Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.25.2016Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown August 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Legislativ e Regular Agenda A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Co mmis s ion may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene an Executive S es s io n at the reques t of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any p urp o s e autho rized by the Op en Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code C hapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. B Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes o f the July 21, 2016 regular meeting. C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) fo r exterior alterations to a s treet fac ing fac ad e fo r the property lo cated at 1600 Elm Street, bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f S o uthside Ad d n, (resub Blk Pt 1), Lot 1,3, 0.374 acres D Co nc ep tual Review fo r the p ro p o s ed Smith Performance Center - Gary Wang, AIA E Co mments o r Ques tions by Co mmis s ioners -in-Training. F Up d ates on c urrent p ro jects and future meetings Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING Page 1 of 25 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 __________________, 2016, 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 25 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2016 regular meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Minutes 07.21.2016 Backup Material Page 3 of 25 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: July 28, 2016 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood, Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero. Commissioners in Training present: Michael Friends and Lynn Williams Commissioners absent: Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; and Jan Daum Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2016 regular meeting. Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Bohls. Approved 5 – 0 – 2 (Knight and Hood absent). C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior alterations to the historic structure located at 1003 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of Lost Addition, Block 13, Lot 3-4, 7-8, 0.6611 acres. Synatschk addressed the commission and presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to make exterior alterations to the Medium Priority historic structure. The alterations include the removal of the existing fabric awning on the west façade to expose the existing canopy, installation of windows and door in the north façade, and construction of an addition on the east façade. The use is being changed from retail to office space. Staff supports the proposed changes because it helps break up the long expanse of blank wall, contributing to the pedestrian environment of the district. Additionally, the new windows and door will not result in the loss of any character defining features for the structure. The commission discussed the application. Chair Bain opened and closed the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth. Motion by Bohls to approve the application as presented by the applicant. Second by Lawrence. Approved 5 – 0. (Knight and Hood absent.) D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a commercial structure for the property located at 1104 South Rock Street bearing the legal description of Stanley Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, 0.45 acres. Synatschk addressed the commission and presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval for an addition to a Medium Priority historic structure. The addition will consist of extending the north upper exterior wall approximately 40” in order to align the upper and lower Page 4 of 25 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: July 28, 2016 exterior walls. In addition to moving the northern exterior wall, the roof over the rear portion of the structure will be raised approximately 12”- 16” in order to match the height of the existing roof of the upper level. The roofing material for both structures will be metal and the main exterior color will match the existing color of the structure. Staff supports the application stating the proposed project has minimal impact on the historic character of the structure. The alterations are located at the rear of the structure, limiting the visual impact from the street. In addition, the alterations do not result in the loss of character defining features for the structure, nor do they create any conjectural features to the structure. The addition is compatible in scale and materials with the existing structure. The project has no impact on the primary street facing façade. The roof alteration is at the rear of the structure and will not impact the street facing façade. The commission discussed the application. Chair Bain opened and closed the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth. Motion by Romero to approve the application as submitted. Second by Bohls. Approved 5 – 0. (Knight and Hood absent.) Commissioner Hood took a seat on the dais after the vote on this item. E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for infill construction for the property located at 215 West 3rd Street, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lots 5 – 6, 7 – 8 (W/PTS). Synatschk addressed the commission and presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing construction of a 14 unit multifamily courtyard complex located at the intersection of 3rd and Rock Streets. The units will be built at the lot lines along 3rd and Rock Streets, enhancing the street edge and creating a more cohesive pedestrian environment. The parking and service area will be located along the interior lot lines, minimizing the visibility from the street. The majority of the structure is two stories in height, with a third story on the northeast corner. The additional third story and the roof line articulation help break the building in to smaller bays, maintaining the historic building dimensions. The project incorporates a mix of materials, including a metal roof, hardie siding and limestone. The diversity of materials provides additional articulation for the structure, while utilizing materials found throughout the district. The architectural style of the structure creates a compatible structure for the Downtown Overlay District, while maintaining a modern feel. The design protects the character of the district, but also allows the project to be identified as new construction, which is appropriate for the district. Staff recommends approval of the project. Rebecca Pfiester, proxy applicant, was available for questions. She updated the staff report and said that there would only be 12 units now. The commission discussed the application and the parking situation. Synatschk explained that the commission would not be voting on the parking, but the applicants are working on alternative and off-site parking plans. There were questions about the purpose of the cupola and Ms. Pfiester responded that the community room would be placed in that space. Chair Bain opened and closed the Public Hearing with no speakers coming forth. Motion by Mee to approve the application as presented. Second by Bohls. Approved 6 – 0. Page 5 of 25 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: July 28, 2016 (Knight absent.) F. Comments or Questions by Commissioners-in-Training Williams asked why material samples were not required for all applications. Synatschk explained that samples are generally only required if there are new materials being proposed. G. Update on Administrative Certificates of Appropriateness issued during the previous month. Synatschk reported that he approved two administrative COA’s for signage in the previous month. H. Historic Resource Survey Project Update Synatschk reported that the consultants were back in the office reviewing all the files and identifying properties that would need further research or new forms. They expect to be in the field again in the next couple of months to finalize the report. The presentation and public hearings are still being scheduled for October. A goal of the project is to update the GIS layers with pictures and data. I. Updates on current projects and future meetings. • Staff is looking into a driving tour for the Commission in the near future. • The 3rd Monday Main Street Lunch is scheduled for August 15th at 11:30 a.m. • The next HARC meeting is August 25th at 6:00 p.m. Adjournment Motion by Romero, second by Eason to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. Approved 6 – 0. (Knight absent). ___________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary Page 6 of 25 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a reques t fo r a Certific ate of Appro p riatenes s (C OA) fo r exterior alteratio ns to a s treet fac ing fac ad e for the pro p erty loc ated at 1600 Elm Street, bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f S o uthside Addn, (res ub Blk Pt 1), Lot 1,3, 0.374 ac res ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p licant has reques ted a postp o nement for this item. No fo rmal ac tion will b e taken at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner Page 7 of 25 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Conceptual R eview for the proposed Smith P erfo rmanc e Center - Gary Wang, AIA ITEM SUMMARY: Conceptual review fo r infill c o nstruc tion in Area 2 of the Do wntown Overlay Dis trict. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Palace Theater Conceptual Review Backup Material Page 8 of 25 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design August 18, 2016 Historical and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: The Palace Children’s Theater, or The Smith Performance Center HARC Conceptual Review Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: On behalf of my client, the Palace Theatre in Georgetown, I am pleased to submit here a conceptual review package for a new building proposed at the Southeast corner of Rock and Second Street. Program for this building will include a black box theater, classrooms and other educational spaces for the children of Georgetown and the greater community. We understand that while no action will be taken for this review, but we do believe this project will garner enough public interest that a conceptual review by HARC is appropriate. We believe this project will make a positive impact for the City of Georgetown and the greater Austin area. The Palace began offering children’s workshops over 10 years ago, an initiative which led to the founding of its current successful Palace Education program. For the past few years, the Palace has struggled to secure suitable space for its programming and has moved locations several times, due to increased demand. Finding suitable space had become increasingly challenging as they’ve faced higher costs and at the same time have strived to keep programs affordable. For the past two years, the Palace has been forced to turn prospective children away. They’ve been unable to find rental space that can meet all their specific needs for the children’s program. Families in our community have come to depend upon the Palace to provide a unique and life-changing experience for their youth, and particularly those with special needs. Against this backdrop, many in our community have given generously and sacrificially to the realization of this project. The building is named after Doug Smith, who formerly served on Georgetown’s City Council. This new building will allow the Palace to meet their current and anticipated needs into the future. We have met several times with City Planning, and have consulted with City Staff throughout the process. The urbanistic goals of this project are aligned to further advance the City’s Design Guidelines and Master Plan. This new project will result in greatly increased pedestrian traffic and walkability, reinforcement of the street edge of the existing city fabric, and enhancing the quality of life for our community here in Georgetown. The project creates an open public courtyard to its north, facing towards the San Gabriel River. Seven individuals make up the Palace Building Committee. These members range from longtime Palace supporters to more recent advocates, as well as people with strong ties to Georgetown carefully selected by the Palace Board. The drawings you see here represent the collective voice and decisions of this committee. Attached are drawings for your review and consideration: 1) A Conceptual Rendering showing the Outdoor Courtyard; 2) A Site Plan; 3-5) Ground, Second and Third Floor Plans; 6) Interior Views; 7-10) Exterior Elevations; 11) A Perspective View; 12) Wall Sections; 13) Photos of Proposed Materials; and 14) Site Map Page 9 of 25 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design The Historic Palace Theatre, in Context: Throughout this design process, I have often wondered what those interested in architecture would have thought about the Palace’s proposal in 1938. The Palace, originally built in 1925, previously looked like many of its neighbors. But in 1938, it sought to separate itself from its surroundings, perhaps to make itself known as a building with civic ambitions among its many peers. It accomplished this by leveraging two common principles found in the Art Deco tradition. First, it formally shifted away from its neighbors by “stepping up” within the façade itself. This was a strong departure from all the surrounding flat-roof facades. Secondly, it imparted stucco as its primary material. This was a significant change from the utilitarian and commonplace brick and stone of its time. Furthermore, the Palace employed a signage “blade” – which was a completely unique gesture then and still stands without precedent today in the downtown neighborhood. Through these changes, the Palace stands today as an architectural gem for Georgetown nearly a century later. The New Palace Referencing the Old: The New Palace Children’s Theater seeks to be a sister-building to the Old Palace Theatre. However, by no means do we seek to mimic the original character or style of the Palace, so these references should not be overt or obvious; after all, the Design Guidelines recommend that infill buildings should be consistent with the period in which they were built. Instead, the New Palace attempts to subtly recall the Old and declare itself a civic presence within its own neighborhood through a formal shift away from its local peers, a change in material, and even a blade for signage. The proposed building has a horizontal datum separating the bottom from the top. At the building’s ground floor, the building proposes to use a fiber cement product called Minerit. Unlike many other fiber cement products, the finish of Minerit is uncolored and natural. At the upper floors of the building, the design proposes to use PBD metal panel in a galvalume finish. This is also a natural, unpainted finish. Just as the original Palace distinguished itself materially from its surroundings, we propose this building will also through its use of inconspicuous, unadorned materials. We do not believe that another Art Deco building would be appropriate for this site, or even this City. However, as a subtle nod to the Original Palace, the proposed building has a step up within its exterior envelope where the Minerit meets metal panel. This move is also an urbanistic gesture that highlights the outdoor terrace, dance studio above, and entry sequence below to the courtyard. Lastly, this building employs a blade as a sign of unity with the Original Palace. This new blade proposes inverse channel lettering, so the letters are voids within the solid plane. This façade faces West, so during select hours in the evening, the sun will cast “PALACE II” in shade upon the façade. (The proposed blade, alongside the building itself, is subject to budgetary constraints.) We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on August 25. We will have additional information as well as material samples at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.677.9610. Thank you in advance for your time, and I look forward to seeing you next week. Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Principal Wang Architects LLC Page 10 of 25 Design Concepts for Conceptual Review by HARC The Palace Children’s Theater August 18, 2016 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING 1Conceptual Rendering Page 11 of 25 2 EL MONUMENTO Site Plan SAN GABRIEL RIVER BLUE HOLE PARKING PARKING GARAGE THIRD STREET FOURTH STREET SECOND STREET AU S T I N A V E N U E RO C K S T R E E T Page 12 of 25 3Ground Floor Plan Page 13 of 25 4Second Floor Plan Page 14 of 25 5Third Floor Plan Page 15 of 25 6Interior Views Entrance Lobby Dance Studio Looking Towards River Page 16 of 25 7North Elevation 1ST FLOOR 0' - 0" 2ND FLOOR 14' - 8" 3RD FLOOR 27' - 0" T.O. ROOF DECK 40' - 0" 1456 1 A413 1 A414 STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM PARAPET WALL - 42" MIN METAL PANEL OVER STEEL FRAME METAL PANEL SYSTEM BEYOND FLOOR-TO-CEILING STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM NANA WALL DOOR GLASS PANEL RAILING AT TERRACE FLOOR SLAB ABOVE COURTYARD 3 T.O. PARAPET WALL 44' - 0" 2 T.O. PARAPET WALL 2F 30' - 0" 3B 3A 2B 2A 1A 211-2 203 1H 1I 1J CONCRETE LOW WALLS MINERIT FACADE BOARDS 3R Page 17 of 25 8West Elevation Page 18 of 25 South Elevation 9 1ST FLOOR 0' - 0" 2ND FLOOR 14' - 8" 3RD FLOOR 27' - 0" 1 4 5 61 A413 1 A414 PBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM METAL CANOPY. 9' METAL CARGO DOORS PARAPET WALL EXTENDS 42" MIN MINERIT FACADE BOARDS 3 T.O. PARAPET WALL 44' - 0" 102-5102-4109-2 2 3I ALTERNATE: BLADE 3G 18" CONCRETE BASE -SEE A.420 LOW CONCRETE WALL TBD METAL PANEL SYSTEM Page 19 of 25 10East Elevation 1ST FLOOR 0' - 0" 2ND FLOOR 14' - 8" 3RD FLOOR 27' - 0" T.O. ROOF DECK 40' - 0" BCEFGHI1 A410 1 A411 METAL PANEL FACADE SIDING PRECAST CONCRETE WALL SYSTEM 6" FURRED OUT METAL EDGE PERFORATED METAL SCREEN AREA T.O. PARAPET WALL 44' - 0" 3F 3D 3C 302-1 1D 1C D A Page 20 of 25 11Perpective View 4’ - 6 ” Page 21 of 25 12Building Details 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 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2016 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL,PERMITTINGOR CONSTRUCTION A420 SM 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 DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 85% - AUG 02, 2016 1" = 1'-0"1WALL SECTION - A METAL CAPPINGPARAPET WALLPLY SHEATHINGVAPOR BARRIER1" Z-CHANNELROOF MEMBRANERIGID INSULATION - SLOPED TO DRAINCOMPOSITE ROOF DECKINGWITH 2" CONCRETE TOPBAR JOIST STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTION -SEE FRAMING PLANS COMPOSITE ROOF DECKINGWITH 2" CONCRETE TOP COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP PLY SHEATHING VAPOR BARRIER 1" Z- CHANNEL INTERIOR FINISHTYP. - GWB 6" STEEL STUD WALL INSULATION 6" SLAB ON GRADE POLISHED CONC. FLOOR FINISH 1" = 1'-0"2 WALL SECTION - B METAL CAPPING ROOF MEMBRANERIGID INSULATION-SLOPE TO DRAIN COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH CONC. TOP OPEN WEB STEEL JOIST AT CEILING ACOUSTIC PANEL INSET INTO WALL AT PERFORMANCE HALL INTERIOR 6" SLAB ON GRADE POLISHED CONCRETE FLOOR MINERIT PANELS 1" = 1'-0"3WALL SECTION - D VAPOR BARRIER ROOF MEMBRANERIGID INSULATION - SLOPED TO DRAINCOMPOSITE ROOF DECKINGWITH 2" CONCRETE TOPVAPOR BARRIERMETAL CAPPING PARAPET WALLPLY SHEATHINGVAPOR BARRIERPBD METAL PANEL PLY SHEATHING VAPOR BARRIER PBD METAL PANEL 6" STEEL STUD WALL INSULATION OPEN CEILINGSEE FRAMING PLAN OPEN CEILING SEE FRAMING PLAN 6" SLAB ON GRADE POLISHED CONCRETE FLOOR METAL CORNER AND VENTED SOFFIT10' STOREFRONT GLAZING COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP STRUCTURAL STEEL CANTILEVER SEE FRAMING PLAN 5/8" GWB 3/4 " PLYWOOD SHEATHING 6" METAL STUD WALL VAPOR BARRIER 7/8" HAT CHANNEL 5/8" GWB 6" BATT INSULATION 1" Z- CHANNEL 1" Z - CHANNEL PBD METAL PANEL ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM PBD METALPANEL DETAIL AT ROOFDETAIL AT FOUNDATION 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 ) 6 7 7 - 9 6 1 0 DRAWING: DO N O T S C A L E D R A W I N G © 2016 WANG ARCHITECTS NOT FOR REGULATORYAPPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION A420 SM 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 DATE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 85% - AUG 02, 2016 1" = 1'-0"1 WALL SECTION - A METAL CAPPING PARAPET WALL PLY SHEATHING VAPOR BARRIER 1" Z- CHANNEL ROOF MEMBRANE RIGID INSULATION - SLOPED TO DRAIN COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP BAR JOIST STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTION -SEE FRAMING PLANS COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP PLY SHEATHING VAPOR BARRIER 1" Z- CHANNEL INTERIOR FINISH TYP. - GWB 6" STEEL STUD WALL INSULATION 6" SLAB ON GRADE POLISHED CONC. FLOOR FINISH 1" = 1'-0"2 WALL SECTION - B METAL CAPPING ROOF MEMBRANE RIGID INSULATION -SLOPE TO DRAIN COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH CONC. TOP OPEN WEB STEEL JOIST AT CEILING ACOUSTIC PANEL INSET INTO WALL AT PERFORMANCE HALL INTERIOR 6" SLAB ON GRADE POLISHED CONCRETE FLOOR MINERIT PANELS 1" = 1'-0"3 WALL SECTION - D VAPOR BARRIER ROOF MEMBRANE RIGID INSULATION - SLOPED TO DRAIN COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP VAPOR BARRIER METAL CAPPING PARAPET WALL PLY SHEATHING VAPOR BARRIER PBD METAL PANEL PLY SHEATHING VAPOR BARRIER PBD METAL PANEL 6" STEEL STUD WALL INSULATION OPEN CEILING SEE FRAMING PLAN OPEN CEILING SEE FRAMING PLAN 6" SLAB ON GRADE POLISHED CONCRETE FLOOR METAL CORNER AND VENTED SOFFIT10' STOREFRONT GLAZING COMPOSITE ROOF DECKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOP STRUCTURAL STEEL CANTILEVER SEE FRAMING PLAN 5/8" GWB 3/4 " PLYWOOD SHEATHING 6" METAL STUD WALL VAPOR BARRIER 7/8" HAT CHANNEL 5/8" GWB 6" BATT INSULATION 1" Z- CHANNEL 1" Z - CHANNEL PBD METAL PANEL ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM PBD METAL PANEL Page 22 of 25 13MATERIALS PBD METAL PANEL - GAVALUME FINISHMINERIT HD Page 23 of 25 3RD STREE T AUSTI N A V E . 2ND STR E E T 14Site Map ROC K S T R E E T Page 24 of 25 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Updates on c urrent projec ts and future meetings ITEM SUMMARY: 1. HARC Tour 2. HARC Meeting - Septemb er 22 @ 6:00 FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner Page 25 of 25