HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_12.10.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
of the City of Georgetown
December 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 East 7th Street
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene
an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address
the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Review and possible approval of the minutes of the October 22, 2015 regular meeting.
C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
exterior alterations and a porch addition for the property located at 1511 South Ash Street, bearing
the legal description of Hughes Addition, Block 12 (SW/CTR), 0.26 acres.
D 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 1507 South College Street, bearing
the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 98 (PT), 0.296 acres
Page 1 of 63
E 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 407 East 5th Street, bearing the legal
description of Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3-4, 0.33 acres
F 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 1611 George Street, bearing the
legal description of Logan Addition, Block 4, Lot 6, 7 (S/PT), 0.25 acres
G Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
H Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this
Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general
public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained
so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 2 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Design Compliance based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code. Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene
an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording
secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address
the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Page 3 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible approval of the minutes of the October 22, 2015 regular meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC Minutes of 10.22.2015 Backup Material
Page 4 of 63
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: October 22, 2015
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood
and Richard Mee.
Commissioners in Training present: Lawrence Romero; and Jan Daum
Commissioners absent: Jennifer Brown
Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary.
A. Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the order of business to be conducted.
Chair welcomed Commissioner Patty Eason to the dais. She was moved by the Mayor to a regular
commission position from a commission-in-training position.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Review and possible approval of the minutes of the September 24, 2015 regular meeting.
Motion by Eason to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Mee. Approved 6 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Master Sign
Plan for the property located at 701 South Main Street, bearing the legal description of City of
Georgetown, Block 40, Lot 2 (N/PT), 0.0826 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report and application. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of
Appropriateness for a master sign plan for the high priority historic structure. The three story
structure is comprised of restaurant space on the first and second floors, with office suites on the
third floor. The master sign plan will allow the applicant to reface existing signs as long as they
comply with the approved plan. Much of the proposed signage has been previously presented to
HARC and approved for use on the building. The proposed plan adds some additional signage for
each floor, but does not exceed the allowable amount of signage. Staff has a concern regarding the
proposed A-frame sign on the 7th Street side, in that there is not a business on the first floor, on that
side of the building, to remove the sign as needed and it interferes with ADA sidewalk accessibility.
Chris Damon, the owner/applicant, spoke in support of the A-frame and stated it would be used to
direct people as needed to the door to access the second floor. Commissioners asked if it could be
reduced in size or placed somewhere else. The discussion was that the upstairs business was a
destination and that their customers should know where they were going, it did not seem necessary
to pull business from the sidewalk level.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Eason to approve the application with the staff recommendation that an A-frame sign
on 7th Street be denied, and that a door window sign can be considered if it meets the Guidelines
and that it is reviewed by staff. Second by Mee. Approved 6 – 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
Page 5 of 63
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: October 22, 2015
exterior modifications and an addition for the property located at 209 East 8th Street bearing the legal
description of Glasscock Addition, Block 10, Lot 4 (PT), 0.03 acres.
Synatschk presented the staff report and application. The proposed project includes the removal of an
addition to the rear of the ca. 1925 historic structure and the construction of a new two story addition.
The project will also include an extension of the brick chimney and reconfiguring the windows in the
primary façade to facilitate a retail use for the space. The removal of the rear addition allows for a
viable rehabilitation of the original historic structure. Although the addition has attained historic
value in its own right, removal does not result in a significant loss of integrity. Removing the addition
allows for the construction of a new two story addition to the rear of the structure, providing
additional retail space and office space for the structure.
The proposed materials include cinderblock walls on the first floor, which has limited visibility from
the street, due to the location of the adjacent structures and features. The cinder block construction
will be painted to blend with the rest of the structure, but the materials will create the required
differentiation. The proposed metal cladding for the second floor of the addition reflects the original
materials of the historic structure, but provides differentiation with a different pattern of metal.
The applicant wishes to install larger windows in place of the existing windows, and install new
transom windows above the canopy. The proposed changes are out of character with the design of
the structure and create a false sense of history for the structure. While staff acknowledges the need
for additional light and possible retail displays, it is recommended that the applicant research other
options for accomplishing their needs.
The applicant’s agent, Gary Wang, introduced the owner, Kevin Sukup and presented the plan and
material samples. He stated that they are asking for the larger front windows with transoms, even
though they are not recommended, to make the first floor a viable retail space. He also explained
that they would be saving and rebuilding the roof with the corrugated metal and using the stamped
metal for the interior ceiling.
Commissioners asked questions about possible solutions to the dark interior, including adding
skylights or raising the transoms. They even discussed possibly removing the awning.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Knight to approve the application for CDC-2015-034 as presented and submitted by the
applicant, with the weathered copper option. Second by Mee. Approved 6 – 0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for a
residential addition for the property located at 1700 South Church Street bearing the legal
description of Eubank Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, (N/PT), 2 (N/PT), 0.24 acres.
The applicant is proposing a new residential addition and a new porch for the medium priority
historic structure. The project is unique due to the fact that it is surrounded by three streets, limiting
the placement of the additions. The primary addition to the residence creates additional living space
for the structure and is setback from the primary historic structure, emphasizing the historic
structure.
In addition, the materials for the addition are compatible with the primary structure, but
differentiated and subdued. The wood siding incorporates the materials from the garage, while the
stone accents allow the addition to blend with the existing structure, but still create the
Page 6 of 63
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: October 22, 2015
differentiation. The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines by creating two additions that are compatible with the historic structure and highlight the
historic structure while creating the additional living space for the residence.
Chair Bain opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth.
Motion by Bohls to approve the application as submitted. Second by Knight. Approved 6 – 0.
F. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training – no comments
G. Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC
Historic Resource Survey, the contract is being finalized and an update will be given to City Council.
The consultant will be able to start the project within 45 days of getting the signed contract.
Grace Heritage Center, the contractor estimated the cost of repairs to be over $300,000.
Downtown West, traffic studies will be done to define the impact to the adjacent neighborhoods.
Parking Study, completed and Council accepted it. It proposes better signage, resurfacing of several
streets, and naming of the downtown parking lots to easier identify them to visitors.
National Register project, this project is at the State Board level for review, then will be forwarded to
the National Parks Service.
Next HARC Regular Meeting – December 10th @ 6:00..
H. Adjournment
Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Hood. The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
________________________________ _______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Richard Mee
Page 7 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for
exterior alterations and a porch addition for the property located at 1511 South Ash Street, bearing
the legal description of Hughes Addition, Block 12 (SW/CTR), 0.26 acres.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for exterior alterations to a historic
structure. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to construct a new porch
on the street facing façade.
Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request
meets the approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as
outlined in the attached Staff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA request
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-038 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-038 Plan Review Exhibit
Page 8 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: December 10, 2015
File Number: CDC‐2015‐038
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) exterior
alterations and a porch addition for the property located at 1511 South Ash Street, bearing the legal
description of Hughes Addition, Block 12 (SW/CTR), 0.26 acres.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Porch addition to the Miller‐Wang Residence
Applicant: Gary Wang
Property Owner: Gary Wang & Allison Miller
Property Address: 1511 South Ash Street
Legal Description: Hughes Addition, Block 12 (SW/CTR), 0.26 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca. 1945
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 2007 – Medium Priority
1984 – Not listed
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a front porch to the street facing façade
of the medium Priority historic structure located at 1511 South Ash Street.
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
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Does not comply
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details
and materials of the primary structure.
Complies
Page 9 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and
architectural style with the main building.
Complies
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a porch addition to the
medium priority structure located at 1511 South Ash Street. The porch will extend across the street
facing façade and wrap around the side of the structure. The proposed design will not result in the loss
of any character defining features for the structure.
The applicant has submitted the two designs for the porch. The initial design matches the existing
roofline of the structure. After consultation with staff, the applicant also agreed to submit the alternate
design, lowering the roofline of the proposed porch. The preferred design blends incorporates the
porch in to the existing roofline, failing to achieve the differentiation requirements outlined in Design
Guideline 14.13. The lowered roofline proposed in the alternate design creates the required
differentiation, complying with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
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
design standards of the underlying RS
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 fails to comply with
Guideline 14.13, creating a false sense of
history for the structure. The alternate
design would comply with the design
guidelines.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project adversely effects the
historic integrity of the structure by failing
to achieve the necessary differentiation for
the new porch addition. The alternate design
limits the adverse effect by lowering the
Page 10 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 3 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
roofline.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The porch addition is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
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:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the overall character of the
Old Town Overlay District, but does impact
the historic integrity of the structure by
creating a false sense of history. The
seamless roofline creates an illusion that the
porch is original to the structure and fails to
comply with the Design Guidelines. The
alternate design lowers the roofline, creating
differentiation from the existing structure, in
compliance with the Design Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed alternate design for the
project.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no public comment regarding the request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 11 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Page 12 of 63
Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 1511 S. Ash Street
A New Porch for the Miller / Wang Residence
October 30, 2015
Wang Architects
ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING
Page 13 of 63
13/32” = 1’-0”
Site Design Plan
15
1
1
S
O
U
T
H
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
Page 14 of 63
21/8” = 1’-0”
Ground Floor Plan
Page 15 of 63
3Conceptual Rendering
3/16” = 1’-0”
Page 16 of 63
4West Elevation
1/4” = 1’-0”
Page 17 of 63
North Elevation 53/16” = 1’-0”
Page 18 of 63
Alternate Concept Requested by City 6n.t.s.
Page 19 of 63
7
7a: Current conditions - no place to sit outside
Existing Photographs
n.t.s.7b: Condition of house in 2013
Page 20 of 63
WA
N
G
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
LL
C
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
1
5
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
Re
:
A
N
e
w
P
o
r
c
h
f
o
r
t
h
e
M
i
l
l
e
r
/
W
a
n
g
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
De
a
r
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
:
O
n
b
e
h
a
l
f
o
f
m
y
c
l
i
e
n
t
,
A
l
l
i
s
o
n
M
i
l
l
e
r
,
I
a
m
p
l
e
a
s
ed
t
o
s
u
b
m
i
t
h
e
r
e
o
u
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
t
1
5
1
1
S
o
u
t
h
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
a
n
e
w
p
o
r
c
h
t
h
a
t
f
a
c
e
s
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
F
o
r
f
u
l
l
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
,
M
s
.
Mi
l
l
e
r
i
s
m
y
w
i
f
e
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
i
s
a
l
s
o
m
y
h
o
u
s
e
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
:
1
)
S
i
t
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
;
2
)
G
r
o
u
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
P
l
a
n
;
3
)
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
R
e
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
;
4
)
W
e
s
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
;
5
)
N
o
r
t
h
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
;
6
)
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
;
7
)
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
T
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
i
s
a
o
n
e
-
s
t
o
r
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
B
e
f
o
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
w
a
s
c
l
a
d
i
n
vi
n
y
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
w
e
r
e
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
s
r
e
p
a
i
r
.
T
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
o
o
d
s
i
d
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
v
i
n
y
l
w
a
s
f
i
x
e
d
,
a
n
d
th
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
m
u
l
l
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
t
w
o
m
a
i
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
t
h
e
p
o
r
c
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
:
Fi
r
s
t
a
n
d
m
o
s
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
,
w
e
a
r
e
h
o
p
i
n
g
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
s
i
t
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
a
n
d
e
n
j
o
y
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
.
W
e
d
o
no
t
h
a
v
e
a
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
s
i
t
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
r
t
w
o
-
y
e
a
r
-
o
l
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
t
w
i
n
g
i
r
l
s
.
S
e
c
o
n
d
l
y
,
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
fa
c
e
s
W
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
s
u
n
r
e
a
c
h
e
s
d
e
e
p
i
n
t
o
o
u
r
h
o
u
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
.
W
e
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
o
m
e
s
h
a
d
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
a
me
t
i
m
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
v
i
s
u
a
l
b
u
f
f
e
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
th
e
i
n
s
i
d
e
o
f
o
u
r
h
o
u
s
e
.
A
f
t
e
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
M
r
.
M
a
t
t
S
y
n
a
t
s
c
h
k
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
i
t
y,
w
e
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
h
e
w
o
u
l
d
m
o
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
ro
o
f
l
i
n
e
t
h
a
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
a
t
c
h
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
o
o
f
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e.
(
O
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
i
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
o
n
p
g
.
6
.
)
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
af
t
e
r
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
w
i
t
h
A
l
l
i
s
on
,
s
h
e
w
o
u
l
d
p
r
e
f
e
r
n
o
t
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
S
h
e
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
o
r
c
h
t
o
m
a
t
c
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
e
.
W
e
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
y
o
u
a
t
o
u
r
u
p
c
o
m
i
n
g
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
.
W
e
wi
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
t
h
i
s
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
y
o
ur
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
I
f
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
ne
e
d
a
n
y
s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
f
e
e
l
f
r
e
e
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
m
e
a
t
5
1
2
.
6
7
7
.
9
6
1
0
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
in
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
t
i
m
e
,
a
n
d
I
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
s
e
e
i
n
g
y
o
u
i
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
.
Yo
u
r
s
t
r
u
l
y
,
Ga
r
y
W
a
n
g
,
A
I
A
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Wa
n
g
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
L
L
C
Page 21 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
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 1507 South College Street, bearing
the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 98 (PT), 0.296 acres
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for an addition to a historic structure.
According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to add a garage and a mudroom to
the structure.
Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the
approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the
attached Staff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-039 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-039 Plan Review Exhibit
Page 22 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: December 10, 2015
File Number: CDC‐2015‐039
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 1507 South College Street, bearing the legal
description of Dimmit Addition, Block 98 (PT), 0.296 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Garage and woodshop addition to the Havlick Residence
Applicant: Gary Wang
Property Owner: Ross Havlick
Property Address: 1507 South College Street
Legal Description: Dimmit Addition, Block 98 (PT), 0.296 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1925
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 2007 – Medium Priority
1984 – Low Priority
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a garage, workshop and mudroom to
the Medium Priority historic structure located at 1507 South Ash Street.
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
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details
and materials of the primary structure.
Complies
Page 23 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 2 of 3
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and
architectural style with the main building.
Complies
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a garage and mudroom
addition to the medium priority structure located at 1507 South College Street. The addition will
replace an existing carport. The proposed design complies with the design guidelines by setting the
addition back from the primary façade, utilizing a connector to set the addition apart from the existing
historic structure and breaking up the roofline.
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
design standards of the underlying RS
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 by creating an addition
that is compatible with the existing structure
but differentiated through the size and use
of the connector,
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project does not adversely
impact the historic integrity of the structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The garage addition is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
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
No signage is proposed with this project.
Page 24 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
permitted.
H. The following may also be considered by the
HARC when determining whether to approve a
Certificate for Design Compliance:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the overall character of the
Old Town Overlay District. The addition is
differentiated from the existing historic
structure, in compliance with the design
guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no public comment regarding the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 25 of 63
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC
Architecture + Urban Design
October 30, 2015
Historical and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown
Re: Havlick Residence - New Garage and Woodshop
Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission:
On behalf of my client, Mr. Ross Havlick, I am pleased to submit here our application for approval a
project at 1507 South College Street. This project is a new garage that also contains a woodshop. A new
mudroom will connect the existing house with the new garage.
The following drawings are attached for your review and approval:
1) Site Design Plan;
2) Ground Floor Plan;
3) Conceptual Rendering;
4) West Elevation;
5) North Elevation;
6) Existing Photos.
The existing house is a one-story structure with an existing attached carport/shack to the North.
This carport currently spans over two existing windows to the kitchen. Because the kitchen is North-facing,
the proposed design frees the kitchen windows from an overhead obstruction (see 6a), providing a new
walkup porch that leads to a new mudroom/connector. This mudroom contains a powder room, a much-
needed addition to the existing 1-bathroom house. Additionally, the carport/shack is not large enough for a
truck to park underneath.
The new garage is a gable structure with open trusses at the interior. An upper window will be
provided at the front and the back of the garage to allow natural daylight for a loft/storage space inside. The
garage will be clad in stucco to match the existing house.
After meeting with Mr. Matt Synatschk from the City, we understand Matt recommends changing
material at the mudroom/connector between the garage gable and the existing house. However, Mr. Havlick
would prefer to make the mudroom also stucco so the house is one material. While wood cladding is
proposed as an alternate here for the mudroom, our first choice in this proposal is stucco to match the
existing. Additionally, the owner would like to add brackets to the garage addition also so it matches the
existing structure as much as possible. We understand that the City may not support the addition of these
brackets.
We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on December 10. We
will have additional information at this meeting for your review and approval. If you have any questions or
need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.677.9610. Thank you
in advance for your time, and I look forward to seeing you in December.
Yours truly,
Gary Wang, AIA
Principal
Wang Architects LLC
Page 26 of 63
Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 1507 College Street
The Havlick Residence - New Garage and Woodshop
October 30, 2015
Wang Architects
ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING
Page 27 of 63
15
0
7
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
13/32” = 1’-0”
Site Design Plan
Page 28 of 63
21/8” = 1’-0”
Ground Floor Plan
Page 29 of 63
3Conceptual Rendering
n.t.s.Page 30 of 63
4West Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”Page 31 of 63
North Elevation 53/16” = 1’-0”Page 32 of 63
6
6a:These kitchen windows will be free from obstruction in
the proposed design
Existing Photographs
n.t.s.6c: View towards existing carport/shack
6b: Existing carport/shack
Page 33 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
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 407 East 5th Street, bearing the legal
description of Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3-4, 0.33 acres
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for an exterior addition to a historic
structure. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to add a new master
suite, front porch and rear porch to the structure.
Staff recommends approval with conditions of the request based on the findings that the request
meets the approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as
outlined in the attached Staff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-040 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-040 Plan Review Exhibit
Page 34 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: December 10, 2015
File Number: CDC‐2015‐040
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 407 East 5th Street, bearing the legal description
of Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3‐4, 0.33 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Residential addition to the Mauldin Residence
Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd
Property Owner: Stan and Jen Mauldin
Property Address: 407 East 5th Street
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3‐4, 0.33 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca. 1945
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 2007 – Medium Priority
1984 – Low Priority
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a master suite, utility room and
additional living space to the Medium priority residential structure.
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
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details
and materials of the primary structure.
Complies
Page 35 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, character, and
architectural style with the main building.
Does not comply
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a 668 square foot addition to
the medium priority structure located at 407 East 5th Street. The additions are being made to the north
and west facades and will be visible from East 5th Street, as well as the unimproved city street to the
east. The western portion of the addition is setback from the primary façade, creating the required
differentiation to the project. The north addition does not include a setback but will be differentiated
through materials.
The structure is identified as a Minimal Traditional structure and the additions maintain most of the
architectural characteristics of the style. However, the proposed south elevation incorporates
Craftsman style porch columns, adding a false sense of historical development to the property, in
conflict with the UDC requirements and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the condition that the porch columns are
changed to reflect the architectural style as currently utilized on the structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
A. The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards of the underlying RS
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 by creating an addition
that is compatible with the existing
structure. However, the proposed porch
columns create a false sense of historical
development.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is The proposed project does not adversely
Page 36 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 3 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
preserved. impact the historic integrity of the structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The addition is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
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:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the overall character of the
Old Town Overlay District. The addition is
differentiated from the existing historic
structure, in compliance with the design
guidelines.
However, the proposed porch columns
create a false sense of historical
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the
condition that the new porch columns are consistent with the design of the current columns.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no public comment regarding the request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 37 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐038 1511 South Ash Street Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Page 38 of 63
Page 39 of 63
1
City of Georgetown
Planning and Development Services/HARC
Georgetown, TX 78626
The Project Scope Summary:
The following is a scope of work statement to be submitted with the application for Certificate of Design Compliance.
This project entails the partial remodeling and addition to an existing home at 407 East 5th Street. The house has foundation problems that are
causing structural damage to the frame of the house. The additions to living area consist of a Master Bedroom, Utility Room and Master Bath. The
additions, which will be added to the North and West sides of the house, will add approximately 668 sf of Living area to the existing 1100 sf. Cot-
tage style home. There will also be a Screened Porch added to the North East side of the house which will add approximately 2 56 sf of additional
covered area to the house.
The siding of the new addition will be horizontal lap Hardi-Siding (see attached renderings). The windows in the addition will be White Vinyl (2
over 2 on the front and the left side and the east side windows will be 2 over 1).
There is a small additions which will be on the street facing elevation will be a 4'-8” added on the West side of the existing structure and re-
building the existing Front Porch roof (to match the existing main roof slope). The Front Porch columns will be replaced with tapered wood col-
umns which will be more in keeping with the Architectural style of the existing house. The roof style for the new addition wi ll closely match the ex-
isting roof pitch and will be in keeping with the architectural style of the existing house. The Composition Roof will be Timberline (Pewter Gray)
and the Metal Roofing over the screened porch will be Snap Loc Milled Finish.
The shed building at the north-east corner of the lot will be repainted from the current red to match the proposed paint scheme on the main house
with a new roof finish material of either composition Roof in Timberline (Pewter Gray) or Metal Roofing in Snap Loc Milled F inish.
HARC Submission for CDC
The Mauldin Residence Addition and Remodel
407 East 5th Street
Page 40 of 63
2
The Project Scope Summary Continued:
The paint color for the body of the main house and shed will be Big Daddy Blue (Dark Gray Blue) on the Exterior Body Kelly Moore KM5811-3.
The trim, fascia and new columns will be Pearly White (Barely Off White) on the Trim/Accent Kelly Moore KW44- and the front door of the main
house will be painted Relief (Red) KM5484 (see renderings and paint samples).The new floor material at the porches and front steps will be tradi-
tional brick.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC.
Sincerely,
J. Bryant Boyd, AIA
Page 41 of 63
3
SURVEY SHOWING CURRENT CONDITIONS SURVEY SHOWING PROPOSED HOUSE
Page 42 of 63
4
HARC submittal for CDC Novermber 11th, 2015
Subject Property:
The Mauldin Residence Addition and
Remodel at 407 East 5th Street
SHED (SE CORNER OF LOT)
VARIOUS PHOTOS OF DETAIL OF FRONT PORCH, IRON COLUMNS, STEPS, AND RAFTER TAILS
SOUTH FACING (5TH St.) ELEVATION
SOUTH WEST FACING (5TH St.) ELEVATION NORTH FACING (REAR) ELEVATION EAST FACING (ASH ST.) ELEVATION
Page 43 of 63
5
Subject Property:
The Mauldin Residence Addition and Remodel
407 East 5th Street
Page 44 of 63
6
Subject Property:
The Mauldin Residence Addition and Remodel
407 East 5th Street
Page 45 of 63
7
HARC submittal for CDC
November 11th, 2015
North (5th Street) Elevation
New Horiz. lap Siding
New Architectual Comp. Shingles
(Georgetown Gray or Weathered wood)
New Wood Trim
Exterior Paint & Finish Selections
All Exterior Siding (Field) Front Door Trim Color
Subject Property:
The Mauldin Residence Addition and Remodel
407 East 5th Street
Georgetown, TX. 78626
New Column
Page 46 of 63
8
HARC submittal for CDC
November 11th, 2015
North (5th Street) Elevation
New Architectual Comp. Shingles
(Georgetown Gray or Weathered wood)
New Screened Porch
w/Mtl. Roof
Exterior Paint & Finish Selections
All Exterior Siding (Field) Front Door Trim Color
Subject Property:
The Mauldin Residence Addition and Remodel
407 East 5th Street
Georgetown, TX. 78626
New Horiz. lap Siding
New Column
New Wood Trim
Page 47 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
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 1611 George Street, bearing the
legal description of Logan Addition, Block 4, Lot 6, 7 (S/PT), 0.25 acres
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a COA for an exterior addition to a historic
structure. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to add a two story
addition, including a garage, workshop and master suite. The applicant also wishes to add a new
porch to the street facing façade.
Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the
approval criteria of Section3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the
attached Staff Report.
The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the COA
request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CDC-2015-041 Staff Report Exhibit
CDC-2015-041 Plan Review Exhibit
Page 48 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐041 1611 George Street Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: December 10, 2015
File Number: CDC‐2015‐041
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 1611 George Street, bearing the legal description
of Logan Addition, Block 4, Lot 6, 7 (S/PT), 0.25 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Residential addition to the Sasano‐Carter Residence
Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd
Property Owner: Carolyn Sasano & Tim Carter
Property Address: 1611 George Street
Legal Description: Logan Addition, Block 4, Lot 6, 7 (S/PT), 0.25 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1922
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 2007 – Medium Priority
1984 – Low Priority
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to add an attached garage and a master suite to
the historic structure located at 1611 George Street. The addition includes a new porch, two car garage
and bedroom and bathroom. The project also includes the construction of a carport, which does not
require a COA.
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
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the
main building.
Complies
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
Page 49 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐041 1611 George Street Page 2 of 3
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
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, character, and
architectural style with the main building.
Complies
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a two story garage and master
suite addition to the medium priority structure located at 1611 George Street. The proposed design
complies with the design guidelines by setting the addition back from the primary façade, utilizing a
connector to set the addition apart from the existing historic structure and breaking up the roofline. The
materials for the project are compatible with the existing structure and create the required
differentiation. The materials for the addition are hardi‐siding, utilizing a mix of designs for the
addition.
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
design standards of the underlying RS
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 by creating an addition
that is compatible with the existing structure
but differentiated through the size and use
of the connector.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project does not adversely
impact the historic integrity of the structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The garage addition is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
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.
Page 50 of 63
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
CDC‐2015‐041 1611 George Street Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the overall character of the
Old Town Overlay District. The addition is
differentiated from the existing historic
structure, in compliance with the design
guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the proposed project.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no public comment regarding the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 51 of 63
City of Georgetown
Planning and Development Services/HARC
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 52 of 63
Page 53 of 63
HARC submittal for CDC
December 10th, 2015
Page 54 of 63
Page 55 of 63
Page 56 of 63
HARC submittal for CDC
December 10th, 2015
Page 57 of 63
HARC submittal for CDC
December 10th, 2015
Page 58 of 63
HARC submittal for CDC
December 10th, 2015
Page 59 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Page 60 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
Staff updates and reminder of upcoming meetings related to HARC.
ITEM SUMMARY:
1. 3rd Monday Main Street Lunch - Monday, January 18
2. HARC Meeting - Thursday, January 28
3. Planning Department Move - January 4 (406 W. 8th Street)
4. Historic Resource Survey
5. Downtown West
6. National Register Project
7. Commission Applications
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2015/16 HARC Meeting Dates Backup Material
Page 61 of 63
UDC Development Manual Georgetown, Texas HARC Calendar
Revised: April 2015 www.georgetown.org Page 1 of 1
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(4th Thursday)
Applications may be submitted at any time. The Agenda Deadline is not a submittal deadline; it is the last day an
item may be added to a meeting agenda to meet notification requirements. Additional time is needed for processing
and review of applications; therefore you are encouraged to submit your application as early as possible in advance
of this date to avoid delays. Please refer to the Application Review Timelines chart in this Development Manual to
estimate overall processing time. All issues must be resolved before an item can be added to an agenda. Staff will
determine when your application is ready for the public meeting and notify you accordingly.
Historic & Architectural
Review Commission
Agenda Deadline HARC Meeting
December 26, 2014 January 22, 2015
January 27, 2015 February 26
February 27 March 26
March 27 April 23
May 1 May 28
May 29 June 25
June 26 July 23
July 31 August 27
August 28 September 24
September 25 October 22
* November 13 * December 10
December 31 January 28, 2016
January 29, 2016 February 25
February 26 March 24
April 1 April 28
April 29 May 26
May 27 June 23
July 1 July 28
July 29 August 25
August 26 September 22
September 30 October 27
** November 11 * December 8
* November and December regular meetings are combined due to the Holidays. The combined meeting is held on the second
Thursday of December.
Page 62 of 63
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
December 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 63 of 63