The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_HARC_01.27.2022Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown January 27, 2022 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding 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 H istor ic and Ar chite ctural Re view Commission (H A R C) is now me eting in pe rson with a quor um pr esent and public is we lc ome to atte nd. If spe cial ac commodations ar e nee de d due to C O V I D -19 and atte nding vi r tuall y is nec essar y, pl ease r eac h out to the staff li aison, M irna Garc ia, at mir na.gar cia@geor getown.or g or 512-930-3575 for assistance . 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 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 /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the Dec ember 9, 2021 and the January 13, 2022 regular meetings of the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, P rogram Manager C P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property loc ated at 1307 S. Myrtle S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.13-acre in the C lement S tubblefield S urvey, Abs trac t No. 558, also being known as the s outhwes t part of Block B, Hughes S ec ond Addition, an unrec orded subdivision. (2021-73-C O A) –Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange D Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Page 1 of 55 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 _________________, 2022, 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 2 of 55 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 27, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2021 and the January 13, 2022 regular meetings of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, P rogram Manager IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, P rogram Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type 12.9.21 minutes Backup Material 1.13.22 minutes Backup Material Page 3 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: December 9, 2021 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes December 9 , 2021 at 6 :00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9 th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members Present: Terri Hyde; Michael Walton; Lawrence Romero; Steve Johnston; Pamela Mitchell; Karalei Nunn ; Catherine Morales; Robert McCabe Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Program Manager; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6 :03 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of th e meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. 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 t he 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/. A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the November 11 , 2021 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Program Manager Motion to approve by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Approved 6-0 . C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1503 Ash Street, bearing the legal description 0.36 -acre in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, also being known as the west part of Block 9, Hughes Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. (2021 -62-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The subject property has a medium priority Craftsman style historic structure with clipped gable roof and a detached garage along the south side street, also with a clipped gable roof. The garage structure appears in the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Page 4 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: December 9, 2021 however, on the map it was separately addressed from the main structure. The applicant is requesting HARC approval for a 6’ wood privacy fence along the south side street property line and a 6’ iron fence internal to the property in the side yard between the new privacy fence and the main house. The proposed fence would enclose the back yard including the west façade of the detached garage, which is being remodeled to serve as a pool house. The UDC allows for a 3’ tall, 50% transparent fence in the front and side yards of residential properties in the Old Town Overlay District unless HARC approves an alternate design. As the proposed 6’ fence sections would be located in the side yard, they require approval by HARC. The Design Guidelines typically recommend a maximum of 4’ in height for front and side yard fences, however, due to the location of the accessory structure, and the narrow width of E. 16th Street, the proposed fence acts more as a back yard fence than a side yard fence and is set back from the front façade of the main house and aligned with the street façade of the accessory structure. Back yard fences are typically 6’ in height, a nd the proposed fence facing Ash Street would have the more than 50% transparent iron fence design. Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item C (2021 -62-COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved 6 -0. D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the addition of a porch, patio or deck at the property located at 913 Walnut Street, bearing the legal description 0.1652-acre in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, also being known as the northwest part of Block 90, Dimmitt Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. (2021 -63-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report by Bostick. The subject property is a two-story medium priority structure constructed in 1914 by M. L. Langford and financed by J. H. Griffith, the president and trustee of the Taylor Building & Loan Association and older brother of notable local builder C. S. Griffith, for Clara and Mabel Wilson. Based on the construction year, and photos from the 1984 Historic Resource Survey, the structure may have undergone exterior changes to modif y the front porch style, as the primary façade, including the porch, has Craftsman architectural details that were more common in Georgetown after the construction of the house. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of the addition of a rear porch whic h would have a stone patio-style floor, cedar and pine columns and sloped or shed roof structure and a standing seam metal roof to match the roof on the existing structure. The columns would have 1’ square and 30” tall bases, which reference but do not exa ctly replicate the column bases on the front porch. The proposed porch meets the required setbacks and applicable Design Guidelines and is located fully to the rear of the structure, although it would be visible from the side street. Chair Walton opened a nd closed the Public Hearing. Page 5 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: December 9, 2021 Motion to approve Item D (2021-63 -COA) by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved 6 -0. E. Presentation and discussion on the 2021 activity of the Historic & Architectural Review Commission. Staff report and presentation to the commission on the number of Certificates of Appropriateness received and reviewed in 2021 by Bostick. F. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Waggoner announced Bostick’s departure and contributions to the Commission , the Department and the City. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved 6-0. Adjourned at 6:32 p.m. _____________________________ _______________________________ Approved, Michael Walton, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary Page 6 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: January 13, 2022 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes January 13, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members Present: Michael Walton; Lawrence Romero; Steve Johnston; Pamela Mitchell; Karalei Nunn; Catherine Morales Staff present: Mirna Garcia, Program Manager; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:00 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. 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/. A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a medium priority historic structure at the property located at 412 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description Lot 1, Glasscock’s Second Addition. (2021-64-COA) –Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Staff report by Waggoner. Per a deed from April 5, 1912, Albert Horton Glasscock, Elizabeth Jane Glasscock Talbott, and Margaret C. Glasscock Boatner, three of Georgetown founder’s George Washington Glasscock’s children, along with their brother Andrew’s heirs, sold Lots 3 & 4 in Block No. 30 of Glasscock’s Addition to D. F. Draper for $800. The deed described the property as having improvements. George Glasscock died in 1868, and the historic structure may have been constructed at some point by the Glasscock family, based on ownership history, although if so, it was likely a rental property as the Glasscock family were known to have other residences in Georgetown and in other Texas cities. Per a deed from December 10, 1945, the District Court of Williamson County directed the sale of Lots 3 & 4 in Block 30 of Glasscock’s Addition in the cause of Annie Bell Singleton, et al vs Marjorie Lynn Woods. A. F. Morris and wife Mary Lessie Morris purchased the property for $1,500 from the court appointed receiver Page 7 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: January 13, 2022 Dor W. Brown. A mechanic’s lien from January 30, 1946, was payable to the Belford Lumber Company for the amount of $1,500. The lien release described the improvements as completed according to the plans and specifications, with a sum of $975.32 remaining due. The lien was paid off in April 1947. Per an affidavit from 1977, Anderson Fambrue Morris and Mary Leslie Mitchell Morris were married on December 23, 1913, in Winnfield, Louisiana and had nine children. Mary passed away in 1969 in Williamson County and Anderson passed away in 1977. Following their parents’ deaths, the Morris children sold the property to Thomas & Betty Davis, and the property passed between they and Timothy Davis until 1988 when it was sold to Federico & Mary Flores after it was replatted as a single lot rather than half of Lots 3 & 4. Jim and Amy Miller purchased the property in 2021. The house at 412 E. 7th Street first appears on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps in 1916, four years after the purchase by D. F. Draper. The 1916 map shows a small, one-story wood frame structure with a wide front porch and an accessory structure at the rear of the property. The 1925 and 1940 maps do not show a change to the property, but the house does appear in the corner of an aerial photo from c. 1934 (photo from Southwestern University Special Collections) with an asymmetrical roof, indicating that the structure either had an asymmetrical roof originally, or that the rear addition where the kitchen and living space are currently located was added prior to 1934. By 1964 changes can be seen in the aerial photo from that year, which were likely the alterations and additions made by the Belford Lumber Company in 1946. A driveway and carport on the west side of the structure are visible in the 1964 photo. The 1974 photo shows a similar site layout, with the addition of residential structures on other lots on the block. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey form and photos describe and show a one-story frame dwelling (which was called an I-House plan, not reflected in the current structure) with asbestos siding, a stone chimney, wood windows with 4/4 lights and a porch with Doric (round) columns, as well as an attached carport. The structure today does not reflect historic building materials , which have all been removed and replaced, excepting the porch columns, which appear to be the same as those in the 1984 photos. The current exterior materials are low quality and not durable or contributing to the historic character. The remaining historic materials are the limestone chimney and framing, and the interior finishes are not historic or conducive to salvage. Rear and side additions have been constructed after 1984 which are not of quality construction or materials, and which do not contribute to historic character. At this point the majority of the historic fabric has been removed, with only the form of the house recognizable as historic from the exterior. Based on the current condition of the structure, the potential age of the framing and stone and the form of the house, which is a simple rectangular shape with a steep gable roof and front porch, the HPO recommends that the request for demolition be approved, but that an archive document of the property be provided to the City, and that the h istoric materials be salvaged to the extent feasible. The applicant, Jim Miller, addressed the Commission and was available to answer questions. Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing. Page 8 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: January 13, 2022 Tom Paxton, 1302 S College, owns a house similar to the structure proposed for demolition. His house was in worse shape, but it was fixed. He is opposed to the demolition. John Lawton commented that there is nothing of meaning except for the structure itself. The property can be restored but it would take a lot of money. Liz Weaver, 1221 S Main St., received 3 minutes from Ron Weaver. She is opposed. Chair Walton closed the Public Hearing. Motion to deny Item B (2021-64-COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales. Commissioner Nunn commented that it will be expensive to put in new materials, and these materials won’t be true to the historic nature. The shape is the only thing that is left that may be historic. Commissioner Nunn supports demolition. Motion to deny passes 3-2 with Commissioners Johnston and Nunn opposed. C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description 0.13-acre in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, also being known as the southwest part of Block B, Hughes Second Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. (2021 -73- COA) –Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Staff report by Waggoner. The subject property has undergone a reconstruction from the foundation and framing during a remodel that was approved for additions a garage enclosure and a new fence in 2020. The low priority historic structure, which had a construction date of 1950 on the 2016 HRS, was shown to have been constructed between 1965 and 1974 based on aerial photos and deed records, with a likely year of 1965. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new fence design along the E. 14th Street property line. The proposed fence would be a 6’ tall wood privacy fence that would align with the front or southwest corner of the house and enclose the side street and rear yards. The applicant is requesting the approval of a privacy fence to provide additional privacy to the master bedroom, bathroom and a secondary bedroom. In their meeting on May 28th, 2020, HARC approved a 3’ tall front yard fence and a 4’-6” tall side street yard fence with the condition that both fence sections be a minimum of 50% transparent. The proposed fence height and lack of transparency do not comply with the Design Guidelines effective September 1, 2021, although the proposed wood materials do comply. In the near vicinity fences are generally lower height and partially transparent, with privacy fences separating properties. A privacy fence enclosing the side yard is not generally compatible with the character of the near vicinity. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 0 of the 2 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. Page 9 of 55 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting: January 13, 2022 The applicant, Cory Shaw, addressed the Commission and further explained the request and was available to answer questions. Chair Walton asked clarifying questions related to the previous approval and this request. Shaw explained that there was a lack of privacy for the bathroom and master bedroom at that area. This would have a horizontal fence as originally planned but made out of wood. Commissioner Romero asked if the fence would meet the guideline for transparency. Waggoner explained he does not know the dimensions between the slats but it does not appear to based on the design. Commissioner Nunn asked if this will be on the property line. Waggoner explained that it is se t back 6 feet from the property line. The applicant explained that it is on the property line, and it has 15-foot setback. Chair Walton commented that he would like to know the actual transparency dimensions. Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Commissioner Nunn commented that the applicant should provide an accurate representation of their request for the fence, including transparency figures /dimensions. Motion to postpone action on Item C (2021-73-COA) to the January 27, 2022 meeting by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved 5-0. D. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Nelson introduced Meredith Johnson, who will be our interim historic planner while the department fills the position. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved 5-0. Adjourned at 7:46 p.m. ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Michael Walton, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary Page 10 of 55 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review January 27, 2022 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307 S . Myrtle Street, bearing the legal desc ription 0.13-ac re in the C lement S tubblefield S urvey, Abstract No. 558, als o being known as the southwest part of Bloc k B, Hughes S econd Addition, an unrecorded s ubdivis ion. (2021-73-C O A) –Nat Waggoner, Asst. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange IT E M S UMMARY: T his item was c onsidered at the January 13, 2022 meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion (HAR C ). At that meeting a public hearing was held and the HAR C approved a motion to pos tpone the item to the January 27, 2022 meeting in order for the applic ant to c larify their reques t. Overview of Applicant’s Request: T he fenc e is proposed to be c o nstruc ted of 8 ho rizo ntal wood p ickets, 72 inc hes in length s pac ed 1 and 3 inc hes ap art fo r a total height o f 6’. T he proposed s p acing o f the horizontal p ickets p ro vides 21% trans parenc y. T he fenc e is p ro p o s ed to align with the front or s o uthwes t c o rner o f the ho use and enclose the s ide s treet and rear yards, ap p ro ximately 14’ from the c urb line of 14th S treet at the s o uth/eas t property pin. S taff’s Analysis: S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request complies with 3 and partially complies with 3 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in UDC S ection 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in the attac hed S taff R eport. 2 of the 8 criteria were not applicable to the proposed project. Public Comments: As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), two (2) s igns were posted on-s ite. As of the public ation date of this report, s taff has received 1 written comments in favor and 3 in oppos ition to the request. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit Page 11 of 55 Exhibit 2- Revised Plans and Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 3 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit Exhibit 4 - 2021-14-COA Approval Memo Exhibit Staff Report Exhibit Pres entation Pres entation Page 12 of 55 Location 2021-73-COA Exhibit #1 A S H S T S C H U R C H S T ELM ST S M Y R T L E S T E 15TH ST S M A I N S T E UNIVERSITY AVE E 16TH ST E 16TH ST W UNIVERSITY AVE S M Y R T L E S T E 13TH ST E 14TH ST 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 13 of 55 Page 14 of 55 Page 15 of 55 Page 16 of 55 Page 17 of 55 Page 18 of 55 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information Owner/Address DAYTON, LARRY R & TREVA K, 177 THE OAKS BLVD, , ELGIN,TX 78621-5986 Latitude:30.631751 Longitude -97.674765 Addition/Subdivision:S3809 - Hughes 2nd Addition WCAD ID:R042841Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK B(PT), ACRES .13 Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Current Designations: NR District Yes No) NHL NR (Is property contributing? RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC Other: Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Other: Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Function EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950 Builder:Architect: Healthcare Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4 Vacant Vacant Old Town District Current/Historic Name:None/None Photo direction: Southeast Page 19 of 55 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 2 Architectural Description General Architectural Description: One-story Minimal Ranch style house clad in aluminum siding with a hipped roof and a shed roof addition at the rear; it has a rectangular plan, attached carport, and an entry stoop with a shed roof and a single front door. Relocated Additions, modifications:Siding replaced, windows replaced, addition at rear Stylistic Influence(s) Queen Anne Second Empire Greek Revival Eastlake Italianate Log traditional Exotic Revival Colonial Revival Romanesque Revival Renaissance Revival Folk Victorian Shingle Monterey Beaux Arts Tudor Revival Mission Neo-Classical Gothic Revival Moderne Craftsman Spanish Colonial Art Deco Prairie Pueblo Revival Other: Commercial Style Post-war Modern No Style Ranch International Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet Structural Details Roof Form Mansard Pyramid Other: Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other: Roof Materials Wall Materials Metal Brick Wood Siding Stucco Siding: Other Stone Glass Wood shingles Asbestos Log Vinyl Terra Cotta Other: Concrete Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash Windows Decorative Screenwork Other: Single door Double door With transom With sidelights Doors (Primary Entrance) Other: Plan Irregular L-plan Four Square T-plan Rectangular Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage Other Bungalow Chimneys Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps Interior Exterior Other Specify #0 PORCHES/CANOPIES Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other Support Suspension rods Box columns Classical columns Wood posts (plain) Spindlework Wood posts (turned) Tapered box supports Masonry pier Other: Fabricated metal Jigsaw trim Suspension cables Materials:Metal FabricWood Other: # of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement: Ancillary Buildings Garage Barn Shed Other: Landscape/Site Features Stone Sidewalks Wood Terracing Concrete Drives Well/cistern Gardens Other materials:Brick Other Landscape Notes: Aluminum siding Vinyl Metal Posts Metal hand rail None None None Unknown Asphalt Minimal Ranch Page 20 of 55 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 3 Historical Information Immigration/Settlement Religion/Spirituality Commerce Law/Government Science/Technology Communication Military Social/Cultural Education Natural Resources Transportation Exploration Planning/Development Other Health Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria: National State LocalLevel of Significance: Integrity: Setting Feeling Location Association Design Materials Workmanship Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined Is prior documentation available for this resource?Yes No Not known General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: aluminum windows and siding; side carport) Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts C D B A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinctions Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Areas of Significance: Periods of Significance: Integrity notes:See Section 2 Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined High Medium Priority: Low Explain:Property lacks integrity Other Info: Type:HABS Survey Other Documentation details 2007 survey Contact Survey Coordinator History Programs Division, Texas Historical Commission 512/463-5853 history@thc.state.tx.us Questions? 1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:883 2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded Page 21 of 55 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos NortheastPhoto Direction Page 22 of 55 Page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 2020-14-COA PROJECT NAME: 1307 Myrtle Street APPLICANT: Cory Shaw (Damon Marie Co.) PROPERTY OWNER: Goldshaw Capital LLC Trustee of the Myrtle Street Trust PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1307 Myrtle Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0.13 acres out of part of Block B of the Hughes Second Addition REQUEST: Setback modifications, additions and new fence EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 2020 This is to certify that pursuant to action by the City of Georgetown Historic & Architectural Review Commission (HARC) on the 28th day of May, 2020, the above referenced request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) was approved with conditions, as detailed below. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUEST DESCRIPTION The applicant’s request includes setback modifications and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines for a Low Priority structure in the Old Town Overlay District. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code, HARC is the decision-making body for the items listed above. The applicant’s request also includes an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and the addition of a porch, patio or deck for a low priority structure. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code, the HPO is the decision-making body for those items. The following list and attached documents represent the complete scope of work approved by HARC: • A 4’-10” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback to allow a residential addition 1’-2” from the side (north) property line. • A 4'-4" setback encroachment into the required 15' side street (south) setback to allow a residential addition 10'-8" from the side street (south) property line. • A rear addition as well as the addition of front and rear porches. • Alterations to the roof slope and style, including the addition of a front dormer. • A painted wood front yard fence 3’ in height and a side yard fence 4’-6” in height with the condition that both fences be a minimum of 50% transparent. The following conditions were met by the applicant as determined by the City of Georgetown Historic Architectural Review Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer: Page 23 of 55 Page 2 of 2 1. The application submitted was complete and the information contained within the application correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2. Applicable design and development standards of the Unified Development Code and Downtown and Old Town Design Standards in Chapters 8 and 14 specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District. This Certificate is revocable and does not confer any permanent rights. This Certificate expires 24 months from the effective date if the approved work has not commenced. Signed this 29th day of May, 2020 For: Sofia Nelson, Historic Preservation Officer Attachment: Plans and Supporting Documents Page 24 of 55 Letter of Intent Re: 1307 Myrtle St The following letter spells out our intent to remodel the property at 1307 Myrtle St, which is in the Historic Overlay District. We would like to change the current low roof-line to a combination of 9/12 and 4/12 pitch with a cross section at the ridge and gables on four sides. This will give the home more of a craftsman style feel to it which is in alignment with the desired “appeal” for the downtown area. We will clad the roof with a standing-seam metal, which is very popular for the area. The current footprint is about 1250 square feet of living space. We would like to extend the back of the house 10’ which would add approximately 450sf of additional living space to the home. The 10’ extension allows us to remain in compliance with the rear setback of 10’. A carport currently exists and we would like to turn this into an attached garage. We would do this by pouring an appropriate concrete slab and reframe the exterior and demising wall to bring them up to code, then add a single-car garage door according to the architectural plans. We would like to update the siding throughout the exterior with Hardieplank smooth lap siding below the roof edge and vertical Hardie board and batton siding in the gables. This corner lot is also in need of an updated fence. A chain link fence exists but we would like to remove this and update it with a horizontal wood fence (according to the plans) which will conform to the requirement of 3’ high at the front of the property. Finally, the current footprint is a non-conforming building as it lies within the side/rear setback of 15’. Our desire is to build a wrap-around porch from the front door around to the back side of the house. According to the survey the house is 11’4” from the property line. We are proposing a 6’ wide porch. Our desire to build a wrap around porch is to add aesthetic appeal on both Myrtle St and 14th St. Being a corner lot, we’d like to make both street facing elevation as appealing as possible - a wrap around porch would help us achieve this goal. Thank you, Lisa Shaw Page 25 of 55 S M Y R T L E S T E 14TH ST S E L M S T SITE LOCATION N SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1307 S MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC Page 26 of 55 Page 27 of 55 26 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 62 ' - 0 " 20 20 40 1" = 20'-0" 0 FEETSCALE EXISTING 1-STORY HOME PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION PORCH ADDITION 60' - 0" 94 ' - 0 " 2' - 6" 11' - 7"34' - 3" EXISTING DRIVEWAY S MYRTLE STREET E 14 T H S T 15' SIDE/REAR STREET SETBACK NORTH 4'6" (h) WOOD FENCE ON E 14TH; REF. RENDERINGS 3'0" (h) WOOD FENCE ON S MYRTLE ST; REF. RENDERINGS 25' STREET FACING GARAGE SETBACK 6' SIDE SETBACK 10' REAR SETBACK BUILDING RIDGE HEIGHT @ 18'-9"; REF. ELEV 10' - 8" 1' - 2" 17 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 26 ' - 0 " PROJECT INFORMATION: Lot Area: 5,640 sf Zoning District: Residential Single-Family Old Town Overlay District Existing and Proposed Area: Single-Family Residential Existing Residence Area: 1271 sq.ft. Existing Garage Area: Carport -262 sq.ft. Existing FAR: 0.23 Proposed Addition Area: 630 sq.ft. Proposed FAR: 0.34 Impervious Cover: 2560 = 45% Driveway will remain gravel 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN Page 28 of 55 18 ' - 9" 7' - 8 1/2" 9' - 10 " 2' - 10" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" 10 10 20 1" = 10'-0" 0 FEETSCALE 17 ' - 4 1/2" 3' - 10 " 2' - 10" 10 10 20 1" = 10'-0" 0 FEETSCALE 17 ' - 4" 412 18 ' - 9" NEW 4/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING ON NEW COLUMNS NEW HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON EXISTING STRUCTURE NEW 34”x42” SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS; TYP. VINYL, DUAL PANE, SAME AS EXISTING MATERIAL NEW 4/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN NEW HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN NEW AUTOMATIC SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR; 8’(w) X 7’(h)NEW 36”x80” CRAFTSMAN STYLE DOOR NEW 9/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE NEW DOUBLE HUNG 34”x43” WINDOW 9 12 NEW 36”x80” CRAFTSMAN STYLE DOOR NEW 36”x80” CRAFTSMAN STYLE DOOR 2/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ON NEW PORCH 2/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ON NEW PORCH EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN NEW GOOSENECK OUTDOOR SCONCE ABOVE GARAGE NEW DOUBLE HUNG 34”x43” WINDOW NEW WOOD 3’6” RAILING; WHITE NEW DOUBLE HUNG 34”x43” WINDOW 9 12 NEW EXTERIOR SCONCES, TBD. NEW HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON EXISTING STRUCTURE NEW 34”x42” SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS; TYP. NEW 3’-6” WOOD RAILING; WHITE 2/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OVER NEW PORCH NEW GOOSENECK OUTDOOR SCONCE ABOVE GARAGE NEW 4/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE NEW 9/12 SLOPE 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE NO R T H E L E V A T I O N SO U T H E L E V A T I O N EA S T E L E V A T I O N WE S T E L E V A T I O N Page 29 of 55 HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON NEW ENCLOSED GARAGE NEW HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON EXISTING STRUCTURE HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING SMOOTH VERTICAL SIDING BOARDS + SMOOTH HARDIE BATTEN STRIPS SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING SMOOTH HARDIE BATTEN STRIPS 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM; 4/12 SLOPE ROOF WEST ELEVATION ALONG MYRTLE ST 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1307 S MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC Page 30 of 55 SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING ON NEW COLUMNS SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING ON COLUMNS 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM; 4/12 SLOPE ROOF WEST ELEVATION ALONG MYRTLE ST 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1307 S MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC NEW HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON EXISTING STRUCTURE Page 31 of 55 18 ' - 9 " 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION CORNER OF MYRTLE AND 14TH ST RIDGE HEIGHT @ 18’-9” SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1307 S MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC Page 32 of 55 SOUTH ELEVATION ALONG 14TH ST 4’6” WHITE WOOD FENCE ON 14TH ST 1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM; 4/12 SLOPE ROOF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1307 S MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC Page 33 of 55 WEST ELEVATION ALONG MYRTLE ST 3’-0” WHITE WOOD FENCE W/GATE ON MYRTLE ST SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1307 S MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC Page 34 of 55 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: January 21, 2021 File Number: 2021-73-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description 0.13 -acre in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, also being known as the southwest part of Block B, Hughes Second Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1307 Myrtle Fence1307 Myrtle Applicant: Cory Shaw (Damon Marie CO) Property Owner: Cory Shaw (Damon Marie Co) Property Address: 1307 S. Myrtle Street Legal Description: 0.13-acre in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, also being known as the southwest part of Block B, Hughes Second Addition, an unrecorded subdivision Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: The first hearing of the request for 6’ privacy fence was held on 1/13/22 and action was postponed until 1/27/22. Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: Porch addition, garage enclosure, rear addition, setback modifications and 4’- 6” fence with the condition of a minimum 50% transparency approved via 2020- 14-COA on May 28, 2020. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: c. 1965 per public records, rebuilt 2021 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: Original house likely constructed by Barbara Norment c. 1965, rebuilt from foundation and framing in 2021. APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✓ 6’ fence, with horizontal pickets spaced 1-3 inches apart and 21% transparency within the side street setback (along the south side street property line) Page 35 of 55 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-73-COA – 1307 S. Myrtle Street Page 2 of 5 STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The subject property has undergone a reconstruction from the foundation and framing during a remodel that was approved for additions a garage enclosure and a new fence in 2020. The low priority historic structure, which had a construction date of 1950 on the 2016 HRS, was shown to have been constructed between 1965 and 1974 based on aerial photos and deed records, with a likely year of 1965. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new fence design along the E. 14th Street property line. The fence is proposed to be constructed of 8 horizontal wood pickets, 72 inches in length spaced 1 and 3 inches apart for a total height of 6’. The proposed spacing of the horizontal pickets provides 21% transparency. The fence is proposed to align with the front or southwest corner of the house and enclose the side street and rear yards, approximately 14’ from the curb line of 14th Street at the south/east property pin. Justification for Requests: The applicant is requesting the approval of the additional height and reduced transparency to provide additional privacy to the master bedroom, bathroom and a secondary bedroom. Technical Review: In their meeting on May 28th, 2020, HARC approved a 3’ tall front yard fence and a 4’-6” tall side street yard fence with the condition that both fence sections be a minimum of 50% transparent. The proposed fence height and lack of transparency do not comply with the Design Guidelines effective September 1, 2021, although the proposed wood materials do comply. In the near vicinity fences are generally lower height and partially transparent, with privacy fences separating properties. A privacy fence encl osing the side yard is not generally compatible with the character of the near vicinity. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 0 of the 2 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE– OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.3.G Fences & Retaining Walls G.1 Fencing b. Front yard fences along the property line can be constructed out of the following materials: Partially Complies The proposed are wood However, the pickets appear to occupy 79% of the fence panel and have a horizontal orientation and are 3 inches at their widest point. Page 36 of 55 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-73-COA – 1307 S. Myrtle Street Page 3 of 5 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE– OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES Masonry or stone walls Masonry may be used at the base for no higher than 8 inches, or on posts flanking the walkway to support a gate or on corner posts. Ornamental iron Ornamental iron fences should be more delicate than the standards for wood picket fences. Wood picket Pickets should be vertical and should not occupy more than 50% of the fence panel. The pickets or materials should not be more than 2.5 inches wide at its widest point. Posts should be no more than 6 inches wide. Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views into front yards and are inappropriate. c. Side yard fencing A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its front yard counterpart may be considered. See UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards. Side yard fences erected to the street side of the building line and within the side street setback may be of any of the above materials not over four (4) feet in height. Side yard fences behind the building may be built to a height of six (6) feet. The fence can be constructed as a privacy fence from wood. Partially Complies The proposed 6’ side yard fence is located to the street side of the building line and over three feet in height. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant partially complies with 3 out of 8 of these 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 37 of 55 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-73-COA – 1307 S. Myrtle Street Page 4 of 5 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Partially Complies The proposed design complies with the use of wood. However, residential properties in the Old Town Overlay District are required to have a 3’ tall and 50% transparent fence in the front yard and side street setback, and the proposed fence is a 6’, 21% transparent fence in the side street setback. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies Proposed fence is in character with the subject property and is easily removed. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies Proposed fence partially complies with applicable Design Guidelines. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies The proposed fence does not alter the integrity of the building or site. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Not Applicable No new buildings or additions are proposed. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies Fences exist in a variety of heights, styles and materials within the Old Town Overlay District. However, the overall character, and the character of the near vicinity of the subject property, is generally lower height, transparent fences, including wood pickets, chain link (which is no longer permitted), and decorative iron fencing along street property lines. The height and lack of transparency of the proposed fence are not compatible with the general character, although the wood fence materials are compatible. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable No signs are proposed. Page 38 of 55 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2021-73-COA – 1307 S. Myrtle Street Page 5 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends DENIAL of the request. As required by the Unified Development Code, two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 1 written comment in favor and 3 in opposition to the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Revised Plans and Specifications Exhibit 3 – Historic Resource Surveys Exhibit 4 – 2020-14-COA Approval Memo SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. – Long Range PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Page 39 of 55 1307 Myrtle Fence 2021-73-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission January 27, 2022 1Page 40 of 55 Item Under Consideration 2021-73-COA –1307 Myrtle Fence •Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description 0.13-acre in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, also being known as the southwest part of Block B, Hughes Second Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. 2Page 41 of 55 3 Tony & Luigi’s First United Methodist 2021-73-COA Page 42 of 55 Current Context 4Page 43 of 55 Item Under Consideration HARC: •6’ fence, with horizontal pickets spaced 1-3 inches apart and 21% transparency within the side street setback (along the south side street property line) 5Page 44 of 55 Item Under Consideration 6 6 Page 45 of 55 Item Under Consideration 7 7 Page 46 of 55 8 Approx. 14’ Item Under Consideration Page 47 of 55 Item Under Consideration 99Page 48 of 55 Examples Provided by Applicant 11Page 49 of 55 Item Under Consideration 18 Fence located at property line 18Page 50 of 55 Transparency–Design Guideline 3.3.G1 •“Should not occupy more than 50% of the fence panel” •“2.5 inches wide at it’s widest point” 19Page 51 of 55 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 applicable 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;Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District 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;N/A 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 Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.N/A 20Page 52 of 55 Public Notification •Two (2) signs posted •To date, staff has received: •1 written comment IN FAVOR •3 written comments OPPOSED 21Page 53 of 55 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends disapproval of the request for a 6’ fence with 21% transparency. 22Page 54 of 55 HARC Motion –2021-73-COA •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone 23Page 55 of 55