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_09.24.2015
Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown September 24, 2015 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Building, 101 East 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens * Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action * Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. Legislative Regular Agenda B Review and possible approval of the minutes of the August 27, 2015 regular meeting. C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres D Consideration and action to appoint Commissioner Richard Mee to the HARC Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee Page 1 of 45 E Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. F Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Page 2 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens * Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action * Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Page 3 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Review and possible approval of the minutes of the August 27, 2015 regular meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type HARC Minutes 08272015 Backup Material Page 4 of 45 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: August 27, 2015 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice‐Chair; Justin Bohls; Jennifer Brown; Shawn Hood and Mary Jo Winder. Commissioners in Training present: Lawrence Romero; Jan Daum; Patty Eason Commissioners absent: Richard Mee Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Shelley Hargrove, Main Street Manager and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the order of business to be conducted. Legislative Regular Agenda B. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2015 regular meeting. Motion by Knight to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Bain. Approved 6 – 0. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres Synatschk presented the staff report. The proposed infill construction project complies with the design goals by establishing a pedestrian character with the first floor storefronts, and new sidewalks and other amenities. The building utilizes a modular design to break up the scale of the structure, providing a human scale and eliminating large expanses of blank walls. The parking area is primarily shielded with the exterior of the building, enhancing the pedestrian flow and experience. The block contains the existing Tamiro Plaza building, a mixed use office and restaurant development. Guideline 13.1 and UDC Section 4.08.070.A.1 specify that new construction shall be placed at the property line to preserve the building edge of the overall district. The proposed design incorporates upper floor setbacks at different levels to create a variation in the front plane of the façade and utilizes a mix of complimentary materials to reflect the traditional building width, as outlined in Guideline 13.3. The materials for the proposed project are stone and stucco, styled to provide a human scale and create a textural difference for the individual bays. The stucco colors reflect the color palate found throughout the building materials in the Downtown Overlay District. The overall design of the structure incorporates first level commercial space, detailed with different materials and recessed storefronts, similar to those seen historically. The design expands the walkability of the Downtown district by creating more usable sidewalks and eliminating the parking lot along the edge of the current property. The proposed sidewalks and pedestrian amenities will clearly identify the street edge and provide access to the first floor commercial space. The building’s design wraps around the exterior of the lot, enclosing the parking within the space. Only a small portion of the parking area will be visible on the north side, between the existing building and the proposed structure. Page 5 of 45 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: August 27, 2015 The overall building composition includes three separate buildings, breaking the combined project in to smaller structures, as outlined in Guideline 13.5. The articulation and setbacks of the upper floors further enhances the creation of individual modules, similar to those seen around the Courthouse Square. The proposed project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure, which does not require review by the HARC. The project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 meeting and the Commission provided feedback regarding the materials and the verticality of the structure. These comments were addressed through the new design, by utilizing different materials and textures on the proposed structure. Francisco Choi, the owner and developer, spoke to the commission and stated that he has worked very hard to insure this building meets the Guidelines. He said he would try to meet all of the concerns of the commission and asked for leeway in the design of the building as some decisions are still being made. Chair Bain asked about the height of the buildings and whether the courthouse view corridor was considered. Mr. Choi gave an extensive explanation of heights of surrounding buildings and how this building would not block the courthouse view. Chair Bain asked Mr. Choi why he chose the design that he chose from the ones that were presented at the conceptual review. Mr. Choi stated he felt the colors were of a complimentary palette for downtown. He also stated that if the commission wanted he would come back with other samples. Commissioner Knight explained that the samples that were presented as part of the application should be the final choices, not options for later. There were further questions of building materials, brick and stone, and why those were chosen. Commissioner Hood questioned why Mr. Choi would not use more limestone on the first floor, to reflect the limestone buildings of the area and to support the quarry of the area. He suggested that the brick could be used on the second floor and perhaps stucco on the third floor. Mr. Choi stated he had no preference but asked for leeway after checking on the costs. Chair Bain opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Jeff Baker – 900 S. Austin Avenue – spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Choi has invested a lot of money into this town and this is a wonderful opportunity for the city. Jeff Parker – 30406 Berry Creek – spoke in favor of the application. He stated it would bring new retail, families and money into the downtown area. He stated this city is growing and more is coming. This is a great place to live and Tamiro Plaza meets all the criteria of the Downtown Master Plan. Candi Smith – Realtor – spoke in favor of the application, stating it will bring commerce and much needed housing. Bob Weimer – 415 Fort Griffin Trail – spoke in favor of the project, stating that Mr. Choi has amazing vision and this project is right on track with the future of Georgetown, complimenting the businesses with the residential use. Pam Mitchell – 1017 S. College – Stated that growth in this area is indisputable, but that growth is not Page 6 of 45 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: August 27, 2015 just in downtown Georgetown. The city needs housing, but this housing is not affordable. The city should be putting multi‐family structures where the people are. The city needs a balance of history and growth, and she asked the commission to be mindful of the community and that which makes it special. She stated this project does not fit in this place. Chair Bain closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. Commissioner Winder asked what type of windows and railings would be used. Mr. Choi explained that he wanted them to be different from Phase I. He stated the railings would be decorative wrought iron and the windows would be residential grade. When asked to define the windows more, he explained they would be vinyl clad wood base with casements and open with a crank. The divided windows would have integral, not glued muntins. Motion by Knight to approve this project as a conceptual plan with the final details to be submitted at a later date for HARC approval. Second by Hood. There was discussion regarding the details needed by the Commission. The motion was withdrawn by Commissioner Knight. Motion by Knight to continue this item to September 24 so that the applicant can review UDC Section 3.13 for requirements and the checklist, for the commission to review all materials and the applicant to make a definitive decision on what will be placed where, including window samples. The application should include either pictorial or physical samples of all items on the checklist and as much detail on renderings as possible. Second by Hood. Winder expressed concern about cladding and materials that will be used on different stories of the building. Knight amended the motion to include decisions on external cladding materials should be finalized and brought forward also. Second by Winder. Vote on the amendment, 6 – 0 approved. Vote on original motion, 5 – 1 approved, Bohls opposed. Chair Bain stated this is a great project; the commission just wants to get the application and approvals done correctly. D. Discussion and possible action regarding the demolition delay period for the unapproved demolition of a historic structure located at 1700 Leander Street, bearing the legal description of Outlot Division A, Block 13, Lot 1, 0.332 acres. Synatschk explained that this was a special case and that since there was not an application, there is not a designated staff report. He presented pictures of the house from the 1984 and 2007 historic resource surveys and explained that the commissioners were to identify a delay period that Mr. Prince should have to wait before receiving a permit to rebuild another structure on this lot. James Prince, the owner of the property in question, explained that he did not check in with the Building Department regarding work permits for the demolition and he should have. He stated there was faulty wiring in the house and there was a small fire. He was going to remodel the structure but then decided after the fire to demolish it. His insurance company stated it was a total loss and he just tore it down. He stated the building at the time was uninhabitable and undevelopable. He asked the commissioners to let him move forward. Page 7 of 45 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting: August 27, 2015 There was discussion amongst the commissioners that they could delay this project a total of 365 days, which started on July 27 with the application for demolition, or they could allow him to move forward, or choose any amount of time in between those. There was also discussion about the actual value of the historic structure before it was torn down and whether it was historically significant. Motion by Hood to allow the owner to move forward, counting the 30 days already delayed as the full penalty. Second by Winder. Approved 6 – 0. E. Consideration and action to appoint Commissioner Richard Mee to the HARC Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee Motion by Knight to continue this item to the September 24th meeting when Mr. Mee would be present. Second by Bain. Approved 6 ‐0. F. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training Commissioner in Training Patty Eason spoke. She explained that she sees a problem between the commission and the applicant’s understanding of the process. She cautioned the commissioners about not giving enough direction to applicants during concept reviews. She is hoping that the commission and staff will learn how to communicate more specific directions to the applicants. Commissioner in Training Lawrence Romero spoke. He agreed with the commission that the case tonight was not ready for a final decision. He also agreed with Ms. Eason that the applicant needs better direction for submitting requirements. G. Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC National Register Project application will be submitted to THC by September 12th . The Civic Center Study is underway and updates will be presented as they become available. Upcoming Meetings 1. Third Monday Main Street Lunch ‐ Monday, September 21st 2. Possible Demolition Subcommittee Meetings ‐ Monday, September 14th and Thursday, September 24th – no applications to date. 3. HARC Meeting ‐ Thursday, September 24th H. Adjournment Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Hood. The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. ________________________________ _______________________________ Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Richard Mee Page 8 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1-8, 1.3104 acres ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to remove an existing non-historic structure and construct a multi-use development, with retail space on the first floor and residential units on the upper floors. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request complies with the approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2015-025 Staff Report Backup Material CDC-2015-025 Staff Report Addendum Exhibit CDC-2015-025 Letter of Intent Exhibit CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 1 - Renderings Exhibit CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 2 - Material List Exhibit CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 3 - Site Plan Exhibit CDC-2015-025 Exhibit 4 - Supplemental Materials List Exhibit Page 9 of 45 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: August 27, 2015 File Number: CDC‐2015‐025 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for infill construction at 501 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Tamiro Plaza Phase II Applicant: Francisco Choi, FTC Architects Property Owner: Francisco Choi Property Address: 501 South Austin Avenue Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 27, Lots 1‐8, 1.3104 acres Historic Overlay: Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District, Case History: This project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 HARC meeting. This is the first public hearing for the project. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: None Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: None National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed infill construction project known as Tamiro Plaza, Phase II. The project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure and the construction of a four story structure with commercial space on the first floor and residential units on the upper floors. Page 10 of 45 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 2 of 6 APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS 13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line. Complies 13.3 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. Complies 13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies 13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several buildings, rather than a single structure. Complies 13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings. Complies 13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse. Complies 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Complies 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. Complies 13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. Complies 13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street. Complies 13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians. Complies 13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge. Complies 13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or disburse throughout the site. Complies 13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale. Complies 13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the construction of a four story mixed use structure in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District. The subject property is located north of the historic core of Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay District and is primarily surrounded by new construction. Page 11 of 45 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 3 of 6 The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines identify the following design goals for Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District: • 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 infill construction project complies with the design goals by establishing a pedestrian character with the first floor storefronts, and new sidewalks and other amenities. The building utilizes a modular design to break up the scale of the structure, providing a human scale and eliminating large expanses of blank walls. The parking area is primarily shielded with the exterior of the building, enhancing the pedestrian flow and experience. The block contains the existing Tamiro Plaza building, a mixed use office and restaurant development. Guideline 13.1 and UDC Section 4.08.070.A.1 specify that new construction shall be placed at the property line to preserve the building edge of the overall district. The proposed design incorporates upper floor setbacks at different levels to create a variation in the front plane of the façade and utilizes a mix of complimentary materials to reflect the traditional building width, as outlined in Guideline 13.3. The materials for the proposed project are stone and stucco, styled to provide a human scale and create a textural difference for the individual bays. The stucco colors reflect the color palate found throughout the building materials in the Downtown Overlay District. Secretary of the Interior Standard #9 states “New additions, exterior alterations and related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. New work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” The proposed new construction utilizes materials and form found within the district, specifically masonry materials and 30 foot bays to blend with the historic architecture. The Downtown Overlay District has a wide historic context, allowing for the construction of contemporary designs within its boundaries. The use of the contemporary design complies with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The overall design of the structure incorporates first level commercial space, detailed with different materials and recessed storefronts, similar to those seen historically. The design expands the walkability of the Downtown district by creating more usable sidewalks and eliminating the parking lot along the edge of the current property. The proposed sidewalks and pedestrian amenities will Page 12 of 45 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 4 of 6 clearly identify the street edge and provide access to the first floor commercial space. The building’s design wraps around the exterior of the lot, enclosing the parking within the space. Only a small portion of the parking area will be visible on the north side, between the existing building and the proposed structure. The overall building composition includes three separate buildings, breaking the combined project in to smaller structures, as outlined in Guideline 13.5. The articulation and setbacks of the upper floors further enhances the creation of individual modules, similar to those seen around the Courthouse Square. The proposed project includes the removal of a noncontributing structure, which does not require review by the HARC. The project was presented for conceptual review at the July 23, 2015 meeting and the Commission provided feedback regarding the materials and the verticality of the structure. These comments were addressed through the new design, by utilizing different materials and textures on the proposed structure. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application was deemed to be complete by staff. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and the UDC provisions outlined in Chapter 4 and 6. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines as outlined in the staff analysis. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. Not applicable. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed project is designed to be compatible in scale and materials with the surrounding structures. Many of the surrounding structures are non‐historic and do not have any historic fabric. Page 13 of 45 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 5 of 6 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project does not have an adverse effect on the Downtown Overlay District and accomplishes some of the goals identified in the 2013 Downtown Master Plan update. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. No signage is proposed with this application. Any future signage will require a Certificate of Appropriateness. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. The proposed project complies with the Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines as outlined in the staff report. The infill construction does not directly impact a historic resource and does not adversely impact the overall historic district. The proposed design utilizes the building to shield the parking areas from street view, limiting the impact upon the walkability of the Downtown Overlay District. In addition, new commercial space along Austin Avenue will draw pedestrians further off the Square, enhancing the vibrancy of the Downtown Overlay District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of CDC‐2015‐025 as submitted. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 14 of 45 Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC‐2015‐025 501 South Austin Avenue Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS Letter of Intent Exhibit 1 – Renderings Exhibit 2 – Material List Exhibit 3 – Site Plan SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Page 15 of 45 Staff Report Addendum for CDC-2015-025 Summary of previous action CDC-2015-025was presented for HARC review at the August 27, 2015 HARC meeting. At the meeting, the Commission voted to continue the application review until the September Meeting, pending clarification of the following items: 1. Materials for the building façade 2. Light fixtures 3. Balcony railings The applicant provided the requested materials and is scheduled to present at the September 24, 2015 HARC meeting. The materials are available for review at the Planning Department, located at 300-1 Industrial Blvd. A detailed material list is included for review as well. Building Materials The proposed project incorporates white limestone, brick and stucco in to the building façade, as outlined in the attached material list. Section 7.04.040.A of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code requires commercial buildings to meet the following criteria: Building Materials At least 80% of the collective walls of a building shall be finished in one or more of the following building materials: 1. Brick, stone, cast stone, rock, marble, granite, glass block or tile; 2. Stucco or plaster; 3. Split-face concrete block, poured-in-place concrete, and tilt-wall concrete. Any use of concrete products shall have an integrated color and be textured or patterned. Tilt- wall concrete structures shall include reveals, punch-outs or other similar surface characteristics to enhance the wall on at least 10% of each wall; 4. Glass with less than 20% reflectance. However, a maximum of 50% of the first two stories or floors of a building may be constructed in glass. Above the first two stories or floors, there are no restrictions on the amount of glass; 5. The following materials may be counted towards the minimum building material requirement if they are installed a minimum of four feet above ground level, but shall not comprise more than 60% of the collective walls of the building. a. Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) or equivalent product; or b. Cellulose fiber-reinforced cement building siding that is horizontally installed, such as Hardi-plank or similar product approved by a nationally-recognized building products evaluation service. The proposed limestone, brick and stucco exceed the required 80% and satisfy the requirements of the UDC. Page 16 of 45 In addition, The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines require new building materials to be visually compatible with the existing structures. The following guidelines apply to this project: 13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred 13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick and stone are encouraged. The material type, style and finish of the proposed materials comply with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Light fixtures The applicant provided additional details for the two proposed light fixtures, as outlined in the attached exhibit. Section 7.05.010.A and Section 7.05.010.B of the Unified Development Code discuss the lighting requirements for buildings bases upon type and use of the structure, but do not discuss design of specific features. Additionally, the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines do not include criteria for types of lighting. Balcony railings The applicant also provided specifications and metal treatment for the proposed balcony railings. Staff determined that the materials provided by the applicant satisfy the Commission’s request and recommends approval of CDC-2015-025 as presented. Page 17 of 45 Francisco Tae Choi, AIA, NCARB FTC Architects, PC 501 S Austin Ave, - Georgetown, TX 78626 Tel: 512.819.9900 Cell:512.297.7263 www.FTCarchitects.com francisco@tamiro.com RE: Tamiro Plaza Phase2 - Brownstones HARC Narratives 15July2015 – Concept Review TO: Mr. Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City Of Georgetown, Texas Matt, Mr. Synatschk, Here is a simple narrative and supporting excerpts and descriptions of foregoing HARC’s concept review in the upcoming HARC’s session. I have emailed you several computer renderings of the concepts. More clarification drawings will be emailed to you as they become available. Since official name has not been given to the project as such, we shall call it at this time as, Tamiro Plaza Phase Two - Brownstone Development. “Live Work and Play” is the heart and living soul of the theme of this brownstone development proposal in the heart of historic Overlay in Historic Downtown Georgetown – ….touching the 9 block Historic Square. The architecture is a uniquely blend of traditional shapes and forms that adheres with the scale of historic downtown. Each unit is a simple form that creates wonderful and very large outdoor terrace on each and every floor at second, third and fourth, comprising not just a small balconies, but rather a roomful size terraces where outdoor living activities will be greatly enjoyed to its fullest. The entire ground floor is designed to receive all kinds of retail shops and amenities. Thus, these “upscale brownstones” owners or inhabitants will have amenities like no other as they will not only live a stone throwaway from the Square, but enjoy dozens if not hundreds of shops within walking distance of merely two to three city blocks from it’s Tamiro Plaza. Lastly, such high end residential/retail proposed here will be new way of conceiving downtown living, and is as closest as any development has ever come to historic downtowns, and hopefully such dream will become a reality soon. Sincerely, Francisco Page 18 of 45 Background – Expectations of the City of Georgetown Excerpts from the Downtown Master Plan: From the Framework Strategy: This renaissance must concentrate on enhancing the core with a mix of uses, including higher density residential, commercial and cultural attractions. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II addresses the mix of higher density residential and commercial retail. The design provides up to 43,000 square feet of residential, and up to 16,600 square feet of retail. Map 6 of the Strategy designates the intersection of Austin Avenue and E. 5th Street as a Development Anchor. 'The Monument Cafe and Tamiro Plaza at 5th and Austin offer a mix of uses that currently draw pedestrians from the square. More development should follow in this direction.' (Tamiro Plaza Phase II satisfies the intent of this designation.) Generally, everything within a block and a half of the historic courthouse is termed the 'Downtown Core.' Specialty retail, dining and entertainment venues should be present to position the downtown core as an exciting place distinct from regional suburban shopping centers. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II contributes to the desired distinction of the downtown core.) This area should strengthen as the specialty shopping and dining destination for the county. Office space and apartments on upper floors should be promoted. Surface parking should be kept to a minimum. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II addresses the desire for specialty shopping, dining destination, office space, and apartments on upper floors while minimizing surface parking.) Promote development of downtown living and professional offices on upper floors. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II supports downtown living and professional offices, including support for entrepreneurs who wish to 'live above the store.') A vertical mixed use block is usually more intensive than a horizontal mixed use block, often requiring underground or above-grade parking to accommodate the on-site needs. Vertical mixed use blocks tend to be larger in mass and scale. Stepping back upper floors is one way to reduce the scale of the building from the street level. Parking is generally located underground or in a structure. (Tamiro Plaza Phase II provides mixed-use, and stepped-back upper floors.) Page 19 of 45 Page 20 of 45 Page 21 of 45 Page 22 of 45 Page 23 of 45 Page 24 of 45 TamiroPlazaPhase2 – Building Material 29 July2015 FTC Architects, PC 4th Floor Coping to Match Stucco Finish Cornice; 2 ft high by 2 ft(overhang) cornice Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish – Beige/creamy color – “Old World” Look Finish. Windows (Anderson 200 Series or Equal) Clear insulated low-e glass Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Dr or Equal) Stiles to match stucco color Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze finish Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal 3rd Floor Stucco Finish Exterior Wall Moulding; 2ft high by 6” projecting cornice Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish –Beige/creamy color –“Old World” Look Finish. Windows (Anderson 200 Series or Equal) Clear insulated low-e glass Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Dr or Equal) Stiles to match Stucco color Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal Metal Canopy – painted to match anodized (dark brown – satin finish) secured with turn buckle or steel tube assemblies; all painted to match metal canopy 2nd Floor Stucco Finish Exterior Wall Moulding; 2ft high by 6” projecting cornice Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish –Beige/creamy color –“Old World” Look Finish. Windows (Anderson 200 Series or Equal) Clear insulated low-e glass Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Doors or Equal) Stiles to match color of Stucco Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal Metal Canopy – painted to match anodized (dark brown – satin finish) secured with turn buckle or steel tube assemblies; all painted to match metal canopy 1st Floor Stucco Finish Exterior Wall Molding; 2ft high by 6” projecting cornice Exterior wall- 3 coat Stucco Smooth Finish –Beige/creamy color –“Old World” Look Finish. Windows/Storefront/Door assemblies (Kawneer or Equal) anodized finish frame with Clear insulated low-e glass with ornamental hardware series by Schlage Exterior Door (Anderson Patio Doors or Equal) Stiles to match color of Stucco Exterior Guardrail 3’-8” high Decorative Metal 2”x2” steel tubing – painted bronze finish Exterior Light “Hinkley Lighting Lincoln 3 Light Outdoor Wall Lantern in Oil Rubbed Bronze with Clear Seedy Glass 2468OZ” or Equal Metal Canopy – painted to match anodized (dark brown – satin finish) secured with turn buckle or steel road assemblies; all painted to match metal canopy 2’-0” high smooth finish Texas Limestone Base – to be continuous throughout…. Page 25 of 45 Page 26 of 45 TAMIRO PLAZA PHASE 2TAMIRO PLAZA PHASE 2 EXTERIOR FINISHES FTC Architects DATE : SEP 14, 2015COPYRIGHT © 2015 FTC ARCHITECS Page 27 of 45 MATERIAL LIST Page 28 of 45 [A] ROUGH STUCCO FINISHTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION STUCCO FINISH CORNICE 2FT HIGH BY 2FT PROJECTING CORNICE (3) COAT ROUGH STUCCO FINISH STUCCOFINISHEXTERIOR WALL MOULDING (3) COAT ROUGH STUCCO FINISH STUCCO FINISH EXTERIOR WALL MOULDING 2FT HIGH BY 6” PROJECTING MOULDING Page 29 of 45 [B] ANODIZED FINISH METAL CANOPYTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION by SAF / SAF445-STATUARY BRONZE, DARK RANGE, CLASS I, A44 Page 30 of 45 [C] ORNAMENTAL METAL GUARDRAILTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION GUARDRAIL 3’-6” HIGH W/DECORATIVE METAL 2”X2” STEEL TUBING FLANGESHANDRAIL STARTING POST COLOR SAF445-STATUARY BRONZE, DARK RANGE Page 31 of 45 [D] ANDERSEN WINDOWSTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION By ANDERSEN / ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTION TYPICAL CASEMENT WINDOWS Page 32 of 45 By ANDERSEN / ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTION [E] WINDOW/STOREFRONT/DOOR ASSEMBLIES BY ANDERSENTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION Page 33 of 45 [F] ANDERSEN PATIO DOORTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION By ANDERSEN / ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTION Page 34 of 45 [G] EXTERIOR WALL SCONCETAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION By HINKLEY LIGHTING / 1670BK Seedy / Frosted Glass Panels Page 35 of 45 [H] ROUND WALL SCONCETAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION by PLC / BRONZE MODERN 14-INCH-H PLC WALL OUTDOOR LIGHT Page 36 of 45 [J] BRICKTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION by ACME BRICK Page 37 of 45 [K] BRICKTAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION by BELDEN BRICK Page 38 of 45 [L] ROUGH & SMOOTH FINISH LIMESTONETAMIRO PLAZA PHASE2 _ EXTERIOR FINISH SPECIFICATION ROUGH FINISH SMOOTH FINISH Page 39 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and action to appoint Commissioner Richard Mee to the HARC Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is updating the existing 1984 and 2007 historic resource surveys. The survey is a key tool for the historic preservation program and serves as the basis for many decisions. The proposed survey project will evaluate the current resources on the 1984 and 2007 surveys, plus conduct an intensive survey of the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts, to compile a complete list of the properties. The results will be utilized by staff, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, and interested members of the community to provide research on the historic properties. The survey will include completed Texas Historical Commission Survey forms, eliminating the need to require the completion of the forms by the property owner. The survey will categorize properties as contributing and noncontributing properties, as outlined in the recently adopted Unified Development Code amendments. In addition, the survey will identify potential properties eligible for the new Historic Landmark designation. In addition, the survey will serve as the initial review criteria for any future preservation incentives, currently being reviewed by staff. Staff wishes to create the Historic Resource Survey Subcommittee to assist staff throughout the survey process. The following scope of work for the Subcommittee was presented to City Council. Staff will work with the Subcommittee and the consultant to identify specific roles and responsibilities. The Survey Subcommittee will work with City staff and the selected project consultant to manage the survey project and provide updates to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. The Subcommittee will work closely with staff to ensure timely completion of the survey and assist with the coordination of additional research and identifying stakeholders for inclusion in the process. The proposed members work closely with the current survey and will continue to play an active role in the utilization of the updated survey. Article VI of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission bylaws authorizes the Commission to create subcommittees for specific projects related to Commission matters. Subcommittees with non-members require City Council approval prior to their formation. The proposed Survey Subcommittee will be comprised of the following people: 1. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Chair or designee 2. City of Georgetown Planning Director or designee 3. Chief Building Official or designee 4. Citizen at Large with an interest in historic preservation 5. Georgetown Heritage Society President or designee Page 40 of 45 Each member of the Subcommittee plays a key role in the implementation of the completed survey. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Page 41 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. ITEM SUMMARY: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Page 42 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC. ITEM SUMMARY: 1. Historic Resource Survey 2. Grace Heritage Center 3. Downtown West 4. Parking Study 5. National Register project Future HARC Meetings Demolition Subcommittee - October 12th @ 4:00 and October 22nd @ 4:00 HARC Regular Meeting - October 22nd @ 6:00 Other Downtown related events: September 21st - 3rd Monday Main Street Lunch @ 11:30 (Burger U) October 12th - Downtown Lowdown @ 8:30 (Roots Bistro) FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2015/16 HARC Meeting Dates Backup Material Page 43 of 45 UDC Development Manual Georgetown, Texas HARC Calendar Revised: April 2015 www.georgetown.org Page 1 of 1 Historic and Architectural Review Commission (4th Thursday) Applications may be submitted at any time. The Agenda Deadline is not a submittal deadline; it is the last day an item may be added to a meeting agenda to meet notification requirements. Additional time is needed for processing and review of applications; therefore you are encouraged to submit your application as early as possible in advance of this date to avoid delays. Please refer to the Application Review Timelines chart in this Development Manual to estimate overall processing time. All issues must be resolved before an item can be added to an agenda. Staff will determine when your application is ready for the public meeting and notify you accordingly. Historic & Architectural Review Commission Agenda Deadline HARC Meeting December 26, 2014 January 22, 2015 January 27, 2015 February 26 February 27 March 26 March 27 April 23 May 1 May 28 May 29 June 25 June 26 July 23 July 31 August 27 August 28 September 24 September 25 October 22 * November 13 * December 10 December 31 January 28, 2016 January 29, 2016 February 25 February 26 March 24 April 1 April 28 April 29 May 26 May 27 June 23 July 1 July 28 July 29 August 25 August 26 September 22 September 30 October 27 ** November 11 * December 8 * November and December regular meetings are combined due to the Holidays. The combined meeting is held on the second Thursday of December. Page 44 of 45 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Page 45 of 45