Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.26.2016Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown May 26, 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 at leas t fo ur (4) d ays prior to the sc heduled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for ad d itional informatio n; TTY users ro ute thro ugh 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 Des ign Co mp lianc e b as ed up o n the City Co uncil adopted Do wntown Design Guid elines and Unified Development C o d e. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Ses s ion to c o nvene an Executive Ses s io n at the req uest of the Chair, a Commis s ioner, the Direc tor o r legal c ouns el fo r any p urpose autho rized b y the Open Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code Chap ter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff P res entation Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.) Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant Comments fro m Citizens * Applic ant Res p o nse Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s Commis s ion Ac tion * Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes. Legislativ e Regular Agenda B Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes o f the Ap ril 14, 2016 Mobile Wo rksho p and the Ap ril 28, 2016 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 and an ad d ition for the property loc ated at 207 South Churc h Street, bearing the legal desc rip tio n o f Whittle Additio n, Bloc k 1, Lot 2, 0.33 ac res . D Up d ate on Adminis trative Certificates of Appropriateness is s ued d uring the p revious month E Co mments o r Ques tions by Co mmis s ioners -in-Training. Page 1 of 41 F Up d ates from s taff o n work being d o ne for His to ric Resource Survey. G Up d ates on c urrent p ro jects and future meetings 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 __________________, 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 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 2016 SUBJECT: The Histo ric and Arc hitectural Review Commis s io n, appointed b y the Mayor and the City Co uncil, is res p o nsible for hearing and taking final ac tion o n ap p licatio ns, by issuing Certific ates of Design Compliance bas ed upon the City Counc il ad o p ted Downto wn Des ign Guidelines and Unified Develo p ment 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 req uest of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any purp o s e autho rized by the Op en Meetings Ac t, Texas Go vernment Code Chap ter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Pres entatio n Applic ant Pres entatio n (Limited to ten minutes unless s tated otherwis e b y the Co mmis s io n.) Ques tions from Commission to Staff and Applic ant Comments from Citizens * Applic ant Res pons e Commis s io n Deliberative Proc es s Commis s io n Actio n * Those who s p eak mus t turn in a s p eaker form, loc ated at the bac k o f the room, to the recording s ecretary b efore the item they wis h to ad d res s b egins . Eac h s p eaker will be p ermitted to address the Commission o ne time o nly for a maximum of three minutes . ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary Page 3 of 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2016 Mo b ile Works hop and the April 28, 2016 meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes of 04.14.2016 Mobile Works hop Backup Material Minutes of 04.28.2016 meeting Backup Material Page 4 of 41 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 1 Meeting: March 14, 2016 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Special Walking Tour Minutes Thursday, March 14, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. Parking lot at 3rd Street and Rock Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood; Nancy Knight and Lawrence Romero. Commissioners in Training present: Michael Friends and Lynn Williams Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Policy Development/Review Workshop Members of the Commission and staff explored the northwest Downtown Area on a walking tour to discuss area development. Meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. ________________________________ _______________________________ Approved, Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair Attest, Patty Eason Page 5 of 41 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood; Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero. Commissioners in Training present: Michael Friends and Lynn Williams Commissioners absent: Jan Daum Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. Regular Session A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2016 meeting. Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Romero. Approved 7 – 0. Item E was discussed next. C. Nomination and election of Vice-Chair and Secretary of Commission. Nomination by Mee, second by Romero to elect Nancy Knight as Vice-Chair. Approved 7 – 0. Nomination by Knight, second by Bohls to elect Lawrence Romero as Secretary. Approved 7 – 0. D. Discussion and possible action to appoint the members of the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. Nancy Knight and Shawn Hood volunteered. The Commission approved their appointment 7 – 0. E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations and infill construction for the property located at 1104 South Church Street bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, B lock 22 ½, Lot 1, 2 (P T ), 0.27 acres. Synatschk presented the staff report. The property is located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay district and most recently served as a professional office. The current owner wishes to return it to residential use. The request includes the addition of a carport along the western wall of the structure, the construction of a new 1.5 story detached garage and the installation of an additional column on the front porch. The carport design incorporates simplified interpretations of the structures style, utilizing a different type of brick to differentiate the new construction from the original house. The roof height will not extend beyond the height of the current roofline, creating further differentiation for the project. Page 6 of 41 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 The proposed accessory structure will incorporate modern interpretations of the existing style, but will utilize new windows and materials to differentiate the new construction. The size and massing for the infill project is appropriate for the site, and it will be set back from the primary structure. The structure measures 26’ wide by 26’ long, with an approximate height of 25’ at the peak. The structure will be clad with hardi-siding with modern windows and a metal roof. The use of modern materials, including windows and the garage door will help differentiate the structure from the existing historic structure. In addition, the proposed structure will utilize square columns, contrasting with the tapered columns on the original house. The proposed porch column is not appropriate for the project. The porch design often incorporates one or more middle low piers without a column, as seen on this structure. In addition, UDC Section 4.08.050.A states that “The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.” The middle pier without a porch column is a distinctive feature of the architectural style and should be preserved to protect the historic integrity of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the project without the additional column. Bryant Boyd, the architect for the project spoke and explained that the front porch beam is sagging and needs the additional column to add support to the middle and prohibit any more sagging. Otherwise the homeowners will have to take apart the front of the house to replace the beam with a steel beam, at a much larger expense. He also presented several pictures of houses in the area that have the additional column and some that did not. Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the hearing. Commissioners asked if adding the column would change the status of the structure in the Historic Resource Survey. Synatschk stated probably not, that it was not a substantial enough change. Commissioners debated and considered the safety issues and expense to replace the beam. Motion by Eason to approve the COA as presented by the applicant, including the column on the front porch. Second by Mee. Approved 7 – 0. F. Discussion and possible action to specify a materials list for applicants to include in HARC packets for COA. Commissioner Knight opened the discussion. She explained that she feels there are issues with clarity between the changes that were made to the UDC and how the applications and checklists are being applied by staff. Her concern is that the commission is not receiving enough information on projects to make the decisions that are called for based on Chapters 6 and 14 of the Design Guidelines. Sofia Nelson, the Planning Director, explained that staff is always willing to work with the applicant and the commission. She feels the conflicts come during review of the bigger projects and those that have a mixed-use element. The applicants feel they are not getting enough feedback from the commission, but the commission feels they do not have enough information to give constructive feedback. The applicants have stated they don’t want to spend too much money on the design of the project, including specific details, if the commission is not going to like it. Commissioners and staff discussed ways of discussing the projects with the applicants so Page 7 of 41 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 everyone gets what they need to move forward. For example, a commissioner could state: “Based on what you have shown us, the windows are proportionate but I need some more information on these materials. I am not quite comfortable with . . . “. Synatschk suggested that commissioners can use specific Guidelines as examples to explain what they need to see, during the Concept Plan review. There was further discussion that applicants who bring in “options” for the commission are not helpful. This causes problems with the review. The applicants should come to the commission prepared to present the entire project, including details on exterior elements and how the project meets the Guidelines. Nelson agreed that the applications should be complete before coming before the commission and reminded the commission that we were all on the same team, working towards the same end goal of historic preservation while enhancing the quality of life and economy for the community. There was further discussion that the Guidelines’ requirements are not specific enough and that is where some of the conflict comes into play. Chair Bain invited public comment and J.J. Parker of Timber Hitch Court asked to speak. She stated she appreciates all the hours the Board spends serving on the commission. She has been hearing good things about the Downtown, but hears that developers don’t want to be told no and that HARC produces an extra hurdle for them. She thinks asking for materials should be a suggestion, not a requirement. No other speakers came forth. Knight stated she is not asking for an additional requirement for the applicants, only that they be made to provide what is already required. Eason suggested making sure everyone, including the applicant and commissioners, know what type of application is being reviewed and possibly outlining what requirements are needed for which type of project. Hood asks that all applications be fully reviewed and complete before being submitted to the commission for a COA. Nelson responded that it is not the intent to submit partial applications and that staff will work on educating everyone and clarifying the application types through Matt’s reports. G. Review and update of the Downtown Overlay District Parking Study Synatschk reported on the parking study and said that it showed that the people that had the most complaints about parking downtown were business owners and residents. Visitors did not have many complaints. He pointed out that the new parking lot at 8th and Rock was being utilized a lot, along with the city lot at 9th and Main Streets. There is a move to name the parking lots and he will take any suggestions for those names. He also explained that there is money in this year’s budget for additional signage and restriping. That work will be done this summer. H. Updates from staff on future meetings and current projects. Synatschk reported that the Historic Resource Study is still being worked on. The consultants have reviewed approximately 4000 properties in the field and are now working on the reports in the office. Next month (May) is Preservation Month and an activity is planned for every weekend. Starting with a Historical Marker Workshop on May 7th at 9 a.m. in Founders Park. There will be a proclamation at the City Council meeting on May 10th. May 14th – Georgetown Heritage Society is working with the Williamson Museum for Pioneer Page 8 of 41 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting: April 28, 2016 Day on the Square. The Demolition Subcommittee will meet on Monday May 9th at 2:30 p.m. The next regular HARC meeting will be Thursday, May 26th. Motion by Knight, second by Romero to adjourn at 7:16 p.m. Approved 7 – 0. ________________________________ _______________________________ Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero Page 9 of 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 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 and an ad d ition for the p ro p erty lo cated at 207 South Churc h S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n of Whittle Ad d ition, Blo ck 1, Lo t 2, 0.33 acres. ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a req ues t for a COA for exterio r alteratio ns and an ad d ition. Ac cording to the s ubmitted letter of intent, the ap p licant wishes to c o nstruc t an additio n to a residential s tructure lo cated in the Old Town Overlay Dis tric t. Staff rec o mmend s approval with c o nditio ns of the reques t b as ed on the find ings that the req uest meets the ap p ro val criteria o f S ectio n3.13.030 o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC), as o utlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt. The affirmative vote of the majority o f the HAR C memb ers is req uired to approve the COA req uest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type COA-2016-015 Staff Report Backup Material COA-2015-016 Letter of Intent and Plans Backup Material COA-2016-015 Photographs Backup Material Page 10 of 41 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐015 207 South Church Street Page 1 of 4  Meeting Date: May 26, 2016   File Number:  COA‐2016‐015    AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION  Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior  alterations and an addition for the property located at 207 South Church Street, bearing the legal  description of Whittle Addition, Block 1, Lot 2, 0.33 acres.    AGENDA ITEM DETAILS  Project Name:  207 South Church Street Residential Addition   Applicant:  Carl Illig  Property Owner: Burke Grandjean and Patricia Taylor  Property Address:  207 South Church Street  Legal Description:  Whittle Addition, Block 1, Lot 2, 0.33 acres.  Historic Overlay:  Old Town Overlay District  Case History: This is the first public hearing for the application.    HISTORIC CONTEXT  Date of construction:  ca. 1950  Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded   2007 ‐ Medium  National Register Designation: None  Texas Historical Commission Designation: None    APPLICANT’S REQUEST  The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic and Architectural Review  Commission to construct an addition to a street facing façade of a Medium priority historic structure  located in the Old Town Overlay District.    The request includes the following components:    1. Extension of the existing porch  2. Construction of a fireplace  3. Construction of a bay window in the north street facing façade  4. Construction of a 928 square foot addition             Page 11 of 41 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐015 207 South Church Street Page 2 of 4  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  6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing. Does not  comply  7.2   Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic  Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.  Complies  7.6   Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies  7.8   Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and  materials of the primary structure.  Complies  14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features Complies  14.14   Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to  minimize the visual impacts.  Complies  14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy or remove original architectural details and  materials of the primary structure   Complies  14.16   An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main  building.  Complies  14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character defining façade  Complies  14.18 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary  building.  Complies    STAFF ANALYSIS  The applicant is proposing the construction of a 928 square foot addition to a 1,276 square foot house,  exceeding the 25% threshold. The size of the addition requires additional design elements to reduce the  impact on the historic structure, including setting back the addition from the primary street facing  façade, and utilization of compatible materials to design a complete structure while differentiating the  addition from the historic structure. The proposed design accomplishes both stated goals, with a six  foot setback on the Church Street façade and the utilization of composite siding.    The proposed porch extension maintains the form and the roofline of the existing porch. However, the  applicant proposes replacing the existing metal porch railing with a wooden railing, adversely  impacting the historic character of the porch. The removal of historic features is incompatible with the  Design Guidelines.     The proposed fireplace and bay window will be clad in the same composite siding as the addition,  creating a differentiation between the historic structure and the new components. Fireplaces are  Page 12 of 41 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐015 207 South Church Street Page 3 of 4  common to the architectural style, and the materials are appropriate for the structure. The design of the  bay window is not consistent with the architectural style of the structure, Ranch style houses typically  exhibit traditional windows and one or more picture windows, but bay windows are not a component  of the style.       CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL  In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the  following criteria:    SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  A. The application is complete and the information  contained within the application is correct and  sufficient enough to allow adequate review and  final action;  The application is deemed complete by staff.  B. Compliance with any design standards of the  Unified Development Code;  The proposed project complies with the  UDC requirements for the Residential Single  Family zoning district.   C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design  Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,  specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay  District;  The proposed project complies with the  Design Guidelines, with the exception of the  bay window and the porch railings.  D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is  preserved.  The overall project does not diminish the  integrity of the historic structure. However,  the proposed bay window and removal of  the porch railings have an adverse effect on  the architectural style of the structure.   E. New buildings or additions are designed to be  compatible with surrounding historic properties.  The proposed addition is compatible with  the surrounding properties in materials,  design and setting.   F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable  Overlay District is protected.  The proposed project does not have an  adverse effect on the Old Town Overlay  District.  G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted  design standards, and are not in character with  the site or landmarks within the Historic or  applicable Overlay District in question will not be  permitted.  No signage is proposed with this project.  H. The following may also be considered by the  HARC when determining whether to approve a  Certificate for Design Compliance:  The proposed project mostly complies with  the Downtown and Old Town Design  Guidelines, creating a project that respects  Page 13 of 41 Planning Department Staff Report  Historic and Architectural Review Commission    COA‐2016‐015 207 South Church Street Page 4 of 4  SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS  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 historic character of the structure and is  compatible with the neighborhood.     Two components of the project have an  adverse effect on the historic structure. The  removal of the historic porch railings  reduces the historic integrity of the  structure, while the installation of the  proposed bay window negatively impacts  the architectural style, further reducing the  historic integrity.       STAFF RECOMMENDATION  Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends the following action:    1. Approval of the proposed addition  2. Approval of the proposed fireplace  3. Approval of the proposed porch extension, with the condition that the metal railings remain  intact  4. Denial of the proposed bay window    As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this request.    ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent  Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications     SUBMITTED BY  Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Page 14 of 41 Historical Architectural Review Committee: RE: 207 S. Church St – Letter of Intent Please note the following: Proposed additions: • Addition to the South side of the house (approximately 550 sq. ft.) • Attached garage and storage room (approximately 378 sq. ft.) • Extend the existing covered porch, North (approximately 55 sq. ft.) • Fireplace to the North Wall • Bay window to the North Wall The house is currently 1,276 sq. ft., according to the Williamson County Appraisal District. The intent is to keep and repair the existing brick on the house. The additions will be differentiated from the existing structure using Hardieplank siding, mounted horizontally. The new structure will be set back (as seen in the plans and renderings), creating a difference in elevation from the existing structure. Additional proposed modifications: • Replace existing windows with energy efficient Anderson Casement Wood / Vinyl windows • Replace metal porch supports and railing with wood alternatives • Decrease size of window in the master bedroom on the East wall to accommodate furniture Proposed Colors: • The existing brick will remain unchanged • New and existing siding (SW 7744 / Zeus) • New and existing trim / plaster (SW 6385 / Dover White) • Front Door Stained Black/Brown Sincerely, Carl Illig on behalf of Burke Grandjean & Patricia Taylor Page 15 of 41 South Churc h St 2 n d S t r e e t 1 2 0 Fe e t 5 9 Fe e t 120 Feet 22 Feet 30 Feet Existing Structure Proposed Structure Page 16 of 41 MASTER BEDROOMKITCHEN LIVING ROOM BATHROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLOSET MECHANICAL MUD ROOM MASTER BATH MASTER BEDROOM WALK IN CLOSET STORAGE PORCHPORCH EXTENSION STORAGE GARAGE 22'-5 3/8" 2'-4 1/2"5'-2 1/2" 2'-11"8'-6 1/2"2'-4 1/2" 8'-6" 9'-4"11'-6 1/8" 5'-11"8'-6 1/4"8'-6"13'-9 1/4"4'-4" 54'-9" 24'-1"16'-6"6'-10"7'-4 1/8" 6'-2 1/2"9'-1"17'-3 3/4"11'-7 1/8"8'-5 1/8"2'-1" 27 ' - 5 " 32 ' - 2 1 / 8 " 6'-11 5/8"7'-0 3/8" 4' - 9 1 / 4 " 14'-0" SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" 1ST FLOOR PLAN PROJECT: CECERE INTERIORS GENERAL CONTRACTOR: DAVID MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION 207 SOUTH CHURCH STREET O GEORGETOWN,TEXAS O PHONE: 512.586.3908 O E-MAIL: JANEA@CECEREINTERIORS.COM Page 17 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 REVISIONS REMARKS MM/DD/YY 01A ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... Page 18 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 REVISIONS REMARKS MM/DD/YY 02A ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... Page 19 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 REVISIONS REMARKS MM/DD/YY 03A ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... Page 20 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 REVISIONS REMARKS MM/DD/YY 04A ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... Page 21 of 41 CASEMENT WINDOWS 400 SERIES *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. **Visit andersenwindows.com to verify that the product and glass type are ENERGY STAR certified in your area. † See your Andersen dealer for availability. “ENERGY STAR” is a registered trademark of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EXTERIOR COLORS Sandtone Dark Bronze Black†Canvas Forest GreenWhiteTerratone ENERGY EFFICIENT • Weather-resistant construction for greater comfort and energy efficiency • Weatherstripping is designed to seal out drafts, wind and water • A variety of Low-E4® glass options are available to control heating and cooling costs in any climate • Many 400 Series Casement Windows have options that achieve ENERGY STAR® version 6.0 certifications in all 50 states** DURABLE • Virtually maintenance-free • Perma-Shield® exteriors never need painting and won’t peel, blister, flake or corrode* • Frame exterior is protected by a tough vinyl cover that resists dents and repels water and provides long-lasting protection • Wood core members provide excellent structural stability • Available with Stormwatch protection for coastal areas • Sash is completely encased in a vinyl cover to protect the wood inside, even if the window is left open in the rain Andersen® 400 Series casement windows are built to perform beautifully. Their solid wood frames and sash provide strength, while the vinyl covering and weather-tight construction keep the window and your home protected from the elements. On the inside you have the choice of natural pine or a low-maintenance white finish. For added style there is a wide range of grille, hardware and art glass options. It’s no wonder that they are our best-selling windows of all time. BEAUTIFUL • Seven exterior color options • Natural pine or white interiors • Extensive hardware selection • Add style with grilles, exterior trim, art glass or patterned glass Page 22 of 41 ReedObscure FernCascade EXTERIOR TRIM Available in 11 colors to complement your exterior. 400 SERIES CASEMENT WINDOWS For more information visit andersenwindows.com/400series GLASS OPTIONS LOW-E4® GLASS • Low-E4® tempered glass • Low-E4® SmartSun™ tempered glass • Low-E4® Sun tempered glass • Additional glass options are available. Contact your Andersen dealer. GRILLES Choose from dozens of popular designs or work with Andersen to create custom patterns ADDITIONAL FEATURES • Wood core members provide excellent structural stability • Available with Stormwatch protection for coastal areas Printing limitations prevent exact color and finish duplication. See your Andersen dealer for actual finish samples. Frank Lloyd Wright is a trademark of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. “Andersen” and all other marks where denoted are trademarks of Andersen Corporation. ©2015 Andersen Corporation. All rights reserved. SS_017 8/15 INTERIOR OPTIONS WhitePine HARDWARE FINISHES *Distressed Bronze and Oil Rubbed Bronze are "living" finishes that will change with time and use. ART GLASS A wide range of art glass patterns, including Frank Lloyd Wright® series designs are available to add beauty to your home. PATTERNED GLASS Available in four attractive patterns ideal for letting light into the home while obscuring vision. Naturally occurring variations in grain, color and texture of wood make each window one-of-a-kind. All wood interiors are unfinished unless prefinished White is specified. CLASSIC SERIES™ Stone | White Bright Brass Distressed Bronze Oil Rubbed Bronze Satin Nickel Antique Brass | Brushed Chrome | Distressed Nickel | Polished Chrome | ESTATE ™ CONTEMPORARY FOLDING Bright Brass Oil Rubbed Bronze White TRADITIONAL FOLDING HARDWARE Black | Gold Dust | Stone | Satin NickelAntique Brass | Distressed Nickel | Satin Nickel | Black Gold Dust Stone White | Distressed Bronze | Bright Brass | Oil Rubbed Bronze HARDWARE FINISHES Oil Rubbed Bronze* Polished Chrome Antique Brass Satin Nickel Black Gold Dust Distressed Bronze* Distressed Nickel Bright Brass Stone Brushed Chrome White *Distressed Bronze and Oil Rubbed Bronze are "living" finishes that will change with time and use. For help finding an Andersen product or dealer near you, please call us at 877.577.7655 or visit andersenwindows.com. Page 23 of 41 Page 24 of 41 Page 25 of 41 Page 26 of 41 Page 27 of 41 Page 28 of 41 Page 29 of 41 Page 30 of 41 Page 31 of 41 Page 32 of 41 Page 33 of 41 Page 34 of 41 Page 35 of 41 Page 36 of 41 Page 37 of 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Update on Ad minis trative Certific ates o f App ro p riatenes s issued during the previo us mo nth ITEM SUMMARY: Staff issued o ne ad minis trative Co A for s ignage for Nathaniel's Hats, loc ated at 111 Eas t 7th Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner Page 38 of 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Comments or Ques tio ns b y Commissioners -in-Training. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: na SUBMITTED BY: Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary Page 39 of 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Updates from s taff on wo rk b eing done for His toric Res o urc e S urvey. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner Page 40 of 41 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Updates on c urrent projec ts and future meetings ITEM SUMMARY: 1. Aus tin Avenue Bridges 2. P res ervation Month 3. 3rd Monday Main S treet Lunch - June 20 @ 11:30 4. HARC Meeting - June 23 @ 6:00 FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner Page 41 of 41