HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.24.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
September 24, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The re gular me eting wi ll c onvene at 6:00pm on S e pte mbe r 24, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/2 F B e XXT
Webinar I D: 986-0859-0841
P assword: 357876
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: +1(346)248-7799. +1(669)900-6833. +1(253)215-8782.
+1(929)205-6099
P assword: 357876
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Page 1 of 45
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
Page 2 of 45
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
C At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the S eptember 10, 2020 regular meeting of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
E C onceptual review of a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new building cons truction (infill
development) at the p ro p erty lo cated at 405 S . Austin Avenue, b earing the legal desc ription 0.7434 ac res ,
being Lot 9, R eplat of Bloc k 24, C ity of G eorgetown.
F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 45
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 24, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the S eptember 10, 2020 regular meeting of
the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 45
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: September 10, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
September 10, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/3aCYA8p
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on September 10, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/3aCYA8p
To participate by phone: Call in number: 888-475-4499 Webinar ID#: 978-1599-5564 Password:
453689
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Pam Mitchell; Terri Asendorf-Hyde;
Steve Johnston; Art Browner; Karalei Nunn, Robert McCabe
Members absent: Faustine Curry
Alternate Commissioner McCabe was on the dais.
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 pm.
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. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public
comments and how the public may address the Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director
B. 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 Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
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
Page 5 of 45
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: September 10, 2020
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 27, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston.
Approved (6-0), with Commissioner Nunn abstained because she was absent at the last
meeting.
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade at the property
located at 1257 S. Church Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 18, Block I of the Cody
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a request to enclose the
front porch with screening material to protect against m osquitoes in warmer months. The
screening material is proposed to be installed with minimal disturbance to the historic material,
and the screens would be installed within thin frames attached to the porch to minimize the
visual impacts from the street. As the front porch is asymmetrical with the front door to the left
of the porch as viewed from S. Church Street, the screened area would be limited to the portion
with porch railing, and not include screening across the area in front of the front door so tha t
Page 6 of 45
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: September 10, 2020
the front door remains fully visible from the street. The 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows
that the subject property did not have any structure in that year, but the 1925 shows the house
with a detached garage to the rear along Myrtle Street. The 1940 Sanborn Map, 1964 aerial photo
and 1974 aerial photo show no changes to the structures on Lot 18. The medium priority historic
structure has a large, west-facing front porch that is original to the design of the house, which is
Craftsman in style with low roof slopes, stone columns at the front porch, exposed rafters under
the roof eaves and an asymmetrical front façade. The low height of the beam across the stone
porch columns and the presence of landscaping provide for a less obtrusive condition for th e
installation of screening as seen from the street.
There were questions from the Commission to the applicant related to any additional changes
that will need to be made to complete the request. The applicant commented that there will no
be additional changes.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item D (2020-43-COA) as presented by the applicant by Commissioner
Nunn. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
E. Presentation and discussion of Commission training on Infill Development.
The purpose of this item is to train the Commission on Infill Development. Bostick reviewed the
training goals, which included learning vocabulary for commercial infill development, learning
about the distinction between mass and scale, how the UDC defines “Building Height” and the
relationship to roof style, and key concepts guiding development in Area 1 and Area 2 of the
Downtown Overlay District. Bostick also explained setback for commercial property and
provided commercial infill setback examples. Bostick also reviewed building height exceptions,
courthouse view protection, floor to area ratio, and impervious cover.
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
No updates
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Nunn.
Meeting adjourned at 7:21 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 7 of 45
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 24, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onc eptual review of a request fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness for new b uilding c o nstruc tion (infill
development) at the p ro p erty lo cated at 405 S . Aus tin Avenue, b earing the legal des cription 0.7434 ac res ,
being Lot 9, R eplat of Block 24, C ity of G eorgetown.
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val of a new, three sto ry b ank and o ffic e with a drive-thru loc ated
on the eas t s ide o f the build ing. T he new build ing is propos ed to be a to tal of 22,702 s q . ft., with a 40’
building height as d efined b y the Unified Develo p ment C ode (UDC ) and a 47’ parapet height. T he
propos ed exterior materials are c as t sto ne or cut limesto ne and s tuc co, with dark aluminum frame windows
and non-reflective glazing. T he proposed d es ign includ es d ecorative s tucc o details at the first and top
floors , as well as s tone and s tucc o d etails to highlight the b uilding entranc es o n the no rth and s outh
elevations and the center s ectio n o f the Austin Avenue (west) faç ad e. S ignage is not propos ed as p art of
this ap p licatio n, b ut the submitted p lans sho w build ing signage areas o n eac h of the three s treet fac ades .
T he highes t p o int of the ro o f parapet at 49’ is p ro p o s ed for the cornice d etails in the center o f the street-
facing facades, while the parapet s urro und ing the roof (“mid parapet”) is 47’ in height. T his parapet acts to
s creen rooftop mec hanical equipment from view, while the “low parapet” is a dec orative element.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 8 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: September 24, 2020
File Number: 2020-45-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new building construction (infill
development) at the property located at 405 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description 0.7434 acres,
being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: R Bank - Georgetown
Applicant: Whitney Koch (Mustard Design)
Property Owner: Carr Ryan Re 4, LLC
Property Address: 405 S. Austin Avenue
Legal Description: 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: N/A
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New building construction (infill development)
Feedback staff is seeking:
• Building Form and Massing (Design Guidelines 13.3 – 13.6)
• Building Materials (Design Guidelines 13.8 – 13.12)
• Building Proportions (Design Guideline 13.18)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new, three story bank and office with a drive-thru
located on the east side of the building. The new building is proposed to be a total of 22,702 sq. ft., with
a 40’ building height as defined by the Unified Development Code (UDC) and a 47’ parapet height. The
proposed exterior materials are cast stone or cut limestone and stucco, with dark aluminum frame
windows and non-reflective glazing. The proposed design includes decorative stucco details at the first
and top floors, as well as stone and stucco details to highlight the building entrances on the north and
Page 9 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 2 of 9
south elevations and the center section of the Austin Avenue (west) façade. Signage is not proposed as
part of this application, but the submitted plans show building signage areas on each of the three street
facades. The highest point of the roof parapet at 49’ is proposed for the cornice details in the center of the
street-facing facades, while the parapet surrounding the roof (“mid parapet”) is 47’ in height. This
parapet acts to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from view, while the “low parapet” is a decorative
element.
• Building Form and Massing (Design Guidelines 13.3 – 13.6)
Staff is requesting feedback on the proposed building form and massing. Massing is a term in
architecture which refers to the perception of the general shape and form as well as the size of a
building. Building form is the shape or configuration of a building. The proposed building is
three stories in height, with a parapet height of 47’ and architectural elements with a maximum
height of 49’. The building is a full three floors at the west and south property lines, or the Austin
Ave. and W. 5th St. facades. The building is also three stories in height at the north façade facing
the parking lot, and on the east façade, or the façade facing onto the access way, the drive-thru
lanes are on the first floor, reducing the building mass at the first floor, with full second and third
floors above.
The Design Guidelines provide direction for larger infill buildings to reflect traditional building
widths of about 30’, which is a reference to the buildings surrounding the Square. Those buildings
range from approximately 20’-50’ in width, with buildings on the sides of the Square often having
similar or wider street façades. Some historic structures in the Downtown, such as the County
Courthouse and Post Office building, were designed not with storefronts but with wider, more
prominent and classical facades. Other buildings in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District
were designed not to mimic continuous storefronts, but to be standalone buildings with parking
areas. The design of this building does not reflect the Design Guidelines’ preference for variation
in the building according to a “traditional” or 30’ building module, but rather is understood as
one single structure that has less height and articulation variation along the street facades.
• Building Materials (Design Guidelines 13.8 – 13.12)
Staff is requesting feedback on the proposed materials. The proposed exterior materials are cut
limestone or cast stone (manufactured stone), as well as stucco, with dark bronze or black
aluminum frame windows and doors and non-reflective glazing. The stone is proposed to wrap
the first floor and the center portions of the south, west and north facades on the second and third
floors, with the stucco wrapping the second and third floors and parapet, and used for the
cornices, window sills and the roof over the drive-thru lanes.
Stone and stucco are commonly seen on historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District, as
well as on newer buildings. Many of the historic buildings have a combination of stone, brick,
painted wood and painted metal, with variations in the paint colors, as well as in the exposed
Page 10 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 3 of 9
brick or stone. One of the differences between the materials proposed for this building and
traditional materials in the Downtown is in the texture and color variation. The proposed cut
stone or cast stone has a relatively smooth and consistent surface, as does stucco, which is
different from the stone and stucco materials used traditionally. Traditional limestone building
facades and sides have rough textures and color variations increased by weathering, water and
time. The proposed stucco has a consistent texture, and when newly installed and painted, will
have a consistent color and appearance on the building. Stucco was not used traditionally in the
Downtown, but was rather added to building facades later in time to cover brick, stone or wood
facades that may have aged and needed repair, or the stucco may have been installed in the mid-
20th century to change the building from a Victorian period style to a more modern appearance.
In some cases, these stucco finishes have been removed, but in many instances, they are still
applied to the building, both on primary, street-facing facades and on side street facades. The
proposed building, by contrast, has consistent textures and color throughout, with the dark
window frames providing a color contrast to the light stone and stucco.
• Building Proportions (Design Guideline 13.18)
Staff is requesting feedback on the proposed proportions, particularly for the windows. On
buildings in the Downtown Overlay District, upper floor windows primarily have a vertical
orientation. That is, most upper floor windows, and the upper floor windows in historic
buildings, are taller than they are wide. In large part this was for technical reasons. Upper floor
windows were operable, and a taller, narrower window was easier to construct and open, and
the taller windows helped with cooling the building prior to air conditioning, especially if the
windows were double-hung, or if the top could be opened down as well as the bottom opened
up. The windows proposed for this building are wider than they are tall, which is proportionally
different from windows seen traditionally. These aluminum frame windows would be fixed,
however, and the building function does not require them to be operable.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line.
Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.
A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a
property shall have a building wall at the
sidewalk edge.
Where no sidewalk exists one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
Proposed building is set at the Austin Ave.
and W. 5th St. property lines along the
sidewalk edge. New sidewalk is to be
constructed as part of the proposed project.
Page 11 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 4 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back,
define the edge of the property with landscape
elements.
For example, define the edges of a lot with
landscaping, such as low-scale urban street
trees or shrubs.
Landscaping elements should be compatible
with the character of the area in size, scale, and
type. Free-form, suburban type landscaping is
inappropriate in this setting.
Also consider using a fence, or other structural
element, that reflects the position of typical
storefront elements. These elements should
align with nearby traditional commercial
building types.
Complies
Landscaping and screening is to be
provided in accordance with the UDC
requirements, and is reviewed as part of the
Site Development Plan application process.
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 materi-
als to emphasize the building module.
• Variation in the façade height to reflect tra-
ditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The subject property is platted as a single
lot and there are not interior lot lines to be
expressed in the building façade. The front
facade plane has minimal variation with
repeating architectural features, although
the detailing at the center portion of the
street facades provides variation for the
center module. The façade height is
consistent except for cornice details in the
center portions.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should
provide variety.
• A larger development should step down in
height towards the street or smaller, sur-
rounding structures.
• Vary the building height in accordance with
traditional lot width.
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building
façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the
front.
Partially Complies
The proposed project does not step down in
height toward the street or toward smaller
structures to the east, and a structure of
similar height is adjacent to the south. The
building height is not varied in accordance
with traditional lot width (typically 20’- 40’
width around the Square and 50’-60’ for lot
widths s in the surrounding blocks for
comparison), although the parapet height at
both the Austin Ave. and W. 5th St. facades
has a variation in the center.
Page 12 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 5 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with
several buildings, rather than a single structure.
This will help reduce the perceived size of the
project.
• The façade height shall be varied to reflect
traditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The half block subject property is not being
developed entirely with buildings, as on-
site parking requirements apply. However,
the three-story height and 22,702 sq. ft. size
of the building make it a large project, and
the façade height does not have variation
that reflects traditional lot width.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional
size of buildings.
• A typical building module should not exceed
30 feet in width. The building module should
be expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum
of 3 feet
- A change in primary facade material
for the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece
Variations in facade treatment should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear facades.
• If a larger building is divided into “modules,”
they should be expressed three-dimensionally
throughout the entire building. Variation in
height should occur where the site is larger
than two traditional lot widths, in order to
reduce overall scale of the building.
Partially Complies
The proposed building is approximately
100’ wide and 96’ deep, and the proposed
design of the modules, which highlight the
center portion or module of the building
facades with materials, cornice details and
height difference, exceed 30’ in width for
the two side modules. The variation in
materials for the center module is carried
through to the roof line and part of the
facades except for the east façade, which is
designed to accommodate the bank drive-
thru. The variation in height is not great
enough for the building scale to be reduced,
and the modules are more two dimensional
than three dimensional.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.
In certain circumstances views to the court-
house shall be taken into consideration when
designing a new building.
A new building shall not be so tall as to block
views of the courthouse.
Complies
The proposed building is located directly
north of an existing building with a taller
height than is proposed for this project, and
the subject building does not further block
views of the courthouse.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale
are preferred.
• Brick and stone are preferred for new con-
struction.
Partially Complies
The project proposes to use a cut stone or
cast stone (manufactured stone) material for
the first floor of the building and at the
Page 13 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 6 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
• New materials should appear similar in char-
acter to those used traditionally. For example,
stucco, cast stone, and concrete should be
detailed to provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated
durability for the Central Texas climate. For
example, some facade materials used in new
construction are more susceptible to weather
and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
center modules, as well as stucco or EIFS for
the primary façade materials, including the
siding, window sills and cornices. The stone
and stucco are meant to reference materials
on other commercial structures in the
Downtown.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a
large expanse of wall plane.
A matte, or non-reflective, finish is preferred.
Polished stone and mirrored glass, for
example, are inappropriate and should be
avoided as primary materials.
Complies
Proposed materials are matte finish and
non-reflective.
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood,
brick, and stone are encouraged.
Horizontal lap siding of traditional
dimensions is appropriate in most
applications.
Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions
are encouraged.
• Brick or stone, similar to that used tradition-
ally, is also appropriate.
Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
New materials that are similar in character to
traditional ones may be considered. Alterna-
tive materials should have a proven durability
in similar locations in this climate.
Partially Complies
Proposed materials include stone and
stucco, but the proposed cut or cast stone
would have a smooth face, which is
different from the traditional limestone
blocks used on buildings in the Downtown.
Stucco was not usually an original exterior
material in the Downtown but has been
added later to several buildings to cover the
building’s façade rather than make other
repairs, and many of the stucco façade
coverings have been removed over time or
are being considered for removal.
13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those
seen traditionally.
Metal and shingle roofs are preferred.
Clay tile is discouraged.
Complies
Proposed roof is a flat roof with parapet,
which is compatible with traditional
structures.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to
encourage pedestrian activity.
Provide at least one of the following along
primary pedestrian ways:
- A storefront
- Display cases
Partially Complies
Proposed project will provide landscaping
in accordance with UDC requirements,
which are reviewed as part of the Site
Development Plan application. The
proposed building is constructed as a bank
Page 14 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 7 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
- Landscaping
- A courtyard or plaza
• Include traditional elements such as display
windows, kickplates, and transoms on com-
mercial storefronts.
Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
and office building and does not have
traditional storefront features.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building
toward the street.
A building should have a clearly-defined
primary entrance.
The building entrance should be recessed.
A primary building entrance also should be at
or near street level.
Complies
The proposed building has a defined
primary entrance from W. 5th St. and from
the parking lot on the north side of the
building, both of which are recessed and at
street level. However, the Austin Ave.
façade does not have an entrance.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project
entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians.
Use landscaping and lighting accents to
identify entrances.
Complies
The proposed project has defined entrances
for both pedestrians and vehicles.
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a
street edge.
Sharing ingress and egress points with
neighboring projects is strongly encouraged
with consideration to safety.
Complies
Proposed site access is from the rear of the
project via a shared access easement.
13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when
feasible or disburse throughout the site.
See also the design guidelines for Parking
found in Chapter 8.
Partially Complies
Proposed parking is located to the north
side of the site but is not located to the front
of the building.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
Page 15 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 8 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project requires approval of an
Administrative Exception for the proposed
overall building height within the
Courthouse View Protection Overlay
District.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
Subject property is a vacant lot and has no
historic structures.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The subject site has been vacant for several
years and was previously a residential block
with commercial parking lot.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies
The proposed design does not mimic the
traditional building widths as expressed in
the Design Guidelines, however the
architect has stated their perspective that
the building is more in keeping with larger
buildings in the Downtown rather than
attempting to replicate the Main Street
storefronts that are two blocks from this
property. The proposed height is
compatible with the existing commercial
building to the south, but is tall in
comparison to the residential structures to
the east, and only a small portion of covered
parking adjacent to the drive-thru is a single
story in height while the second and third
floors are situated above the drive-thru
lanes. The proportions of the window
openings are one of the most significant
differences between this proposed building
and the traditional buildings in the
Downtown. Downtown windows tend to be
taller than they are wide and emphasize a
vertical orientation. The proposed windows
Page 16 of 45
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 9 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
are proportioned with a greater width than
height, which visually competes with the
vertical elements of the building facade.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Partially Complies
The proposed new building has elements
that reflect the character of the Downtown
Overlay District, including materials and
exterior details. However, the Austin Ave.
façade does not have the pedestrian
orientation that could be provided through
breaking the building into smaller modules,
stepping back the upper floors or providing
canopies or awnings along the public right-
of-way.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
application.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 17 of 45
Location
2020-45-COA
Exhibit #1
E 6TH ST
E 5TH ST
E 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
RO
C
K
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 3RD ST
W4THST
W 6TH ST
W5THST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 18 of 45
209 S. Llano St., Suite B Fredericksburg, TX 78624 t. 830.997.7024 F:830.212.4064 www.mustarddesign.net
August 17, 2020
City of Georgetown, Planning and Development Services
Historic and Architectural Review Commission- (CoA)
Regarding: R Bank Georgetown - Certificate of Appropriateness
405 S. Austin Avenue, Georgetown, TX
Owner Information: Carr Ryan Re 4, LLC
5121 Bee Cave Road, Suite 207
Austin, TX 78746
Scott Carr
Email: scott@carrdevelopment.com
Project Summary:
We are proposing the design of a new three story office building on the town lot located at the 405
S. Austin Avenue. The lot is undeveloped, has some existing trees and is bordered by 4th Street on
the north, Austin Avenue on the west, 5th Street on the south and a residential townhouse
development to the east via a shared access easement.
The design vision for the new three-story building is that of a traditional bank office building that
includes cut stone at street level, with decorative cornices and steel-look windows. The entries will
be recessed into the building to provide covered entry for the patrons and tenants and located
facing 4th and 5th streets. A bank drive through will be provided off of the shared access easement
which also provided the primary entry and exit pathway on the site.
The first floor will be comprised primarily of a bank tenant and possible second small tenant while
the 2nd and 3rd floors will be private office lease space.
The first floor and central entry elements are set to resemble traditional load-bearing masonry in a
style reminiscent of historic bank/governmental buildings. These areas will be clad in a cut
limestone veneer and be accented with decorative cornices. The second and third floor areas will
still be reflective of traditional building styles utilizing a stucco veneer and decorative cornices. The
upper parapets are stepped to signal a hierarchy of entry and accent the central entry elements.
The material selection of the building will coordinate well with existing traditional buildings
throughout downtown and provides for a similar aesthetic with stone and stucco veneers and
steel-look window and door appearances. The scale of the building meets with the development
code guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our project for your review.
Whitney Koch, AIA, NCARB
Principal Architect
Texas Registered Architect #24419
Page 19 of 45
209 S. Llano St., Suite B Fredericksburg, TX 78624 t. 830.997.7024 f.830.212.4064
www.mustarddesign.net
August 28, 2020
Ms. Britin Bostick
Downtown & Historic Planner
City of Georgetown britin.bostick@georgetown.org
RE: 2020-45-COA: Site Plan for R Bank
Dear Britin,
Thank you for the preliminary CoA review for the HARc proceedings, we received your comments sent
08.26.2020 and have listed a written response to each for the above-mentioned project. Each item is in
response to the red comments listed on the returned documents.
Comment:
Signage indicated is noted as “By Tenant”. Will signage be part of this COA application or will it be
submitted separately at a later date? Building will require approval of a Master Sign Plan for multi-
tenant signage.
Response:
Signage approval is not being requested/submitted as part of application process, and the drawing
notations have been updated accordingly.
Comment:
Are you requesting approval of both materials?
Response:
Yes, we are seeking approval of both materials as options, not to be used together, but to be used as a
stand-alone finish type based on the overall cost of the building.
Cut stone is utilized throughout the downtown area, but also comes at a premium on cost. Through the
use of a cast-stone product as an alternative, we can achieve an appropriate and cohesive building
aesthetic while being cost-effective.
We seek to have both materials approved to allow the owner to have flexibility in his selections as the
project progresses and overall costs are finalized. We will add an example of both types for review.
Comment:
Are you requesting approval of both materials? If so please provide an example photo of the stucco
and/or EIFS finish installed or a manufacturer’s product cut sheet showing the proposed stucco
and/or EIFS finish texture for HARC review
Response:
EIFS is a type of a stucco system, and both stucco and EIFS have the same exterior finished
representation. I have adjusted the wording to eliminate any confusion.
Current stucco/EFIS systems are indicative of traditional plaster building materials used in the downtown
area. There are numerous buildings that have a plaster veneer, to which current stucco finishes are meant
to mimic. We will add an example of the type of texture desired.
Comment:
What is the glazing type for the windows?
Response:
Glazing will be a low-E, non-reflective coating. The drawing notes have been updated.
Page 20 of 45
HARC - CoA Comment Response Page 2 of 2
2020-45-CoA
August 28, 2020
\\NAS\current projects file\Current Projects File\2020\2010 - RBank - SDP & HARC\01 - PM\04 - Jurisdictional agencies\04 - Historic Review\1st round
comments\HARC 2020-45-COA plan comments - response.docx
Comment:
Design Guidelines 13.3, 13.4,13.5, and 13.6 discuss building modules that express traditional (30') lot
widths, have variation in height, use setbacks in wall planes and give an appearance of multiple
buildings. Were there options considered during the design process to address these Guidelines, or
can you provide some commentary to HARC on the proposed building design?
Response:
The building design is meant to be representative of historic buildings of importance, such as the
courthouse, post office, and traditional large bank buildings. Being that this project will house a banking
institution on the first floor, and the building will be labeled for that banking institution (i.e. no other tenant
signage on the building), the design was conceived to be representative of the traditional monumental
buildings of the early 1900s that evoke timelessness, longevity and staying-power. The first floor is
representative of this style through our use of cut or cast stone veneer which would be typically found in
high-ranking buildings of this type historically. With the upper floor meant to be representative of
traditional plaster.
We have addressed the variations in building height with our variations in the parapet elevations and have
broken the building up visually with the use of the 3-story stone facade at the center of the
building. Which is also indicative of traditional buildings historically entering on multiple sides. We also
have varied the elevational plane with the use of the pilaster and cornice banding. This lot is very large
and can support a building of this size appropriately, and I feel we have balanced the positioning of the
building with the parking layout to maximize the site, and provided for pedestrian access off of 5th street,
and vehicular-based access from 4th street.
This building is also bordered and within in view range of other large and somewhat grandiose buildings,
such as the Tamu Building to its south, the current Jail to its west, and the Old Jail to its north. This building is
not set into or surrounded by buildings fitting the "main street" frontage typology, or the 30' module. In my
professional opinion to ask that this building fit the main street style would actually set it apart even more
and make it stand out as different from its surroundings.
Comment:
There is not an entrance proposed for the Austin Ave. façade. Is that due to the slope of the
sidewalk in the ROW, or due to the interior layout?
Response:
There is not an entry from Austin Avenue; this is due to the security needs and plan layout of the bank
tenant occupying the main floor of the building. However we did design the west facade to mimic
traditional buildings of importance that would have been entered from multiple sides, and then
modified at a later date.
I will provide revised drawings upon clarification of the articulation comments. Thank you for the plan
review, should you have any questions please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Whitney Koch, AIA, NCARB
Mustard Design Architects
Registered Architect Texas 24419
Page 21 of 45
N
8
8
°2
9
'2
5
"
E
5
9
.
9
8
'
BLOCK 24, LOT 9
0.74 ACRE
11 9 9
5
6
39 PARKING
SPACES ON-SITE
6 PARALLEL SPACES
AT STREET
LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8LOT 2LOT 1
EXISTING CHINABERRY
TREE TO BE REMOVED
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
N
8
8
°2
9
'0
8
"
E
5
9
.
9
6
'
N
8
7
°4
1
'2
7
"
E
1
4
.
5
4
'
PROPERTY LINE N 01°30'59" W 239.97'
PROPERTY LINE N 01°43'01" W 240.31'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
8
8
°3
2
'4
9
"
W
1
3
5
.
3
2
'
W.
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
W.
4
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
S. AUSTIN AVENUE
EXISTING PECAN TREE TO BE
REMOVED AND MITIGATED,
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROPOSED
BUILDING
9'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
.
18' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
17
'
-
6
5
/
8
"
9'
-
0
"
8'
-
9
1
/
2
"
26' - 0"18' - 0"4' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0"
PRIVATE OFFICE
3 STORIES
APPROX. 22,702 TOTAL SF
1ST FLR: 6,430 SF
2ND FLR: 8,136 SF
3RD FLR: 8,136 SF
DUMPSTER
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
AND ELECTRICAL
SERVICE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TYPE A
CROSSWALK
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
EXISTING
AMERICAN ELM
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WHITE
MULBERRY TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING HERITAGE
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING CONCRETE
DRIVE AISLE TO REMAIN
EXISTING PERMEABLE PAVER
DRIVE AISLE TO REMAIN
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
UTILITY
10' - 0"
PRIVATE DRIVE
25' - 0"
PROPOSED LEVEL III
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LEVEL II
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED MODIFIED
TYPE B CROSSWALK
PROPOSED LEVEL III
SIDEWALK
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
COMPACT
3
3
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
COVERED PARKING,
CONCRETE
SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR BUILDING EXTENT,
OPEN BELOW FOR DRIVE THROUGH
CONCRETE THROUGHOUT
DRIVE AISLE, AND
PARKING STALLS
COMPACT
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
FIRE LANE
100'-0"
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
16' - 0"
18' - 0"
EXISTING TELEPHONE VAULT
10' - 0"
EXISTING RETAINING
WALL TO BE REMOVED
FIRE LANE
20' - 0"
FIRE LANE
20' - 0"
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE,
"DRIVE THROUGH"
MULTI-TENANT WALL
SIGN AT FACE OF
RETAINING WALL, TO BE
SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
PERMEABLE PAVERS
AT DRIP LINE
PROPOSED WAY-
FINDING SIGN
EXISTING STREET
SIGN
5' - 0"
WAY-FINDING
SIGNAGE
EXISTING
LIGHT POLE
18' - 0"4' - 4"14' - 0"26' - 0"
18' - 0"
RA
M
P
U
P
4' - 10"
PROPOSED
ACCESSIBLE RAMP
EXISTING WHITE
MULBERRY TO BE
REMOVED
STAND-UP CURB AND GUTTER
RIBBON CURB
STAND-UP CURB
AND GUTTER
MODULAR, CAST STONE OR
NATURAL STONE RETAINING WALL
W/ REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE AS NEEDED
MANHOLE, REFER TO
CIVIL FOR ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
MODULAR, CAST STONE OR
NATURAL STONE RETAINING WALL
W/ REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE AS NEEDED
EXISTING
STORM INLET
CROSS-WALK STRIPING
T
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
& EQUIPMENT
MEMBRANE OR TPO ROOF
WITH INTERNAL DRAINS
18' - 0"
17' - 1"
ZONING:
ZONED:
PROPOSED USE:
MIN. ALLOWABLE LOT AREA:
TOTAL LOT AREA:
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:
STREET SIDE YARD:
INTERIOR SIDE YARD:
REAR SIDE YARD:
PARKING ANALYSIS: OFFICE BUILDING
3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING
22,702 SQFT / 500 GFA OFFICE = 45 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL REQUIRED:45 PARKING SPACES PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL PROVIDED: 46 PARKING SPACES ON SITE
INCLUDING 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE SPACES
INCLUDING 6 PARALLEL SPACES ALONG 4TH AND 5TH STREETS
OWNER INFORMATION:
CARR RYAN RE 4, LLC
5121 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 207
AUSTIN, TX 78746
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
S8731 -GEORGETOWN, CITY OF BLK 24 (REPLAT),
BLOCK 24, Lot 9, ACRES 0.743
MU-DT
PRIVATE OFFICE BUILDING
NO MINIMUM REQUIRED
32,383 SQ FT (0.74 ACRES)
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
BUILDING
PAVING / WALKS
PROPOSED PERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PERMEABLE PAVERS:
LANDSCAPE AREA:
*IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AT THIS PHASE
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT:
95% = (32,383 *.95) = 30,764 SF ALLOWABLE
PER GEORGETOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
91% (29,404 SF)
BUILDING 6,430 SQFT
PAVING / WALKS 22,974 SQFT
9% (2,980 SF)
PAVERS 994 SQFT
LANDSCAPE 1,986 SQFT
40' -0"
50' -0"
40'-0"TOP OF ROOF
49'-0" TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s 1" = 10'-0"
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
R BANK
08.28.20
NSITE PLAN
Page 22 of 45
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 0"
01
02
03
04
05
06
03
07
07
08
12
1303 14
MAX PARAPET
9' - 0"
MAX ROOF HEIGHT
40' - 0"
16
100' - 0"
40' - 8"18' - 8" 40' - 8"
2' - 6"
FOUNDATION TYPE
FOUNDATION SHALL BE A BEAM STIFFENED SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION. INTEGRAL SPREAD FOOTERS WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER
COLUMN LOCATIONS. ALL FOUNDATION COMPONENTS WILL BE CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED.
BUILDING ELEMENTS
REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.040
BUILDING ARTICULATION
ARTICULATION COMPLIES WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.050 BUILDING ARTICULATION AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS BELOW
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION FOR FOOTPRINT
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0"
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0" x 3 = 120'-0", MAXIMUM LATERAL DISTANCE WITHOUT PERPENDICULAR OFFSET
VERTICAL ARTICULATION FOR ELEVATION
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0"
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0" x 3 = 120'-0", MAXIMUM LATERAL DISTANCE WITHOUT CHANGE IN VERTICAL ELEVATION
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
REFER TO THE ELEVATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.050-D
ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY
THE BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.060
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN NOTES
1. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND APPROVAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT, NO
SIGNAGE IS APPROVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR HARC PLANS.
2. COLOR SELECTION IS NOT APPROVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAY BE COUNTED TOWARD THE SIGNAGE
CALCULATION IF IT IS FOUND TO REFLECT COLOR THAT IS CONSIDERED SIGNAGE ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF
SIGNAGE IN THE UDC
3. THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL MEET ALL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ARTICULATION, BUILDING DESIGN, BUILDING
MATERIALS AND ELEMENTS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF SECTION 7.03 OF THE UDC.
4. ALL ROOF, WALL AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8
SITE DEVELOPMENT NOTES
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 0"
01
02
03
04
06
03
07
07
08
05
14
15
49
40
0746.8
786.8
795.8
11
34' - 8"62' - 6" 2' - 10"
100' - 0"
2' - 6"
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
R BANK
08.28.2020
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
12 BACK LIT OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BUILDING
SIGN, COLOR: BY TENANT, TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY
13 REINFORCED CMU DUMPSER ENCLOSURE W/STUCCO
FINISH TO MATCH BUILDING
14 STEEL FRAMED ACCESS DOOR WITH 1x4 STAINED
WOOD INFILL, FRAME TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
BUILDING WINDOWS
15 ANODIZED DARK BRONZE OR BLACK DRIVE THROUGH
TELLER WINDOW
16 MODULAR, CAST STONE OR NATURAL STONE
RETAINING WALL W/REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONRETE AS NEEDED
07 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW WITH MIDDLE MULLION, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
08 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW W/ TRANSOM, MULLIONS, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
09 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
DOOR W/ TRANSOM, AND LOW-E, NON-REFLECTIVE
COATING
10 BACK LIT OR INTERNALL ILLUMINATED BANK DRIVE
THROUGH SIGNS, TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & HOLLOW METAL FRAME;
PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL SURFACE
01 14"x28" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER. CREAM OR BUFF COLORED, OR SIMILAR
02 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND STUCCO ON
METAL LATH. JOINTS AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS.
03 STUCCO CORNICE BANDS WITH IMPLIED JOINTS TO
MIMIC CAST/CUT STONE, COLOR TO MATCH CAST
STONE VENEER.
04 STUCCO CORNICE BAND WITH IMPLIED JOINTS AND
PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/CUT STONE VENEER.
05 24"x32" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER PLYNTH. COLOR, TEXTURE AND JOINT
SPACING TO MATCH ADJACENT CAST/STONE VENEER.
06 STUCCO SILL WITH IMPLIED JOINTS, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/ CUT STONE VENEER
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Page 23 of 45
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 0"
01
02
03
04
06
03
07
07
08
12
13 03 09
05
29' - 8"24' - 3"17' - 4"24' - 3"
95' - 6"
11' - 8"
2' - 6"
STUCCO COLOR
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: INCREDIBLE WHITE 7028 OR SIMILAR
TYPICAL COLOR FOR STUCCO
ELEVATION TAG: 02
RETAINING WALL
PRECAST RETAINING WALL BLOCK WITH CAP
COLOR SIMILAR TO CUT/CAST STONE VENEER
ELEVATION TAG: 16
METAL CLAD DOOR/WINDOW EXAMPLE
COLOR: DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK
ELEVATION TAG: 07, 08, 09
CUT OR CAST STONE VENEER
IMAGE ABOVE REPRESENTS THE TYPICAL COLOR FOR
EITHER CAST OR CUT STONE VENEER
ELEVATION TAG: 01
CUT STONE VENEER EXAMPLE
PARKS CANADA FEDERAL BUILDING
CAST STONE VENEER EXAMPLE
AMERICAN STONECAST, LLC
STUCCO FINISH EXAMPLE WITH CORNICE BANDING
TEXTURE: WALL: SMOOTH TO FINE
BANDS: SMOOTH TO FINE
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 0"
49' - 0" OVERALL HEIGHT
01
02
03
04
05
06
03
07
07
08
09
10
12
24' - 3"17' - 4"24' - 3"29' - 8"
95' - 6"
2' - 6"
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS & COLORS/MATERIALS
R BANK
08.28.2020
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
12 BACK LIT OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BUILDING
SIGN, COLOR: BY TENANT, TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY
13 REINFORCED CMU DUMPSER ENCLOSURE W/STUCCO
FINISH TO MATCH BUILDING
14 STEEL FRAMED ACCESS DOOR WITH 1x4 STAINED
WOOD INFILL, FRAME TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
BUILDING WINDOWS
15 ANODIZED DARK BRONZE OR BLACK DRIVE THROUGH
TELLER WINDOW
16 MODULAR, CAST STONE OR NATURAL STONE
RETAINING WALL W/REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONRETE AS NEEDED
07 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW WITH MIDDLE MULLION, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
08 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW W/ TRANSOM, MULLIONS, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
09 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
DOOR W/ TRANSOM, AND LOW-E, NON-REFLECTIVE
COATING
10 BACK LIT OR INTERNALL ILLUMINATED BANK DRIVE
THROUGH SIGNS, TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & HOLLOW METAL FRAME;
PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL SURFACE
01 14"x28" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER. CREAM OR BUFF COLORED, OR SIMILAR
02 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND STUCCO ON
METAL LATH. JOINTS AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS.
03 STUCCO CORNICE BANDS WITH IMPLIED JOINTS TO
MIMIC CAST/CUT STONE, COLOR TO MATCH CAST
STONE VENEER.
04 STUCCO CORNICE BAND WITH IMPLIED JOINTS AND
PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/CUT STONE VENEER.
05 24"x32" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER PLYNTH. COLOR, TEXTURE AND JOINT
SPACING TO MATCH ADJACENT CAST/STONE VENEER.
06 STUCCO SILL WITH IMPLIED JOINTS, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/ CUT STONE VENEER
Page 24 of 45
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s
CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES
R BANK
08.17.2020
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVESOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
NTS
Page 25 of 45
R Bank 405 S. Austin Ave.
2020-45-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 24, 2020
1Page 26 of 45
Item Under Consideration
2020-45-COA –R Bank Georgetown
•Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new building
construction (infill development)at the property located at 405 S.Austin Avenue,bearing
the legal description 0.7434 acres,being Lot 9,Replat of Block 24,City of Georgetown.
2Page 27 of 45
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New building construction (infill development)
3Page 28 of 45
Item Under Consideration
Insert Project Image
4Page 29 of 45
Historic County
Jail
5Page 30 of 45
Current Context
6Page 31 of 45
Staff Feedback Request
•Building Form and Massing (Design Guidelines 13.3 –13.6)
•Building Materials (Design Guidelines 13.8 –13.12)
•Building Proportions (Design Guideline 13.18)
7Page 32 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Site Plan
8Page 33 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
9Page 34 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
10Page 35 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
11Page 36 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
12Page 37 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Materials
13Page 38 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Materials
14Page 39 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Materials
15Page 40 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Proportions
16Page 41 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Proportions
17Page 42 of 45
R Bank –Proposed Proportions
18Page 43 of 45
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 19Page 44 of 45
Staff Feedback Request
•Building Form and Massing (Design Guidelines 13.3 –13.6)
•Building Materials (Design Guidelines 13.8 –13.12)
•Building Proportions (Design Guideline 13.18)
20Page 45 of 45