HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_01.28.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
January 28, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The re gul ar mee ting will c onve ne at 6:00pm on J anuar y 28, 2021 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/3a2 F ji L
Webinar I D: 963-0498-5179
P assword: 541609
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (312)626-6799 or Toll-F r ee : 833-548-0282
P assword: 541609
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 121
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
Page 2 of 121
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
C At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2021 regular meeting of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for the
demolition of a low priority residential s tructure at the property located at 1304 E. 15th S treet, bearing the
legal desc ription 0.36 acres, being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41, Block 6, Univers ity P ark. –
Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for:
· new residential cons truction (infill development);
· a 3’-0” setback encroac hment into the required 15’-0” front s etbac k, to allow an arc hitectural
feature 12’-0” from the front (north) property line;
· a 3’-0” setback encroac hment into the required 6’-0” s ide street s etbac k to allow an architec tural
feature 3’-0” from the s ide street (eas t) property line;
· a 7’-4” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the front
setback, to allow a building height of 22’-4” at the front (north) s etbac k; and
· a 5’-4” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side
street s etbac k, to allow a building height of 20’-4” at the s ide street (eas t) s etbac k
at the property loc ated at 406 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.166 ac res , being the eas t half of
Lots 1 and 2, Bloc k 32, G lassc ock Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
G Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
January 28, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2021 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 121
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: January 14, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
January 14, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/37XbyNs
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on January 14, 2021 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/37XbyNs
To participate by phone: Call in number: (312)626-6799 or Toll Free: 833-548-0276 Webinar ID#:
926-1272-0992 Password: 541609
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Faustine
Curry; Terry Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell;
Members absent: Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:04 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
Page 5 of 121
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: January 14, 2021
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the December 10, 2020
regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia,
Management Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Approved (7-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the addition of awnings or canopies and replacing a historic architectural feature with a
non-historic architectural feature at the property located at 119 W. 7th Street, bearing the legal
description 0.083 acre, being the West 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 38, Original City of Georgetown.
– Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval to install new fabric
awnings over the first-floor windows and to replace the second-floor wood windows with new
wood windows. The applicant is also requesting HPO approval to replace the plexiglass
material in the corner oriel architectural feature with real glass and to change the colors for the
painted wood trim. Additional work proposed for the project includes cleaning, repairing and
repointing the masonry and repairing the exterior metal stairs, which do not require approval of
a COA.
Page 6 of 121
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: January 14, 2021
The c. 1905 and 1976 photos show the upper floor windows (presumably wood) to be a 1/1
(single pane over single pane), while the current windows, installed in the early 1980s, are a 2/2
wood window. The applicant is proposing to replace the current operable windows on the
second floor (W. 7th Street, Austin Avenue and rear facades) with a new wood window,
finished in white but painted with teal trim per the project drawings, that would have the same
2/2 pattern as the current windows but that would have energy -efficient insulated glass. The
window is proposed to have clear glazing as shown on the updated product information
provided by the applicant. The applicant is also proposing to install fabric awnings over the
entrance and storefront windows on the W. 7th Street façade, as well as over the rear entrance
on the Austin Avenue façade, similar to the fabric awnings that were installed following the
1980s façade rehabilitation. The proposed awning color is teal tweed to coordinate with the new
proposed paint color scheme of teal and white.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item E (2020-64-COA) by Commissioner Morales. Second by
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde.
F. 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 1304 Elm Street, bearing the legal
description 0.41 acres, being the northeast part of Block B, Hughes Second Addition. – Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a 4’ tall decorative iron
fence with brick columns at the entrance gates and fence corners in the front and side yards of
the property. In addition, the applicant plans to construct a 6’ wood privacy fence along the
west property line or rear of the yard. The proposed fence, which is a 4’ tall decorative iron
fence with brick columns at the corners and gate posts, is similar to the fence installed at 1503
Ash Street, a Craftsman style house built c. 1924. The fence style is similar to residential fence
styles of the Victorian period, including Queen Anne style houses such as the subject house, as
illustrated in Virginia Savage McAlester’s book Field Guide to American Houses.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-65-COA) by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Second by
Commissioner Browner. Approved (7-0).
G. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a two-story
garage addition with proposed setback, building height and floor-to-area ratio modifications;
the addition of porches with a proposed setback modification; the addition of a deck with a
proposed setback modification and the replacement of doors and windows at the property
located at 1202 E. 13th Street, bearing the legal description Lot 1, Block 1, Coffee Heights
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 7 of 121
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: January 14, 2021
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for several changes to the
property, which include enlarging the current front porch, changing the room at the front left
corner of the house from an enclosed room to a screened porch with new windows on the E.
13th Street façade, and replacing the existing 32” wide front door with a new 36” wide front
door. The applicant is also requesting to construct a two-story garage addition attached to the
existing one-story historic home with an 18’-5” setback modification for the distance from the
garage to the Laurel Street (west) property line and two building height modifications as
building height in the Old Town Overlay District is limited to 15’ at the setbacks, and the
proposed height of the structure exceeds that limit on the west side of the garage add ition by 1’-
0” and on the south side of the garage addition by 7’-10”. The property has an existing historic
accessory structure in the southeast corner of the lot, which is two stories in height. The
applicant is requesting approval to construct a second-floor deck between the new garage
addition and the existing historic accessory structure. Although part of the deck is proposed to
be between the structures and not visible from the street, part of the proposed deck would be
viewed as part of the Laurel Street façade and would require a 10’-0” setback modification as it
is proposed to be constructed up to the rear (south) property line. The applicant is requesting
HARC approval to remove one of the windows on the second floor of the historic accessory
structure and replace it with a door to facilitate access to the proposed second floor deck
between the structures. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval to remove three of the
historic windows on the west façade of the house, which faces Laurel Street, with a French door
and with three windows that are proposed to be removed and replaced as part of the creation of
the front screened porch.
H. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson provided an update regarding using Alternate Commissioners on the dais. The bylaws
will need to be updated to allow Alternate Commissioners to serve on the board regularly.
Bostick provided an update on the design guidelines.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Curry. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Meeting adjourned at 8pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 8 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
January 28, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for the
demolition of a low priority res idential struc ture at the property loc ated at 1304 E. 15th S treet, bearing the
legal des cription 0.36 ac res , being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41, Bloc k 6, University P ark. –
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p licant is req uesting HAR C ap p ro val for the demolitio n of a Low P rio rity struc ture under the
criteria of los s of s ignificance found in UDC S ec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.
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:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - 2019-52-COA Application Materials Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - HARC Minutes 10.10.2019 Exhibit
Exhibit 6 - Demolition Subcommittee Report Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 9 of 121
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
File Number: 2020-61-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
demolition of a low priority residential structure at the property located at 1304 E. 15th Street, bearing the
legal description 0.36 acres, being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41, Block 6, University Park.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1304 E. 15th Street Demolition
Applicant: John Lawton (Green Earth Builders)
Property Owner: Paul Morris and Shawn Boyd
Property Address: 1304 E. 15th Street
Legal Description: 0.36 acres, being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41, Block 6, University Park
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: Previous request for demolition via 2019-52-COA approved by HARC on October
10, 2019 for demolition of only the two additions, not the original center section.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1949 HRS, 1947 per public records
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
Background
On August 16th, 1932 J. C. Coffee platted the University Park subdivision, which had been part of the
Coffee homestead, on the north and south sides of East 15th Street, between Vine and James Streets and
Katharine Court. James C. Coffee (1877-1952) was the son of John Trousdale Coffee, who was born in
Tennessee in 1816 and served as a Missouri senator before moving to Texas, where he died in 1890. J. T.
Coffee is buried in the I.O.O.F. Cemetery as is his third wife, Eunice Margaret Amelia Allen Vontress
Coffee (1838-1919), a native Texan, who was James C. Coffee’s mother. J. C. Coffee had inherited the
family homestead on what had been the eastern outskirts of Georgetown, but by 1932 had become the
edge of new development and expansion of the city’s residential areas to the east after World War II
and through the 1960s. J. C. and his wife Beatrice (1883-1978) sold Lots 38-41 of the University Park
Addition to Edward Lee Evans on September 6, 1947 for $600. Edward and his wife Eva purchased Lots
36 & 37 from C. M. and Carrie Nolen in 1951 for $301, which they had bought from the Coffees in 1947.
The Evans had a mechanic’s lien on the property by the Southside Lumber Company for $1,898.57,
Page 10 of 121
File Number: 2020-61-COA
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
Page 2 of 6
which was likely for the construction of the original, center portion of the house. A second mechanic’s
lien for $2,800 dated May 20, 1965 was likely for the second addition on the east side of the house,
based on the structure visible in the 1964 aerial photo of Georgetown. The property remained in the
Evans family until it was purchased in 2012 by Paul G. Morris and Shawn Boyd, the current owners.
According to public records, Sam W. Henderson and Edward Lee Evans conducted business as
Hendersons, a variety store located in the H. C. Craig Building on the north side of the Courthouse
Square. On February 18, 1947 Sam W. Henderson sold part of hist variety store inventory and stock to
Wallace G. Evans and Edward Lee Evans, who each received 20% for the sum of $10 plus an unnamed
value in promissory notes. The conveyance did not include any buildings or store fixtures, and Sam
Henderson retained control of business operations, as well as ownership of the H. C. Craig Building,
which his father Sam H. Henderson had purchased from H. C. Craig in 1936. In 1966 Sam and Edward
purchased the M. B. Lockett building, just a building to the west of the Henderson’s store, from James
and Lena Rehler. Sam died in 1969 and his heirs sold their share of the Lockett Building to Edward and
Eva Evans, who owned it until 1982.
Architectural Style & Context
The house at 1304 E. 15th Street, which was built near the end of 1947, is an example of the post-WWII
Minimal Traditional houses that were constructed in newer subdivisions surrounding the older
residential areas of Georgetown. Minimal Traditional housing styles were popular in the US from the
early 1930s through the 1950s, when the popular style transitioned to Ranch style homes. According to
Virginia Savage McAlester’s book A Field Guide to American Houses, identifying features for Minimal
Traditional include, “Low- or intermediate-pitched roof, more often gabled; small house, generally one-
story in height; roof eaves usually have little to no overhang; double-hung windows, typically multi-
pane or 1/1; minimal amounts of added architectural detail; rarely has dormers.” The two later
additions, the west addition added before 1964 and the east addition added before 1974, created a
longer street façade that has more of an appearance of a Ranch, but the house was built in a time period
with characteristics of a Minimal Traditional house on a pier and beam foundation.
Although located on the same block as a house within the Olive Street National Register Historic
District, which has structures primarily constructed between the 1890s and 1940s, the University Park
Addition and its surroundings to the north, east and south has houses constructed primarily during the
two decades following WWII, according to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown. Most of
these structures were not old enough at the time of the 1984 Historic Resource Survey to be considered
historic and recorded, and the 1964 and 1974 aerial maps of Georgetown help to show what had been
developed in those decades. There are a handful of non-historic homes in the area surrounding the
subject property, but most of the mid-century structures, both inside and outside of the Old Town
Overlay District, are still contributing to the neighborhood character, with minimal infill construction.
Condition of Structure
Per a site visit and photos provided by the applicant, the current structure has had some original
features such as windows replaced, but the wood siding, porch and overall design and character of the
house are still intact. Some structural concerns would need to be addressed for the successful longevity
of the house, including additional support or replacement of the roof ridge beam in the original portion
of the house, and leveling and maintenance of the foundation of the original portion of the house and
Page 11 of 121
File Number: 2020-61-COA
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
Page 3 of 6
the east addition, which appear to have unlevel floors and some cracking in the underpinning or
skirting – the cement-covered metal mesh that surrounds the pier and beam foundation – which would
need to be repaired or replaced. The west addition appears to have been constructed atop a concrete
driveway, which was not constructed to provide adequate foundational support to the addition, and
which may either need to be removed (the addition does not contribute to the architectural character of
the structure or the surrounding neighborhood), or to have the foundation reconstructed and the
driveway removed.
Although in need of maintenance and possibly additional support, the foundation of the original
portion and east addition do not show signs of deterioration sufficient to require reconstruction or
replacement. The wood beams are in good condition and do not show signs or termite or moisture
damage, and the concrete piers appear to be in good repair. The soils in this part of the Old Town
Overlay District are known to be expansive, meaning that as the moisture content of the soil changes,
foundations can and do move and shift, causing floors to become less level and doors and windows to
stick. However, remedies are available that do not require demolition of the structure or replacement of
the foundation, and some repair and maintenance could reasonably be expected to resolve many of the
concerns expressed by the applicant.
Previous COA Application for Demolition (2019-52-COA)
The current owner applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the structure at 1304
E. 15th Street on August 1, 2019. The HARC Demolition Subcommittee met on-site on August 22, 2019
and recommended disapproval of the request based on: “Concern for deterioration of the structure
without evidence of efforts to maintain and preserve the structure. The Subcommittee expressed
concern that the removal of the structure would have an impact to the character of the District. The
Commission encouraged the applicant to provide additional information on the efforts taken to
rehabilitate/restore or realize a reasonable rate of return of the structure and demonstrate that they
cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use the structure.”
The HPO Report for the application recommended disapproval of the request, based on the finding
that the information provided by the applicant was “…not enough to determine that the applicant
meets the criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030”, and provided the criteria for approval of a
demolition request as well as the following comments:
• The applicant has not provided information that the building or structure is no longer
historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic
overlay district.
• The applicant has not established that the building or structure has undergone significant and
irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lost the historic, cultural or
architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such
designation.
• Many of the items listed for repair are items homes of this age require improvement of if regular
maintenance had not been occurring.
• At this point the applicant has not provided documentation that the structure cannot be
reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return;
or that there is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the
structure.
Page 12 of 121
File Number: 2020-61-COA
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
Page 4 of 6
HARC’s decision in the meeting on October 10, 2019 was approval of a partial demolition of the
existing structure, not to include the original central section. The demolition scope was to be limited to
the additions on the east and west ends of the original structure only, including the carport, but not
including the central portion of the structure.
The property owner had submitted demolition permit application 2019-52979 on July 17, 2019, after
which they were informed a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be approved before the
demolition permit could be issued. The demolition permit was issued on January 17, 2020 and expired
on November 12, 2020 as the demolition work had not been completed by the expiration date of the
permit.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the
subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the demolition application (33 notices
mailed), and two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received no public comments on the
request.
Findings
Based on the development patterns of the Old Town Overlay District, the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and the style and time period of the original portion of the structure, the house at 1304 E.
15th Street contributes to the Old Town Overlay District by being representative of architectural styles,
construction types and development patterns prevalent in post-WWII subdivision development in
Georgetown, and by its location in a neighborhood that has experienced few redevelopment and infill
projects since the mid-20th century. The two additions do not contribute significantly to the architectural
character of the structure or to the Old Town Overlay District, however, and rather serve as an
economically efficient method of expanding the structure, with some structural issues needing to be
addressed today, particularly in the west addition.
There are two criteria for approval of a demolition that could be considered for this request, per UDC
Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.:
a. Loss of Significance.
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer
historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the
historic overlay district; and
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant
and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the
historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the
building or structure for such designation; and
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not
caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or
negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by
neglect; and
Page 13 of 121
File Number: 2020-61-COA
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
Page 5 of 6
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse
effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or
b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable,
practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or
structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on
a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or
relocated; and
ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any
other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return;
The third criteria for approval, when there is compelling public interest in the relocation, removal or
demolition of a structure, has not been found to apply to this request.
In considering the criteria for loss of significance or unreasonable economic hardship, staff found that
neither of those approval criteria apply to this request. As stated previously, the structure has been
found to contribute to the character of the Old Town Overlay District, and the extent of exterior
changes, including additions and replacement of features, plus the extent of maintenance and repair
required for the structure, which may include the removal of the additions, would not be so great as
to cause the effective loss of the historic structure, or to require its demolition. The applicant has not
provided information or evidence sufficient to conclude that the changes are irreversible, that needed
maintenance has been performed by the owner, or that the demolition of the structure would not
cause adverse effect to the Old Town Overlay District. In considering whether there is an economic
hardship, the applicant has not provided evidence of costs or expected returns, or that the property
owner has pursued other viable options, as the previously approved demolition of the additions was
not completed, nor have there been any proposals for new additions or other modifications that
would preserve the historic main portion of the structure while increasing the living area or
providing improved parking options on the site.
As the demolition of the additions was previously approved by HARC in the meeting on October 10,
2019 and as evidence has not been provided that there have been any significant changes to the
structure or its condition, and as other viable options for the rehabilitation and alteration of the
original historic structure have not been shown to have been pursued or considered, the HPO finds
that this request for a full demolition does not sufficiently meet the criteria for approval in UDC Sec.
3.13.030.F.2. As 2019-52-COA has already issued an approval for the demolition of the additions and
the HPO does not find sufficient criteria have been met for approval of this application, the HPO
recommends denial of the request.
Page 14 of 121
File Number: 2020-61-COA
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
Page 6 of 6
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
01/22/2021
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Historic Resource Survey
Exhibit 4 – 2019-52-COA Application Materials
Exhibit 5 – HARC Meeting Minutes 10.10.2019
Exhibit 6 – Demolition Subcommittee Report
Page 15 of 121
Location
2020-61-COA
Exhibit #1
HU
T
T
O
RD
VIN
E
S
T
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
KA
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
C
T
E 15TH ST
E 17TH S
T
OLI
V
E
S
T
VI
N
E
S
T
E 13TH ST
E 16TH S
T
E 14TH ST
LO
U
I
S
E
S
T
E 16TH ST
VI
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
LAUREL
ST
E 14TH ST
JA
M
E
S
S
T
0 210105
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 16 of 121
Green Earth Builders, LLC
2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626
Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100
Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: jennhaleygeb@gmail.com
Letter of Intent
1304 E 15th St.
1304 E 15th Street is a corner lot facing 15th Street with Vine street to the east of the lot.
October of last year a request for demolition of home was submitted. For
some reason both east and west wings of the home were granted the request.
Although the main structure was denied. I went through the home and found that
the floors, walls, doors and windows of the house did not have materials that
would be classified as a historic nature. The roof structure which was poorly
framed is falling apart and looks like a washboard. I did see a hutch that looked of
age and that piece will be designed into one of the new structures to be built on
this huge lot. I would ask that the committee would reevaluate their decision made
last year and grant a demolition of the full structure in order to move forward. The
house has had many changes that have made it cheap and have gone away from
the values of historic significance. This can be seen in the windows that have been
installed. The current floor plan is not functional. The changes that need to be
made for usable space make it economically infeasible. The amount of remodel
would be expensive and extensive. It is more feasible to start over as opposed to
remodel the current structure.
Page 17 of 121
The homeowner is also looking to keep a craftsman style appeal to new structures
to be built. In order with keeping this area preserved to historic district standards.
There is also a plat line which had been moved on the back-east corner of
the lot to accommodate the neighbor with a driveway easement to the street. The
neighbor has signed a document to make it a new plat line that can finally be
documented correctly.
I would hope that with the pictures I am providing that you would
understand more as to what I am referring to. I know that you all would
understand that with this information you will be better informed to make your
decision.
Page 18 of 121
Green Earth Builders, LLC
2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626
Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100
Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: jennhaleygeb@gmail.com
1304 E 15th St. Pictures
WINDOWS NON-HISTORICAL
Page 19 of 121
FOUNDATION DAMAGE AND NON-HISTORICAL WINDOWS
Page 20 of 121
ROOF IS BUCKLING AND WARPING
Page 21 of 121
WARPED ROOF AND NON-HISTORICAL WINDOWS
Page 22 of 121
FOUNDATION DAMAGE, WINDOWS NON-HISTORICAL, AND ROOF WARPING AND BOWED
Page 23 of 121
FRONT STEPS OF THE HOUSE SEPERATING FROM THE STRUCTURE AND THE FOUNDATION AND
SIDING NEEDING SIGNIFICANT REPAIR
Page 24 of 121
FURTHER LOOK OUT OF THE FRONT STEPS AND THE DAMAGE WITH THE HOUSE
Page 25 of 121
SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS BOWING OUT
Page 26 of 121
ROOF DAMAGE AS WELL AS FONDATION DAMAGE. ALSO, NON-HISTORICAL WINDOWS
Page 27 of 121
FRONT DOOR WITH NON-HISTORICAL WINDOWS ON EITHER SIDE
Page 28 of 121
FOUNDATION DAMAGE
Page 29 of 121
FOUNDATION DAMAGE
Page 30 of 121
STRUCTURE THAT WAS ADDED LATER AND ADDS NOTHING TO THE HOUSE AND WAS POORLY
BUILT.
Page 31 of 121
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1304 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:125621
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address MORRIS, PAUL G & SHAWN L BOYD, 1304 E 15TH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-7119
Latitude:30.631023 Longitude -97.664729
Addition/Subdivision:S4861 - University Park
WCAD ID:R048164Legal Description (Lot/Block):UNIVERSITY PARK, BLOCK 6, LOT 38-41, PTS 36-37,
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 5/6/2016Recorded 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:1949
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Southwest
Page 32 of 121
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1304 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:125621
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story Ranch house clad in wood siding with an irregular plan, side-gabled roof, and a projecting entry stoop with a
shed roof canopy and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Garage enclosed; carport added; windows resized and replaced; hand rail added to entry
steps
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:
Shutters, Vinyl
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 33 of 121
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1304 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:125621
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: carport; vinyl windows)
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:Upon reevaluation, the resource does not
have sufficient integrity for medium priority.
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:373
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 34 of 121
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1304 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:125621
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 35 of 121
i t
Lriy 31, 2019
Page 36 of 121
Property :1304 East 15th street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Structure Removal
Shawn Boyd and Paul Morris
City of Georgetown planning members and HARC members:
The following is short list of the major defects with the structure we are wanting to remove from the lot.
1.This structure is 70 years old and is of limited historical value and architectural value.
2.Bryant Boyd bid $350,000 just to bring it up to code.
3.Coregon Builders advised relocating the original structure on the property would be cost
prohibitive.
4.It goes with out saying that the plumbing and electrical do not meet the current code practices.
5.There is significant amounts of wood rot through out the structure.
6.The Western most pier and beam addition was built using 4x6 untreated wooden piers sitting
atop a cracked, nearly crumbling below grade and below code, thin cement slab. The far western
wall is bolted to this slab preventing leveling of that section of the structure.
7.The balance of the structure is on cinder block piers or concrete pylons, most of which will need
to be replaced or re-engineered to provide adequate support. The structure currently floats and
buckles with ground movement.
8.The lot needs run-off engineering and fill. Water accumulates under the structure and in the
back yard. Remediation is unfeasible with the current structure in place. This problem
exacerbates the above mentioned foundation issues.
9.The roof rafters were built undersized, improperly installed or missing purlins, improperly
installed or missing purlin braces, missing collar ties on rafters and undersized ridge beams, thus
offering inadequate support. The roof is sagging and shows significant waves or deflections due
to this structural defect. The entire roof system will require replacement or rebuilding.
10.The screened in porch is an assembled patchwork of poor grade materials.
11.This structure is a low end mid-century modern construction apparently built piecemeal by
unskilled labor.
Page 37 of 121
12.Cost for reconstruction plus out initial investment would result in a negativ_e ROI. The value of
such a structure is currently on the low end of the areas current high values./.J HARC rated this structure as a Low Priority and non-contributory to the historic or architectural ( V value of Georgetown in the 2016 sur vey.
We believe this property meets two of the three (a and b) criteria outlined by Nat Waggoner in his
recent email detailing the requirements for removal or demolition:
fJ... Loss of Significance. {Y Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
c.There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure.
Satisfying two of the requirements should be compelling evidence this property is ready for modern
development when only one is a requirement. Any attempt to with hold up a modern development plan
is a disrespect to the community and its willingness to upgrade an insignificant property to its highest
and best use providing a more prosperous taxable entity for the community.
A 70 year old structure has at best a limited history and is then significant only if the structure was
owned by a significant person, used for some significant purpose or designed by a significant architect.
None of which apply to this property. Its only histor/ is that is was built and built poorly out of
sometimes seemingly scrap materials.
We hope this document has pointed out important aspects of the property that lend itself to an
agreement that it is not a viable or contributing structure and that we may move forward with clearing
the lot for development.
Thank you,
Paul Morris
Shawn Boyd
Page 38 of 121
Page 39 of 121
Page 40 of 121
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: 2019-52-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1304 E 15th St, Georgetown TX 78626
APPLICANT: Shawn Boyd & Paul Morris
Background
The one-story residential structure located at 1304 E 15th Street is identified as a low priority structure
in the 2016, medium priority structure in the 2007 and was not included in the 1984 Historic Resources
Surveys Reports (HRSR) completed by the City of Georgetown. The estimated date of construction is
1949. The 2016 HRSR indicates a “Ranch” stylistic influence with an irregular plan. Additions to the
original structure include an enclosed garage and a carport.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the
subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (33 notices
mailed), and two (2) signs were posted on-site on September 25, 2019. To date, staff has received one (1)
written comment in favor of the demolition. See Exhibit 9.
Findings
This low priority structure is compatible with other ranch style homes in the area and remains habitable
and repairable. The information provided is not enough to determine that the applicant meets the criteria
established in UDC Section 3.13.030F.b. “The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take
reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or make
reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on a building or structure unless the building or
structure may be demolished or relocated”.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Page 41 of 121
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
FILE NUMBER: 2019-52-COA
PROJECT NAME: 1304 E. 15th Street Demo
APPLICANT: Shawn Boyd
PROPERTY OWNER: Shawn Boyd and Paul Morris
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1304 E. 15th Street
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: UNIVERSITY PARK, BLOCK 6, LOT 38-41, PTS 36-37
REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the Existing Structure
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2019
This is to certify that pursuant to action by the City of Georgetown Historic Architectural Review
Committee (HARC) on the 10th day of October, 2019, the above referenced request for Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) was approved, as detailed below.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUEST DESCRIPTION
The following list represents the complete scope of work approved.
• Partial demolition of the existing structure, not to include the original central section.
o Demolition scope to be limited to the additions on the east and west ends of the
original structure only, including the carport, and not including the original central
portion of the structure.
The following conditions were met by the applicant as determined by the City of Georgetown Historic
Architectural Review Committee.
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 specific to the applicable Historic Overlay
District;
This Certificate is revocable and does not confer any permanent rights.
Signed this 11th day of October, 2019,
For: Sofia Nelson, Historic Preservation Officer
Attachment: Plans and Supporting Documents
Page 42 of 121
Page 43 of 121
Page 44 of 121
Page 45 of 121
Page 46 of 121
Page 47 of 121
Page 48 of 121
1304 E. 15th Street Demo
2020-61-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
January 28, 2021
1Page 49 of 121
Item Under Consideration
2020-61-COA –1304 E. 15th Street Demolition
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
the demolition of a low priority residential structure at the property located at 1304 E. 15th
Street, bearing the legal description 0.36 acres, being part of Lots 36 and 37 and Lots 38-41,
Block 6, University Park.
2Page 50 of 121
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Demolition of a low priority structure in the Old Town Overlay District
3Page 51 of 121
1304 E. 15th Street
4Page 52 of 121
5
Purl
Elementary
Page 53 of 121
Current Context
6Page 54 of 121
University Park Plat -1932
7Page 55 of 121
Henderson’s Variety Store –H. C. Craig Bldg
8Page 56 of 121
1964 Aerial Photo
9Page 57 of 121
1974 Aerial Photo
10Page 58 of 121
Site Photos
11Page 59 of 121
Site Photos
12Page 60 of 121
Site Photos
13Page 61 of 121
Site Photos
14Page 62 of 121
Site Photos
15Page 63 of 121
Foundation Photos –Original Portion
16
Page 64 of 121
Foundation Photos –Original Portion
17
Page 65 of 121
Foundation Photos –Original Portion
18
Page 66 of 121
Foundation Photos –Original Portion
19
Page 67 of 121
Foundation Photos -West Addition
20
Page 68 of 121
Foundation Photos –West Addition
21
Page 69 of 121
Foundation Photos -East Addition
22
Page 70 of 121
Foundation Photos –East Addition
23
Page 71 of 121
Historic Context
24Page 72 of 121
Current Context
25Page 73 of 121
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Does Not
Comply
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Does Not
Comply
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Does Not
Comply
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Does Not
Comply
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 Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 26Page 74 of 121
Demo Approval Criteria UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv
27
Criteria Staff’s Finding
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically,
culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and
Partially
Complies
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible
changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural
significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and
Does Not
Comply
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either
directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of
maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and
Does Not
Comply
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the
historic overlay district or the City's historic resources;Partially
Complies
Page 75 of 121
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-three (33) letters mailed
•No comments received
28Page 76 of 121
Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of the request for demolition.
29Page 77 of 121
HARC Motion –2020-62-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
30Page 78 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
January 28, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for:
· new res idential c onstruc tion (infill development);
· a 3’-0” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 15’-0” front setback, to allow an architec tural feature
12’-0” from the front (north) property line;
· a 3’-0” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 6’-0” side s treet setback to allow an arc hitectural
feature 3’-0” from the side s treet (east) property line;
· a 7’-4” building height modific ation to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the front
s etbac k, to allow a building height of 22’-4” at the front (north) setback; and
· a 5’-4” building height modific ation to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the s ide street
s etbac k, to allow a building height of 20’-4” at the s ide street (eas t) s etbac k
at the property located at 406 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.166 acres, being the east half of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 32, G las s coc k Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Applic ant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val of a new two -s tory ho use with rear garage. HAR C
previous ly ap p ro ved two setb ack modific ations for the p ro p erty, a 5’-0” mo d ificatio n to the 20’-0” front
(north) setb ack as the p ro p erty has a 15’-0” wid e P ublic Utility Eas ement (P UE) along the rear (s outh)
property line, and a 9’-0” modific ation to the 15’-0” s id e street s etbac k, as the As h S treet right-of-way
(R O W ) has no t b een imp ro ved ad jacent to the property and d o es no t functio n as a p ublic s treet. With this
request fo r ap p ro val of a new res id ential s tructure, the applic ant is als o reques ting HAR C approval o f a
s etbac k mo d ificatio n to allow an arc hitec tural feature – a bay window with ro o f – to encroac h 3’-0” into
the ap p ro ved 15’-0” fro nt (north) s etb ac k). Ac cording to UDC S ec . 6.04.020.C .10., features that may be
located within a required s etb ack inc lud e “S ills, belt cours es , c o rnic es , buttres s es , c himneys, flues, eaves
and other architec tural features provid ed that s uc h features d o no t extend further than 18 inc hes into any
required setb ack.” As the bay wind o w feature is p ro p o s ed to enc ro ach a total of 3’-0” inc luding the roof,
the feature req uires ap p ro val of a s etbac k modific ation. T he ap p licant is req uesting an additio nal 3’-0”
s etbac k encroac hment for an awning feature proposed to b e lo cated o ver the garage d o o rs , whic h fac e the
unimproved Ash S treet R O W.
T he applic ant is als o reques ting two building height modific ations , both fo r gabled roofs. Building height is
meas ured as the average o f the eave and roof heights and is limited to 15’-0” at the s etbac ks in the O ld
Town O verlay District p er UDC S ec . 4.08.080.C . T he firs t proposed b uilding height modific ation is for a
gable roof on the fro nt façade of the ho us e fac ing E. 4th S treet. T he gab le ro o f is proposed to be 22’-4” at
the front s etbac k, requiring approval of a 7’-4” building height modification. T he s econd proposed building
height mo d ificatio n is for a gab le ro o f and two-sto ry height for the attac hed garage at the rear o f the
property. T hat gab le roof is p ro p o s ed to b e 20’-4” and requires approval of a 5’-4” b uilding height
modification.
T he new res idential struc ture is propos ed to be cons tructed with fiber composite lapped s iding and fiber
composite trim, a standing s eam metal roof, F ibrex single-hung 1/1 windows, treated wood porch railings
and s tucc o skirting around the foundation. T he design of the s tructure inc ludes traditional features such as
gable roofs , porches and stairs with railings, brac kets to support awnings , a front bay window, an exterior
Page 79 of 121
chimney, expos ed rafter tails and trimmed arc hitectural features , dormers and a pier and beam foundation.
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:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 80 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 1 of 8
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
File Number: 2020-71-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for:
• new residential construction (infill development);
• a 3’-0” setback encroachment into the required 15’-0” front setback, to allow an architectural
feature 12’-0” from the front (north) property line;
• a 3’-0” setback encroachment into the required 6’-0” side street setback to allow an architectural
feature 3’-0” from the side street (east) property line;
• a 7’-4” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the
front setback, to allow a building height of 22’-4” at the front (north) setback; and
• a 5’-4” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side
street setback, to allow a building height of 20’-4” at the side street (east) setback
at the property located at 406 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.166 acres, being the east half of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 406 E. 4th Street
Applicant: Tom Yantis
Property Owner: Thomas Yantis and Mary Mitchem, Co-Trustees of the Y-M trust
Property Address: 406 E. 4th Street
Legal Description: 0.166 acres, being the east half of Lots 1 and 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: HARC approved a 5’ front setback encroachment and 9’ side street setback
encroachment for the property via 2020-3-COA.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: N/A
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New building construction (residential infill development)
Setback modifications (architectural features)
Building height modifications (gable roofs)
Page 81 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 2 of 8
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property is located in a part of the Old Town Overlay District that has a range of architectural
styles, construction dates and lot sizes, which include Victorian era, Craftsman, Minimal Traditional and
Ranch styles and stylistic influences, among others. Staff previously presented property history
including a prior house on the property, which was a single story and had a rear, detached garage. The
structure was demolished following HARC approval in 2008, prior to the purchase by the current owner,
and had a size, front setback and style that were similar to the existing adjacent structure to the west.
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new two-story house with rear garage. HARC
previously approved two setback modifications for the property, a 5’-0” modification to the 20’-0” front
(north) setback as the property has a 15’-0” wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the rear (south)
property line, and a 9’-0” modification to the 15’-0” side street setback, as the Ash Street right-of-way
(ROW) has not been improved adjacent to the property and does not function as a public street. With
this request for approval of a new residential structure, the applicant is also requesting HARC approval
of a setback modification to allow an architectural feature – a bay window with roof – to encroach 3’-0”
into the approved 15’-0” front (north) setback. According to UDC Sec. 6.04.020.C.10., features that may
be located within a required setback include “Sills, belt courses, cornices, buttresses, chimneys, flues,
eaves and other architectural features provided that such features do not extend further than 18 inches
into any required setback.” As the bay window feature is proposed to encroach a total of 3’-0”
including the roof, the feature requires approval of a setback modification. The applicant is also
requesting an additional 3’-0” setback encroachment for an awning feature proposed to be located over
the garage doors, which face the unimproved Ash Street ROW.
The applicant is also requesting two building height modifications, both for gabled roofs. Building
height is measured as the average of the eave and roof heights and is limited to 15’-0” at the setbacks
in the Old Town Overlay District per UDC Sec. 4.08.080.C. The first proposed building height
modification is for a gable roof on the front façade of the house facing E. 4th Street. The gable roof is
proposed to be 22’-4” at the front setback, requiring approval of a 7’-4” building height modification.
The second proposed building height modification is for a gable roof and two-story height for the
attached garage at the rear of the property. That gable roof is proposed to be 20’-4” and requires
approval of a 5’-4” building height modification.
The new residential structure is proposed to be constructed with fiber composite lapped siding and
fiber composite trim, a standing seam metal roof, Fibrex single-hung 1/1 windows, treated wood porch
railings and stucco skirting around the foundation. The design of the structure includes traditional
features such as gable roofs, porches and stairs with railings, brackets to support awnings, a front bay
window, an exterior chimney, exposed rafter tails and trimmed architectural features, dormers and a
pier and beam foundation.
Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines states: “The purpose of guidelines for new construction is not to prevent
change in the Old Town Overlay District, but to ensure that the District’s architectural and historic character is
respected. The height, the proportion, the roof shape, the materials, the texture, the scale, and the details of the
Page 82 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 3 of 8
proposed building must be compatible with existing historic buildings in the District.” UDC Sec. 4.08.050(H)
additionally states that “The new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the building or structure and its
environment.” Further guidance in the Design Guidelines that can be applied to the subject property
reads as follows: “Protecting the historic setting and context of a property, including the degree of open space
and building density, must always be considered when planning new construction on an historic site… For
example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.
The proposed development would include a similar amount of open space on the lot to what existed before the
previous home was demolished.”
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential setback.
Align the new non-residential building front at a
setback that is in context with the area
properties.
New residential buildings should meet the
minimum front setback requirement of the UDC
or use an increased setback if the block has
historically developed with an extended setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to the
front facing façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
The new structure is proposed to have a
setback similar to the adjacent properties to
the west and across E. 4th Street to the
north, with an architectural feature
projecting into the front setback. Although
front setbacks vary along E. 4th Street and
surrounding streets, extended setbacks are
not typical of the majority of the properties
in this part of the Old Town Overlay
District, much of which developed after the
1930s.
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional size
of residential buildings
A typical building module should not exceed 20
feet in width. The building module should be
expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of
3 feet
- A change in primary façade material for
the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece.
Complies
The proposed structure is divided into
modules including the front porch, and
gable roof, and is designed with features
and proportions similar to a traditional
residential structure.
Page 83 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 4 of 8
Variations in façade treatments should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear façades.
14.10 - Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The siding is fiber composite lapped siding
with fiber composite trim, which has an
appearance similar to wood siding when
painted.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed project requires two setback
modifications and two building height
modifications.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
The subject property does not have any
historic structures and is not located within
a National Register Historic District.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
The proposed new construction complies
with applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The property does not have any historic
structures, and the proposed new
construction does not diminish the integrity
of the site, which is surrounded by a mix of
high, medium and low priority structures
and non-contributing structures.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed new construction is
compatible with surrounding properties in
Page 84 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 5 of 8
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
the Old Town Overlay District, which have
a variety of architectural styles and time
periods that range from approximately 1915
to 2009.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed new construction is
compatible with the character of the Old
Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
for projecting architectural features and
not for the footprint of the house, and the
features could be adjusted to fit within
the required setbacks. However, the
proposed features provide add to the
architectural style and add character that
is compatible with the Old Town Overlay
District.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The footprint of the proposed new
structure does not encroach into the
setbacks, and the encroachments are
proposed for projecting architectural
features. Shifting the entire new structure
for the encroaching features is feasible,
but not in proportion to the limited
encroachment proposed for the
architectural features.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The proposed setback is compatible and
in context with the surrounding block,
which has structures that encroach into
Page 85 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 6 of 8
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
the front and side street setbacks to
varying degrees.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The new structure is proposed to be set a
similar distance to the street as other
units within the block and with the
previously approved setback. The
proposed encroachment is for projecting
architectural features.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
A previous structure on the site was
removed prior to the past year.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Complies
A review of aerial and street view photos
shows that a previous residential
structure on the site had a similar
footprint encroachment in the front
setback, but was a different architectural
style and did not have projecting
features that are proposed for this
setback encroachment. A survey of the
property with the previous structure
shows that the front of that structure
was located 14.5’ from the front (north)
property line and 12.3’ from the side
street (east) property line.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Complies
The previous residential structure on
this property was a smaller one-story
house that appears to have had a
detached garage on the southwest corner
of the property rather than the attached
street-facing garage proposed for the
new structure. The proposed new
structure is larger than the previous
structure, however the proposed setback
encroachment is not for the footprint of
the structure but rather for projecting
architectural features that add to the
character of the proposed structure but
Page 86 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 7 of 8
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
do not add to the scale or massing of the
new structure.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Not Applicable
The proposed encroachment is for new
construction, not for an addition.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The proposed structure is two stories in
height and surrounding structures are
primarily one-story, although some have
a two-story portion or addition. The size
of the proposed structure is both larger
than and similar to surrounding
structures, which are a range of sizes.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
for the two street facades and are not
abutting adjacent properties or
buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
Adequate space exists for maintenance of
the new structure if the proposed
encroachments are approved.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or significant features are
proposed to be preserved.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
The proposed project does not impact
views to and from the Courthouse and
to and from the Town Square Historic
District.
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Downtown Overlay District,
nor is it close enough to impact the
character of that District.
Page 87 of 121
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-71-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 8 of 8
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Partially Complies
The proposed new structure is two
stories in height, with gable features at
the front façade and side street-facing
garage that require a building height
modification. The proposed height of the
structure at the front setback would be
taller than surrounding structures but
would allow for a front building line
consistent with the adjacent properties to
the west. The side street building height,
which along an unimproved right-of-
way, does not alter existing building
relationships as it is not functionally a
street façade or view.
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square Historic District; and
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Downtown Overlay District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Downtown Overlay District,
nor is it close enough to impact historic
buildings within that District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 88 of 121
Location
2020-71-COA
Exhibit #1
E 3RD ST
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 4TH ST
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 5TH ST
ELM
S
T
E 6TH ST
ASH
S
T
S C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
E 3RD ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 89 of 121
Page 1 of 2
December 19, 2020
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown, Texas
RE: 406 E. 4th Street, CoA for New Infill Construction
Dear Commissioners,
Please accept this letter of intent regarding proposed infill construction within the Old Town Overlay District at
406 E. 4th Street. My wife and I purchased this lot last year with the intention of building a new single-family
home. We have lived in Old Town (or immediately adjacent) for over 20 years and love the variety of historic
structures. Our goal with this new construction is to respect and compliment the character of the
neighborhood.
We have selected a house design that we believe meets the goals of the Design Guidelines for Infill Construction
in the Old Town Overlay District. Below are some of the Key Characteristics of the Design Guidelines and how
we believe our proposed design complies with them.
Buildings have similar setback alignment along the street frontage
o Earlier this year, HARC approved a setback exception for our lot to allow our front setback to
match that of the existing house on the lot to the west. Our proposed front setback is 15 feet in
keeping with the approved exception.
One- to two-story, traditional residential buildings, with an occasional third floor for the grander
houses
o Our proposed design is a one and a half story, traditional residential building.
Masonry and wood are the primary construction materials
o We are proposing to use a smooth, fiber cement lap siding that is in keeping with the look of
traditional wood siding.
First floor porches and multiple windows on all façade sides and floors
o Our proposed design includes a large front porch and many windows on all sides of the house.
Pitched roofs
o The primary roof pitch is 10/12 with shallower pitches on the porch roofs and dormers.
Primary building entrance that faces the street with a walkway connected to a sidewalk along the
street
o The front door of the house faces the street and has a sidewalk from the porch to the street.
Parking accessed via a driveway with parking area or garage located to the rear of the main building
façade
o The detached garage is located at the rear of the lot behind the house.
The proposed plan includes 3,008 square feet of enclosed space for a FAR of .417. The total impervious cover is
3,073 square feet or 42.6% of the lot area.
In keeping with the requirements of the Unified Development Code, we are requesting two setback exceptions
and two height exceptions. The setback exceptions are requested to allow two architectural features, a window
seat on the front elevation and an awning over the garage doors on the east elevation. These features project
more than 18 inches into the setback area, however we believe they are consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Page 90 of 121
Page 2 of 2
The two height exceptions are for the front façade exceeding 15 feet in height at the front setback line and the
garage exceeding 15 feet at the side setback line adjacent to the Ash Street right-of-way. The front façade will
be approximately 22 feet above finished grade at the front setback line and the garage will be approximately 20
feet 4 inches above finished grade at the east side setback line.
Overall, we believe the proposed design meets the goals of the Design Guidelines and will blend into the context
of the surrounding neighborhood. We appreciate your consideration of our application for a certificate of
appropriateness.
Sincerely,
Tom Yantis
Page 91 of 121
Page 92 of 121
Page 93 of 121
Page 94 of 121
406 E. 4th Street – Certificate of Appropriateness for New Infill Construction
Materials Specifications:
Siding – fiber cement, smooth lap siding Roofing – galvanized metal, standing seam roof
Windows – Andersen 100 (or similar) single-hung, 1 over 1
Page 95 of 121
406 E. 4th Street
2020-71-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
January 28, 2021
1Page 96 of 121
Item Under Consideration
2020-71-COA –406 E. 4th Street
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for:
•new residential construction (infill development);•a 3’-0” setback encroachment into the required 15’-0” front setback, to allow an architectural feature 12’-0” from the front (north) property line;•a 3’-0” setback encroachment into the required 6’-0” side street setback to allow an architectural feature 3’-0” from the side street (east) property line;•a 7’-4” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the front setback, to allow a building height of 22’-4” at the front (north) setback; and•a 5’-4” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side street setback, to allow a building height of 20’-4” at the side street (east) setback
at the property located at 406 E.4th Street,bearing the legal description 0.166 acres,being the easthalfofLots1and2,Block 32,Glasscock Addition.
2Page 97 of 121
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New Building Construction (residential infill development)
•Setback Modifications (architectural features)
•Building Height Modifications (gable roofs)
3Page 98 of 121
Item Under Consideration
4Page 99 of 121
5Page 100 of 121
Current Context
6Page 101 of 121
406 E. 4th Street
7Page 102 of 121
1925 & 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
8Page 103 of 121
1964 Aerial Photo
9Page 104 of 121
1974 Aerial Photo
10Page 105 of 121
Proposed Site Plan
11Page 106 of 121
Proposed Elevations
12Page 107 of 121
Proposed Elevations
13Page 108 of 121
Proposed Elevations
14Page 109 of 121
Proposed Elevations
15Page 110 of 121
Proposed Elevations
16Page 111 of 121
Proposed Materials
17Page 112 of 121
Current Context
18Page 113 of 121
Current Context
19Page 114 of 121
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Not Applicable
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;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;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 20Page 115 of 121
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies
21Page 116 of 121
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;N/A
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
22Page 117 of 121
Building Height Modification Approval Criteria
–UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and N/A
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Partially Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.N/A
23Page 118 of 121
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-five (35) letters mailed
•No comments received
24Page 119 of 121
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for new residential
construction, setback modifications and building height modifications.
25Page 120 of 121
HARC Motion –2020-71-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
26Page 121 of 121