the new “high” priority resources if taken care of. Hood asks that other commissioners come to the demo subcommittee to understand what is considered. General consensus that high and medium will be contributing. Keep medium priority resources outside the district with HPO review. Page 24 of 83 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: April 12, 2018 Motion to adjourn by Romero, second by Assendorf-Hyde. At 8:45 pm. Adjournment ________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 25 of 83 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) fo r the d emo lition o f a s ingle s tory residence loc ated at 705 W. 10th, b earing the legal desc rip tion o f 0.2896 ac . Lot 7, Blo ck H So uth San Gab riel Urban Renewal (unrec o rd ed ). – Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Downtown and Histo ric P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: The s ingle story, ranch s tyle L-S haped res idenc e lo cated at 705 W. 10th, is identified as a lo w p rio rity s tructure in the City’s 2016 and 2007 Histo ric R es o urc es S urveys (HRS). T he res id enc e is es timated to have been built in 1950. As o utlined in HRS R, this lo w p rio rity struc ture lacks signific anc e and integrity d ue to the additio n o f a s treet fac ing garage and struc ture to the rear. T he s tructure has s ignificant s truc tural is sues includ ing roof d amage which has res ulted in mold within the s truc ture. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Public Comments As req uired by the Unified Development Cod e, all property o wners within a 200 fo o t rad ius o f the s ubjec t p ro p erty that are loc ated within City limits were notified of the rezoning app lic atio n (19 no tic es mailed), and o ne (1) s ign was p o s ted o n-site on April 9, 2018. To d ate, staff has rec eived one (1) written comment in s upport of the d emo lition. Findings This lo w priority s tructure does not confo rm to the c urrent build ing c o d e and s tructural d efic iencies render the rep o s itioning o f the ho me infeasible. The HARC Demo lition Sub committee includ ing the HP O and Chief Build ing Official c o nferred o n 2/28/2017 and reaffirmed the applic ant’s s ummary of struc tural is s ues . If HARC ap p ro ves the demolitio n, s taff rec o mmends that HARC cons ider requiring the c reatio n of a histo rical arc hive includ ing archival-quality pho to-doc umentatio n, and/or arc hitectural drawings o f the b uilding or s truc ture p ro p o s ed to b e d emo lis hed or reloc ated similar to tho s e req uired by the His toric Americ an Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Histo ric Preservation Offic er as d es cribed in the Unified Develo p ment Code, 3.13.030. E.3 (b). SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 3- HARC Demolition Subcommittee Findings Exhibit Exhibit 4 - HPO Report Exhibit Page 26 of 83 Exhibit 5- HRSR Survey (Demo)Exhibit Exhibit 6 - Public Comment Exhibit Page 27 of 83 Page 28 of 83 Page 29 of 83 ATTACHIVfNT S ITf G EO LOG IC I/AP 7O5 WEST 1 OTH STREET JOB NO: 177+2-GA L Scole: 1" 20' 3C RESIDENTIAL LOT 7O5 WEST 1 Oth STREET PAVED STREET EDWARDS FORMATION (Ked), COVERED, TYPICALLY LIMESTONE AND DOLOSTONE, THICK TO THIN BEDS, HARD, WHITE TO LIGHT BROWN, WEATHERS DARK GRAY, SURFACE CHERT, IN SOME AREAS "HONEYCOMBED'' AND CAVERNOUS, THICKNESS BETWEEN 'IOO AND 3OO FEET, THINS NORTHWARD (THTCKNESS pER GEoLocy oF THE GEoRGETowN REGToN By E.w. coLLrNS) GEORGETOWN STONY CLAY LOAM (Cse) PER SHEET 47 OF THE SO|L SURVEY OF WTLLTAMSON COUNry, TEXAS. DESCRIBED AS REDDISH BROWN STONEY CLAY LOAM SURFACE LAYER TO ABOUT 7,, THE SUBSOIL TO A DEPTH OF ABOUT 55,, IS REDDISH BROWN CLAY IN THE UPPER PART AND REDDISH BROWN STONY CLAY IN THE LOWER PART. PERMEABILITY IS SLOW. DESCRIPTION PER PAGE37 OF THE SOIL SURVEY OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. SOIL FIELD VERIFIED BY SIGNING GEOLOGIST. VACANT LOT VACANT LOT e NO PORTIONS OF THIS AREA APPEAR TO BE IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS PER FEMA,S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP #48491C0295E, DATED SEPT. 26, 2008. &*o" {on{$ ur-r,, U in& Jn". -A Lond Surveying ond Geoscience Firm- 36'1 5 Willioms Drive, Suite 9O3 - Georgetown, Texos 7A62A(512) 93o-'l 600/(512) 950-9589 fox www.texos-ts.com TBPLS FIRM NO.10056200 GEOSCIENCE FIRM NO.5O55A a APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF RESIDENCE sl-l-E CALLED 0.2896 ACRE oocuvtNr No- 2017067344 o.P.R.W.C. Ked GsB OF L.CBIDER No.45SS KENNETH L. CRTDER PG #45ssPage 30 of 83 x! ll.:: rH[ csy o$'s€o*stlosfi, r&rr&$tsn to{rfiI.r" ?{xrs rtrs 6tss Ir€ tArfi SfosfrnY oe$cf;r8ft,t* sffos l$ 3E,r slJl s[L{xr; srn[f,r, a.) om, m0$ troullt-G rolrt& rrss firT" &w&,\ t i"se&io :o &{{rns ftrrro$. 8{cotl0{s }fi \oLuile J:o. r^68 3& ptt& mcoelq. ilil,rAutoN {s{rxlY. Ifrrus r'.i oeEo r**r Lgalil| Jrcxsoft Arr0 ffJ:l^t o. xa,Lrr Jle*:olt ro 6{.i^Fo eAHo5" R[coao{o lN \.slurf, rol. Prot 2J!. off} f,tco{o!. }lLLlAr.So+r fi)ur{f. rrrAr {.) }tfo f*a, Jrrrc3 su#u(3or{ ,0}0 $f[" orlxtnxf ct"tf(ss.. ro 6$r rs i.rxss" ltcor]ro H wtur.f sdt. prf 67. o(f8 n[co8m. r,rli.x t $ori {0$r{rr, }tx^$ ,8 r rulF6 :Ltt ,?"*"".-fi*. s $ll ,s*iac*gt;r ffi affiii!(fic. ;,lLri ,i {}1J..1 rr' !ar-.rm strlr& r(! sr r*c tlrefa:q.jfi:} r1 rr'r0:' rrrr.,c & t&iJ fl!:$Fito 't-',: -.al ,a:mor tCc. oi.r.B.rrrC !f,rra0 .t lOitl(ttl Of A.OC( F*f flrf gt{rlr{ tl}r c^ttriEl Lrt$ar.iGrttxAl. Afi rfiitcoaof,oSvll)lvftor. r*r' ff, &Srfl rrtr a .': -.{ri: !(-.r,;.: ,: {- ;1 . :, irt,/: , ..{/!: er{ ci.:i.ft i trt:! .{v!.ir,_ ti\"tt:.. '.; ij 1l:4;:',$ ffid,maxr Tffiffinrffi*tr|ffialrlat Jrffid*rxaffiffiffirtrsrIItdrslla!-Ifr.t * crf,6 fr"&s ;.' [9r.** & ldru( l^a,t.- i.'dJ - og.{ lls { - r' X. ,- i;t*a$ J ;t n ,' / \ ,,1 t.J l,( l}[1r$$] e l-r]-l* 9({rr{ " . !*" fl.,sffi1 sr#ru rlii[{{foro ofiowr\nd ,.O/P r*tcr;f ri.lls !(tt.asa,&.r{to !tr*{ tt tit.r trlet tt rf It.,a't c*rtx'tr".ira,C kg'ss': &tr B aac ffi 6r ls'I', r l!t'b{'tt &'i t an tl'*r.ra' ldrdI aatm rc'k mar*t *t'5'I rt I !! L' rA,'{0 *O O - COr{C. CuF0rca Htrr rmx ilTiffif * PAGE 3 OT 3 Page 31 of 83 Page 32 of 83 Page 33 of 83 Page 34 of 83 Page 35 of 83 Page 36 of 83 Page 37 of 83 Page 38 of 83 S M A I N S T SCENIC DR R O C K S T S IH 35 NB W 8T H S T W 10T H S T W U N IV E R SI TY AV E S A U S T I N AV E S C H U R C H S T WE S T S T W 6 T H S T W 11T H S T S IH 35 FWY NB ENTR 262 SB S IH 35 FWY SB W 7T H S T S IH 35 SB H A R T S T EXIT 262 NB RAILROAD AVE W 1 5 T H S T TI M B E R S T PVR F O R E S T S T MART IN L UTH E R KI N G JR S T EXIT 261 NB W 5 T H S T RI V E R O A KS C V B R I D GE S T W 14T H S T E 5 TH ST E 6 TH ST E 7 TH ST W 1 3 T H S T E 8 T H ST W 9T H S T E 9 TH ST E 1 0 T H S T E 1 1 T H S T R U C K E R S T E U N IV E R S I TY A V E T I N B A R N A LY MONT GOM E RY ST FOR E S T S T W E S T S T FO R E S T S T W 5 T H S T WE S T S T W 7 T H S T W 1 4 T H S T W 9T H S T COA-2018-005Exhibit #1 Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Feet Page 39 of 83 Page 40 of 83 Page 41 of 83 Page 42 of 83 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District: Address:705 W 10th St 2016 Survey ID:125819 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R047578Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 2/18/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1950 Bungalow Other Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s) Note: See additional photo(s) on page 2 General Notes: Explain Property lacks significance and integrity Geographic Location Latitude:30.635005 Longitude -97.683327 Current/Historic Name:None High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID 248 ID Not Recorded 2007 Survey 1984 Survey ID 125819 2016 Survey High Medium Low Primary (south) elevation; Photo direction: North Page 43 of 83 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION County Williamson Local District: Address:705 W 10th St 2016 Survey ID:125819 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos Oblique of (south) elevation and (west) elevation NortheastPhoto Direction Oblique of (south) elevation and (east) elevation NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 44 of 83 Page 45 of 83 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentatio n and d is cus s io n of c o nc ep tual alteratio ns and changes o f a two (2) s tory o ffice building lo cated 511 S. Main Street, b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.33 ac. Glassc o ck Additio n, Bloc k 26, Lo ts 5- 6. - Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric and Do wntown Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The applic ant p ro p o s es d emolitio n, alteratio ns and changes to arc hitectural features of a high p rio rity s tructure c urrently in us e as an offic e. The ap p licant has s ecured ap p roval to o p erate the pro p erty as an event center and is s eeking feed b ack on the following proposed changes : 1) Demo litio n o f a p o rtion of the rear additio n (Eas t Elevatio n) 2) Ad d itio n o f a s treet fac ing faç ad e (6th S t. and Main S treet Elevatio n) 3) Ad d itio n o f a cano p y (6th S t. Elevation) 4) Rep lacing his toric al arc hitectural features with a no n-his toric arc hitectural feature (Wind o ws alo ng North Elevatio n) 5) New fenc e inc o ns istent with the o verlay d is tric t’s characteris tic s and ap p lic able guid elines (Main St. Elevation). Ac cording to the City’s 2016 His to ric Res o urc es Survey, this Center Pas s gas e p ro p erty was cons tructed in 1922. His to ric Surveys completed in 1984, 2007 and 2016 rated the res ourc es as a high p rio rity. Struc tures identifed as High Prioriy Contribute s ignificantly to loc al history/broader his toric al p atterns, are good examples of architec ture, engineering, o r c rafted d es ign and retain a high d egree o f integrity. The fo llo wing are relevant chap ters o f the Do wnto wn and Old To wn Des ign Guid elines HARC s hould cons id er when provid ing feed b ack. S taff has p ro vided an initial review of eac h of the ap p licable guidelines attached them for your reference: Chap ter 6: Des ign Guid elines fo r Ind ividual Buildings (p o rches ) Chap ter 7: Des ign Guid elines fo r Additio ns & Alterations (Ad ap tive Us e) Chap ter 10: Des ign Guidelines for Awnings and Cano p ies Chap ter 13: Des ign Guidelines for Infill Cons truc tion in Area 2 – Do wntown Overlay Histo ric District (s etbac ks, mas s and s c ale, b uilding materials , p ed es trian friend ly character, trans itional c harac ter, ap p lying the guidelines ) FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1 - Plans and Specifications Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Conceptual Renderings Exhibit Page 46 of 83 1Conceptual Rendering Design Concepts for Review by HARC The Wish Well House March 30, 2018 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 47 of 83 2Site MapMARCH 30, 2018 N Page 48 of 83 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A0031/8” = 1’-0” 3Existing Plan - Ground N MARCH 30, 2018 Page 49 of 83 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A0041/8” = 1’-0” 4Existing Plan - Second N MARCH 30, 2018 Page 50 of 83 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A2101/8” = 1’-0” 5Site Plan N MARCH 30, 2018 Page 51 of 83 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A2101/8” = 1’-0” 6Ground Floor Plan N MARCH 30, 2018 Page 52 of 83 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A2111/8” = 1’-0” 7Second Floor Plan N MARCH 30, 2018 Page 53 of 83 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A2111/8” = 1’-0” 7Second Floor Plan N MARCH 30, 2018 Page 54 of 83 3/16” = 1’-0” 7North Elevation - For Information Only DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A310 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A310 3/16” = 1’-0” 6th St Elevation MARCH 30, 2018 Page 55 of 83 3/16” = 1’-0” 8East Elevation - For Information Only DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A310 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 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 51 1 S M A I N S T R E E T Ge o r g e t o w n , T X (5 1 2 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2018 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A310 3/16” = 1’-0” Main Street Elevation MARCH 30, 2018 Page 56 of 83 Main Street Elevation - Rendered 10MARCH 30, 2018 Page 57 of 83 6th Street Perspective - Rendered replace 11MARCH 30, 2018 Page 58 of 83 Courtyard Aerial - Rendered replace 12MARCH 30, 2018 Page 59 of 83 Section thru Reception - For Information Only replace 13MARCH 30, 2018 Page 60 of 83 14Model View - For Information OnlyMARCH 30, 2018 Page 61 of 83 15Model View - 6th Street*NOTE: SEE 6TH ST ELEVATION RENDERING FOR COLORS MARCH 30, 2018 Page 62 of 83 16Model View - 6th StreetMARCH 30, 2018 Page 63 of 83 17Model View - For Information OnlyMARCH 30, 2018 Page 64 of 83 18Existing ConditionsMARCH 30, 2018 Page 65 of 83 19Existing ConditionsMARCH 30, 2018 Page 66 of 83 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and possible ac tion on a reques t fo r a C ertific ate o f App ro p riatenes s (COA) of a four (4) s tory commerc ial retail and o ffice build ing at 204 E. 8th S t., b earing the legal des c riptio n of 0.33 ac . Glas s coc k Additio n, Bloc k 9, Lo t 7 - 8. - Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His toric and Downto wn P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: APPLICANT’S REQUEST The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to d evelop an infill projec t at the c orner o f E. 8th S treet and S. Churc h S treet in Area 2 o f the Do wntown and Histo ric Overlay. T he proposed struc ture is a four-s tory b uilding c o nsisting o f firs t flo o r c o mmerc ial retail and o ffice s pac e for the remaining up p er flo o rs . Struc tured p arking is p ro p o s ed within the site. T he p ro p o s ed s truc ture will be fac ed with bric k and s tone materials and a galvanized metal roof. Background In February, the ap p licant completed a concep tual review with the Co mmis s ion. T he fo llo wing guid anc e was: · Co nc ern about b ack s ide (s o uth and eas t elevations ) of the build ing being s till to o large. · General guidanc e was given that the projec t meets Guid eline 13.1. · Concern ab o ut the b usyness o f the s tone typ e was exp res s ed . · The Commis s io n expressed a desire to s ee a variation from the sand s tone whic h appears to b e o verpowering. A reques t fo r more contrast in materials was d es ired . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the initial review of this ap p licatio n the applic ant has demons trated in their des ign revis io ns a s ignificant amo unt of effo rt to address feed b ac k p ro vided at the firs t d es ign review for this p ro ject, and then again at their mo s t rec ent HARC conceptual review. As no ted in the s taff report there are concerns regarding the massing o f this struc ture and the d es ign guidelines whic h enc o urage variation in the building fo o tprint and faç ad e to d evelo p a modular style that c an be fo und in traditio nal his toric d evelopment. The s tructure has ad hered to the d es ign guidelines by varying the faç ad e height, and for larger struc tures d es igned the s truc ture to step down in height ad jacent to s treets and smaller s urro und ing struc tures . Staff rec o mmend s approval up o n the c o nditio n that ap p licant d emons trates 3’ s etb acks on south and eas t elevatio ns. S taff has reviewed this cond ition with the ap p licatio n and they unders tand this c ond ition is b eing plac ed to s upport the req uirements o f the fire code. Please s ee staff rep o rt fo r full analysis. Section 3.13.030 Criteria Findings A. T he applic ation is c omplete and the informatio n c o ntained within the app lic atio n is c orrec t and s ufficient eno ugh to allo w adequate review and final ac tion; Comp lies B. Compliance with any d es ign s tandards of the Unified Development Code; P artially C o mp lies , b uilding articulation no t met, s ee Exhib it 3 T he ap p licant is reques ting a height exemp tion. T he maximum permitted height in the Do wntown Overlay is Page 67 of 83 40’, the applic ant is req uesting a height o f 42’6”. Build ing height (Sec . 7.02.030.D) refers to the vertical d is tance b etween the lo west finished grad e at the edge of the building o r the b as e flood elevatio n, where applic ab le, and the highest point of the c o p ing of a flat roof. Measured at the height, the b uilding is 44’ 6’. The UDC s tates that ro o f p arapets may exceed the height limitations of this Co d e by no more than ten feet. The pro p o s ed parapet, whic h is required on flat ro o fs , will b e 2’6” therefore, the to tal ro o f height proposed is 42”. T he height exemp tion is fo r 2’ over the 40’ height limit. C. C o mp lianc e with the ad o p ted Downto wn Design Guidelines , as may b e amend ed fro m time to time, spec ific to the ap p lic able Histo ric o r Overlay Dis tric t; Partially C o mp lies , s ee above tab le D. The integrity of an ind ivid ual his toric struc ture is p res erved . N/A E. New build ings or additio ns are d es igned to be c o mp atible with s urro und ing his toric properties . Partially C o mp lies F. The o verall c harac ter of the Histo ric or ap p licable Overlay District is protected . Partially C o mp lies G . Signs that are out o f keeping with the ad o p ted design s tand ards , and are not in c harac ter with the s ite o r land marks within the Historic o r ap p lic able Overlay Dis tric t in q uestio n will not b e permitted. N/A H . The fo llo wing may als o be c o nsidered by the HARC when d etermining whether to approve a C ertific ate for Design C o mp lianc e: 1 . The effec t of the p ro p o s ed change upon the general his to ric , c ultural, and arc hitectural nature of the site, landmark, o r Dis tric t. 2. T he appropriateness of exterior arc hitec tural features , including parking and loading s p ac es , whic h can be s een from a p ublic street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general des ign, arrangement, texture, material, and c o lor o f the build ing o r s tructure and the relatio n of s uc h fac to rs to s imilar features of build ings o r s tructures in the Dis tric t, c o ntras t o r other relation of suc h fac tors to other land marks built at o r d uring the s ame p erio d , as well as the uniq uenes s of such features, cons idering the remaining examp les o f architec tural, his to rical, and c ultural values . 1. Complies 2. Complies 3. Complies Section 3.13.030 Criteria Findings FINANCIAL IMPACT: Page 68 of 83 N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP Histo ric and Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 and 4 -Plans (rendering) and Specifications Exhibit Staff Report Cover Memo Page 69 of 83 EL M ST A SH ST E 7 TH ST R O C K S T S M A I N S T PI N E ST E 5 TH ST E 8 TH ST E 4 TH ST E 6 TH ST WE S T S T S M Y R TL E S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E S C O L L E G E S T E 1 3 T H S T W 9T H S T W 8T H S T W 6 T H S T W 4 T H S T W 11TH ST W 1 0 T H S T WAL NUT S T E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E W 7T H ST E 1 0 T H S T E 1 1 T H S T FORE S T S T W U N I V E R SI TY AV E M A R T I N L U TH E R KI N G JR S T S C E N I C D R W 5T H S T H O LLY ST E 9 T H S T H A R T S T TIM B E R S T E 9 TH 1 /2 S T T I N B A R N A LY PIN E ST E 9 T H S T F O R E S T S T E 11T H S T WA L N U T S T F O R E S T S T WE S T S T E 1 0T H S T H O L L Y S T E 9 TH ST COA-2018-007Exhibit #1 Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Fee t Page 70 of 83 Page 71 of 83 Page 72 of 83 1st FLOOR 5' - 0" 2nd FLOOR 17' - 0" 1st FLOOR PH 15' - 0" 2nd FLOOR PH 26' - 0" 3rd FLOOR PH 36' - 6" 3rd FLOOR 27' - 6" ROOF PLAN 38' - 0" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (FINISH GRADE = 751' - 3") RED BRICK STONE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM - WHITE METAL AWNING GALVANIZED ENTRY TO PARKING AREA STONE GREEN SCREEN WALL RED BRICK CAST STONE CORNICE METAL VERTICAL PANELS GALVANIZED CAST STONE CORNICE ALMOND GUTTER PIPE PARKING LVL -4' - 0" (F.F.E. = 756' - 3") MAX HT 39' - 6" COURTYARD LVL 1' - 0" 3' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 0 " 2' - 0"14' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 1"29' - 10 1/2"36' - 0 1/2"18' - 0" 5' - 0"5' - 0" 23' - 7"9' - 7"20' - 3 1/2"44' - 1 1/2" CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE RED BRICK RED BRICK 5' - 2"10' - 0"10' - 0" RED BRICK METAL PANELING SYSTEM - WHITE METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED STONE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE 42 ' - 0 " MAX. BLDG. ROOF HT. @ LOWEST FINISH GRADE (NE CORNER)= 42' - 0" (D.N.I. PARAPET WALL AS PER UDC) MAX. BLDG. HT. @ HIGHEST FINISH GRADE (NW CORNER)= 38' - 0" 40' - 0" ELEVATION LINE @ LOWEST FINISH GRADE (NE CORNER) 5 3 / 4 " 7' - 0 " ED G E O F P R O P E R T Y 6" 2' - 6" METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED RED BRICK 10 1 / 4 " AVERAGE ROOF HT. LINE AS PER UDC CAST STONE ARCHES STONE 2' - 6 " 8 12 SIDEWALK RED BRICK CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICEALMOND GUTTER PIPE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE RED BRICK RED BRICK RED BRICK STONE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE STONE RED BRICK 4' - 0" 6' - 0 " 5' - 0"5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0"5' - 11" 2' - 0"17' - 1"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"19' - 0"2' - 0" GREEN SCREEN WALL METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED FAUX WINDOW BRICK TRIM GREEN SCREEN WALL CAST STONE ARCHES 5' - 0 " Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com As indicated A3 8TH & EAST ELEVATIONS WS-DE 20 0 E . 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X HE R I T A G E C O U R T BU I L D I N G 4-09-18 3/16" = 1'-0"2 8th St. ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE IS BEING APPLIED AND APPROVED SEPARATELY EXTERIOR FINISHES NAME BRICK STONE CORNICE/BANDING ARCH CAST STONE TRIM/METAL - ALMOND TRIM/METAL - DARK METAL PANEL GREEN SCREEN WALL DESCRIPTION ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 BORAL BRICK - COUNTRY LEDGESTONE - MOJAVE AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05 AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700-mae BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS - PARCHMENT BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS - DARK BRONZE BERRIDGE HR-16 WALL PANEL - GALVANIZED JAKOB ROPE SYSTEMS - www.jakob-usa.com Page 73 of 83 1st FLOOR 5' - 0" 2nd FLOOR 17' - 0" 1st FLOOR PH 15' - 0" 2nd FLOOR PH 26' - 0" 3rd FLOOR PH 36' - 6" 3rd FLOOR 27' - 6" ROOF PLAN 38' - 0" (9' - 0") (9' - 0") (F.F.E. = 756' - 3") MAX HT 39' - 6" COURTYARD LVL 1' - 0" STONE STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM - WHITE METAL AWNING GALVANIZED STONE RED BRICK CAST STONE CORNICE VERTICAL METAL PANELING GALVANIZED CAST STONE CORNICE ALMOND GUTTER PIPE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE RED BRICK RED BRICK RED BRICK METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED STONE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE METAL AWNING DARK BRONZE 4' - 0" 6' - 0 " 5' - 11"5' - 0"42' - 9"28' - 0"9' - 7"16' - 3"5' - 0"5' - 0"3' - 0" 6' - 0"12' - 0"27' - 8"8' - 0"28' - 0"9' - 7"28' - 9" 10' - 0"10' - 0"8' - 3" METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED ED G E O F P R O P E R T Y 6" MAX. BLDG. ROOF HT. @ LOWEST FINISH GRADE (NE CORNER)= 42' - 0" (D.N.I. PARAPET WALL AS PER UDC) RED BRICK AVERAGE ROOF HT. LINE AS PER UDC 38 ' - 0 " 42' - 8"1" 2' - 6 " 8 12 5' - 0"5' - 0"3' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0" 2' - 6" ELEVATOR TOWER RED BRICK CAST STONE CORNICECAST STONE CORNICE ALMOND GUTTER PIPE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE RED BRICK RED BRICK RED BRICK STONE CAST STONE CORNICE CAST STONE CORNICE STONE RED BRICK 56' - 5"19' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"19' - 0"2' - 0"19' - 1"2' - 0 1/2" STONE GREEN SCREEN WALL 4' - 0" 6' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 4' - 6 " METAL ROOFING GALVANIZED ED G E O F P R O P E R T Y GREEN SCREEN WALL GREEN SCREEN WALL FAUX WINDOW BRICK TRIM CAST STONE ARCHES3' - 0 " Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com As indicated A4 CHURCH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS WS-DE 20 0 E . 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X HE R I T A G E C O U R T BU I L D I N G 4-09-18 3/16" = 1'-0"1 CHURCH St. ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES NAME BRICK STONE CORNICE/BANDING ARCH CAST STONE TRIM/METAL - ALMOND TRIM/METAL - DARK METAL PANEL GREEN SCREEN WALL DESCRIPTION ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 BORAL BRICK - COUNTRY LEDGESTONE - MOJAVE AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05 AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700-mae BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS - PARCHMENT BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS - DARK BRONZE BERRIDGE HR-16 WALL PANEL - GALVANIZED JAKOB ROPE SYSTEMS - www.jakob-usa.com Page 74 of 83 Scale: Date: Revisions No.Date Description 1 2 3 4 Sheet Name Sheet No. By: File: SRE A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y " Bob Thomas, NCARB Registered Architect 30418 Briarcrest Dr. Georgetown, TX 78628 512-635-0621 btncarb@yahoo.com A9 PRESENTATION SHEET WS-DE 20 0 E . 8 t h S t . G e o r g e t o w n , T X HE R I T A G E C O U R T BU I L D I N G 4-09-18 8th STREET NORTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE CHURCH ST. TO COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 STONE - BORAL BRICK - COUNTRY LEDGESTONE - MOJAVE GALVANIZED METAL - BERRIDGE HR-16 METAL ROOF &WALL PANEL - GALVANIZED CORNICE - AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05 ALMOND TRIM - BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS PARCHMENT DARK TRIM - BERRIDGE METAL - BRONZE AERIAL TO COURTYARD EXTERIOR FINISHES NAME BRICK STONE CORNICE/BANDING ARCH CAST STONE TRIM/METAL - ALMOND TRIM/METAL - DARK METAL PANEL GREEN SCREEN WALL DESCRIPTION ACME BRICK - "BUFFALO SPRINGS" OKP-515, 820494 BORAL BRICK - COUNTRY LEDGESTONE - MOJAVE AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05 AMERICAN ARTSTONE 4700-mae BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS - PARCHMENT BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS - DARK BRONZE BERRIDGE HR-16 WALL PANEL - GALVANIZED JAKOB ROPE SYSTEMS - www.jakob-usa.com FLOOR PLAN SPECS. 1st FLOOR LEASE = 9,814 OTHER = 1,038 TOTAL = 10,852 2nd FLOOR OFFICE = 7,824 OTHER = 1,525 TOTAL = 9,349 3rd FLOOR OFFICE = 6,149 OTHER = 1,585 TOTAL = 7,734 PARKING LEVEL COVERED = 14,305 TOTAL OFFICE = 13,973 TOTAL LEASABLE = 23,787 TOTAL OTHER = 4,148 TOTAL GROSS = 27,935ALMOND TRIM - BERRIDGE METAL SYSTEMS PARCHMENT Page 75 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: 4/26/2018 File Number: COA-2018-007 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) of a four (4) story commercial retail and office building at 204 E. 8th St., bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 - 8. - Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Heritage Court Applicant: Matt Synatschk, Matkin Hoover Engineering and Surveying Property Owner: Cerus Downtown East Property Address: 204 East 8th Street, Georgetown Texas 78626 Legal Description: 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 - 8 Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay, Area 2 Case History: Property was denied COA and appeal upheld by Council in January 2018. Applicant completed a conceptual review in February 2018 after demonstrating responsiveness to reasons for denial. HISTORIC CONTEXT Lot previously had a historic structure that burned down as well as a historic detached garage that was previously approved for demolition. APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to develop an infill project at the corner of E. 8th Street and S. Church Street in Area 2 of the Downtown and Historic Overlay. The proposed structure is a four-story building consisting of first floor commercial retail and office space for the remaining upper floors. Structured parking is proposed within the site. The proposed structure will be faced with brick and stone materials and a galvanized metal roof. 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. • A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property shall have a building wall at the sidewalk edge. Complies 13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back, define the edge of the property with landscape elements. Complies Page 76 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 2 of 8 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by the following: • Variation in height at internal lot lines. • Variation in the plane of the front façade. • Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module. • Variation in the façade height to reflect traditional lot width. Does Not Comply 13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. • A larger development should step down in height towards the street or smaller, surrounding structures. • Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front. Complies 13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure. • This will help reduce the perceived size of the project. • The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. Does Not Comply 13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings. • A typical building module should not exceed 30 feet in width. The building module should be expressed with at least one of the following: - A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet - A change in primary facade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical architectural element or trim piece • Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its roofline and front and rear facades. • If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimensionally throughout the entire building. Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building. Does Not Comply 13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse. Property is not located within the designated Courthouse View Corridor 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 Page 77 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 3 of 8 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged. Complies 13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those seen traditionally. Complies 13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. • Provide at least one of the following along primary pedestrian ways: - A storefront - Display cases - Landscaping - A courtyard or plaza • Include traditional elements such as display windows, kickplates, and transoms on commercial storefronts. • Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance. Partially Complies 13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. • A building should have a clearly-defined primary entrance. • The building entrance should be recessed. • A primary building entrance also should be at or near street level. Complies 13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians. Complies 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. Complies 13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. Complies 13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. Complies 13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. • Use building materials that are of traditional dimensions. • Provide a one-story entry element that is similar in size to those seen traditionally. • Use a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally. • Use elements that provide a sense of scale. Partially Complies 13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies 13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. • A blending of sloping roof forms and flat roofs may be appropriate for larger projects. Complies 13.22 New interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. • A new design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among commercial and residential buildings in the community without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of their own time yet compatible with their historic neighbors. Complies Page 78 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 4 of 8 BACKGROUND In February, the applicant completed a conceptual review with the Commission. The following guidance was: • Concern about back side (south and east elevations) of the building being still too large. • General guidance was given that the project meets Guideline 13.1. • Concern about the busyness of the stone type was expressed. • The Commission expressed a desire to see a variation from the sandstone which appears to be overpowering. A request for more contrast in materials was desired. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay. Area 2 emerged from a heritage of residential buildings and then later structures that were commercial in nature, but developed at a relatively low density, with substantial portions of land given over to automobiles. In more recent years, the area has developed with a mix of uses, including offices, retail, and some residential. While many of the buildings are relatively new, some older structures survive, which contribute to a pedestrian orientation and may in some cases have historic significance. Preserving these resources should be encouraged and, when feasible, they should be incorporated in new developments. The area should continue to develop with a mix of uses and improvements should occur in a manner that enhances the experience for pedestrians and to build a sense of visual relatedness among properties. Development should include a mix of building types, including older structures and more contemporary ones. Each should reflect the design trends of its own time, while also contributing to a sense of visual continuity and strengthening the pedestrian experience. In addition, a combination of uses is encouraged, including residential, office, and retail. As described in Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines, the design goals for Area 2 are: • To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians. • To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscape design that can be understood by pedestrians. • To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles. • To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths. • Retain native vegetation with project design. • Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately converted residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain. • To utilize similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks. The proposed development has met the design goals of defining a sidewalk edge, strengthening the pedestrian network and providing pedestrian amenities. The proposed building front is aligned at the Page 79 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 5 of 8 property edge and is visible from both streets. Both adjacent streets are developed with sidewalks. There is an open plaza at the corner of E. 8th Street and Church Street, which encourages pedestrian and commercial activity and allows for a setback of the primary entrance and facade. Landscaping and structural elements are used to define the plaza while creating an open and welcoming pedestrian environment. The interior of the plaza will have landscaping. The lower floor will be retail establishments that will be accessible from the plaza. The upper floors will be office use. The parking for the structure will be provide in an underground garage that is accessible through a recessed entry off of E. 8th Street. Locating the majority of the parking underground helps to minimize the visual impacts of automobiles. The lower floors of the development will be stone with brick accents to create faux arches and columns on the ground level, and brick detailing around the windows on the second story. The third story is also mostly stone, with brick accents along the top of the story and vertical brick detailing used to visually create a column between the windows. The recessed plaza will have a cistern like structure in the center, with an adjacent awning to cover the retail areas that are located off of the plaza. The recessed second, third and fourth stories area capped with a stone cornice. The design guidelines call to use masonry materials to convey a sense of scale and to use traditional building materials such as wood, brick and stone. The guidelines recommend a blending of sloping roof forms and flat roofs for larger projects, which this design reflects. Roofing material on the pitched roofs will be galvanized metal, which is a material encouraged by the design guidelines. New buildings should have a pedestrian friendly scale, which can be achieved through the design and massing of the structure. The guidelines reference Area 1 when it speaks to the height and width of commercial structures in Area 2. The guidelines say that a new building should reflect traditional lot width as expressed by a variation in the height, front façade plane, architectural detailing/materials and façade height. The proposed structure has provided a variety of roof heights, stepping down in height towards the street and surrounding lot lines. The UDC (Sec. 7.03.050) discusses building articulation, both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal articulation refers to the footprint of the building and how The ground floor level should encourage pedestrian activity by include traditional and pedestrian friendly elements. The design proposes a plaza at the corner of E. 8th Street and Church Street, but the building facades along the streets exhibit a blank wall appearance, which is advised against in the guidelines. A proposed solution was to add faux arching and columns along this blank wall. The Design Guidelines and the UDC recommend the following: • A storefront, display cases, landscaping or including traditional elements such as display windows, kickplates, and transoms on commercial storefronts. • Awnings, canopies, arcades, alcoves, windows, projections, recessed entries ornamental cornices, pillar posts, decorative light features, variation in building wall materials, integrated planters or water features, offsets, covered porches, stepped-back heights, porticos, varied wall surfaces, or other similar building elements as approved by the Director or their designee Page 80 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 6 of 8 Area 2 design goals speak to establishing a sense of scale in the buildings while maintaining the feel of historic surroundings by utilizing similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks. The design guidelines state that larger project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure to reduce the perceived size of the project. If a single building is proposed, the guidelines state that it should be divided into modules that reflect traditional building sizes. This section references Area 1, then defines a typical building module as 30 feet in width, which is the common building width in Area 1. The 30’ building module should: • A typical building module should not exceed 30 feet in width. The building module should be expressed with at least one of the following: - A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet - A change in primary facade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical architectural element or trim piece. • Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its roofline and front and rear facades. • If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-dimensionally throughout the entire building. Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building. The proposed structure does not create building modules that are typical of historic buildings. The design still visually lends itself to a single-style structure due to the lack of vertical articulation to create the look of multiple structures or smaller modules. They have used a change in materials between the stories as well as a step back in the building to create a variation in plane at the front façade and show a height variation. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; Partially Complies, building articulation not met, see Exhibit 3 The applicant is requesting a height exemption. The maximum permitted height in the Downtown Overlay is 40’, the applicant is requesting a height of 42’6”. Building height (Sec. 7.02.030.D) refers to the vertical distance between the lowest Page 81 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 7 of 8 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS finished grade at the edge of the building or the base flood elevation, where applicable, and the highest point of the coping of a flat roof. Measured at the height, the building is 44’ 6’. The UDC states that roof parapets may exceed the height limitations of this Code by no more than ten feet. The proposed parapet, which is required on flat roofs, will be 2’6” therefore, the total roof height proposed is 42”. The height exemption is for 2’ over the 40’ height limit. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; Partially Complies, see above table D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. N/A E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. Partially Complies F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. Partially Complies G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. N/A H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as 1. Complies 2. Complies 3. Complies Page 82 of 83 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission [COA-2018-007] – 204 E. 8th Street Page 8 of 8 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the initial review of this application the applicant has demonstrated in their design revisions a significant amount of effort to address feedback provided at the first design review for this project, and then again at their most recent HARC conceptual review. As noted in the staff report there are concerns regarding the massing of this structure and the design guidelines which encourage variation in the building footprint and façade to develop a modular style that can be found in traditional historic development. The structure has adhered to the design guidelines by varying the façade height, and for larger structures designed the structure to step down in height adjacent to streets and smaller surrounding structures. Staff recommends approval upon the condition that applicant demonstrates 3’ setbacks on south and east elevations. Staff has reviewed this condition with the application and they understand this condition is being placed to support the requirements of the fire code. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 83 of 83