HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_02.13.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
F ebruary 13, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The H istor i c and A rc hitec tur al R e vie w C ommission, appoi nte d by the
M ayor and the C i ty C ouncil, is r e sponsible for he ar ing and taki ng final
ac tion on appli cati ons, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppr opr iate ne ss based upon
the City C ounc il adopted D owntown D e si gn Guide line s and U ni fi ed
D e ve lopme nt C ode .
Welcome and M ee ting P roc edur e s:
· S taff P r esentation
· A ppli cant P re se ntation (L i mi ted to ten minute s unl ess stated
othe r wi se by the C ommissi on.)
· Q ue stions from C ommi ssion to S taff and Appli c ant
· C omme nts fr om Citizens *
· A ppli cant R esponse
· C ommi ssion D eliber ati ve P roc ess
· C ommi ssion A c tion
* Those who spe ak must tur n in a speaker for m, locate d at the bac k of the
r oom, to the re cor di ng sec re tar y be for e the item the y wish to addr ess begins.
E ach spe ake r wil l be per mitte d to addr ess the Commissi on one ti me only for
a maximum of thr ee minutes.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the January 23, 2020 regular meeting of
the His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
signage that is inc o ns is tent with ap p licable guidelines for the p ro p erty lo cated at 708 R o ck S treet, b earing
the legal des c rip tion of G eorgetown C ity O f, BL O C K 42, Lot 3-4(P T S ), AC R E S 0.2226. (2019-82-
C O A) – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn & His toric P lanner
C P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
reloc ation of a c o ntrib uting his toric res idential s tructure at the p ro p erty loc ated at 1813 S . Main S treet,
bearing the legal des c rip tion of EUBANK ADD (BL K 4 LT 9 R ES UB), BLO C K 4, Lo t 9A. – Britin
Bo s tic k, Do wntown and His toric P lanner
Page 1 of 72
D P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action on a req uest fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
following:
3' s etbac k encroac hment into the required 20' fro nt setbac k to allow a res id ential s tructure 17' from
the front p ro p erty line;
10" s etb ack encroac hment into the required 25' garage s etbac k to allow an attac hed garage additio n
24'-2" fro m the p ro p erty line;
7' building height modification from the required 15' maximum building height at the 24'-2" setback to
allow a building height of 22' at the garage setback;
7' b uilding height modific atio n fro m the required 15' maximum b uilding height at the 10' rear
setbac k, allowing for a build ing height of 22' at the rear setb ack;
An ad d ition to a s treet fac ing faç ade; and
T he replac ement of histo ric architec tural features with no n-his toric arc hitec tural features
at the p ro p erty loc ated at 105 E. 18th S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n of E UBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT
9 R ES UB), BLO C K 4, Lot 9B (0.14 ac res ). – Britin Bostick, Do wnto wn and Histo ric P lanner
E P resentation and Update R egard ing the F Y2020 Ho me R epair P ro gram - Britin Bostick, Do wntown &
Histo ric P lanner
F Disc ussio n o f annual training fo r Histo ric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ioners . - Britin Bo s tic k,
Downto wn and His toric P lanner
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the January 23, 2020 regular meeting of the
His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommiss io n. - 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 Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
January 23, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Steve
Johnston; Amanda Parr
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst;
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr filling in for the Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the January 9, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item A as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner
Browner. Approved (6-0).
B. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
addition of an awning or canopy for a commercial structure at the property located at 109 E. 7th
Street, bearing the legal description Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 39, Lot 2-3(PTS) (0.08 acres). –
Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the
installation of a flat metal and wood canopy across the street-facing façade of the medium
priority structure. The existing small awnings are not historic and did not receive regulatory
approval, and the applicant intends to remove the existing small awnings and replace them
with a canopy that will extend the width of the building. An aerial photo from the mid-1930s
shows the building had an awning across the front, as did the other buildings along the n orth
side of that portion of E. 7th St. Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends
APPROVAL of the request for the installation of the proposed canopy. Historic records and
photos show that the building had an awning or canopy originally in a similar configuration,
and a modern interpretation of the original canopy is permitted per the Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde had a question about the type of materials that will be used.
Bostick explained that the proposed canopy diagram indicates paint metal framing and stain
underside of T & G boards.
Commissioner Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Agenda Item B (2019-80-COA) as presented by Commissioner Asendorf-
Hyde. Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (6-0).
C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence
that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the
Page 4 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
property located at 1811 Eubank Street, bearing the legal description Eubank Addition, BLOCK
8, Lot 7-8 - Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval to increase the
height of the existing fence from 3’ tall to 6’ tall using the same design as the existing fence for
the height extension. The property is situated at the corner of Eubank Street and E. 17 ½ Street,
and currently has a semi-transparent front and side yard fence that encloses the main portion of
the yard. On this particular corner lot, the house is situated close to the south property line and
occupies approximately the center third of the lot depth. This leaves the balance of the yard
space for the property in the front and side yards along Eubank and E. 17 ½ Streets, rather than
in the back yard. The subject property also has a detached garage facing E. 17 ½ Street that
makes the feasible location for a swimming pool on the property to be in the already fenced
area in the front and side yard along Eubank and E. 17 ½ Streets. Other residences located along
Eubank Street are situated closer to front property lines and to the street curb, and do not have
the same front or side yard condition. The request for the increase in height is based upon the
applicant’s plan to have a below-ground swimming pool on their property, which requires a
minimum 48” (4’) high fence per Title 9, Chapter 757 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The
additional 2’ the applicant is requesting for a total of 6’ in fence height is for additional safety.
To attain the requested 6’ in fence height in the front and side yards of the property, the
applicant is proposing to extend the current fence to a 6’ height in the same style, which is semi-
transparent per the UDC requirements in Chapter 8.07, as well as Design Guideline 8.25.
However, the Design Guidelines require a front yard fence to be limited to 3’ in height in the
Old Town Overlay District. Taller side or rear yard fences may be considered, and the UDC
limits residential fences to 6’ in height except in certain circumstances.
The applicant is also requesting HPO approval for a pergola structure within the fenced portion
of the yard, which is an addition to a street-facing façade for a low priority structure. The
pergola is proposed adjacent to the proposed pool.
Commissioner Parr invited the applicant to address the Commission and answer questions.
Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked how far back the fence is from the street. The applicant
explained the measurements; approximately 25 feet back from Eubanks and about 12 ½ feet
from the 17 ½ Street side.
Commissioner Parr asked if the six foot fence would also have the same transparency as the
existing fence. The applicant commented that the fence will be the same at six feet.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the applicant why they are requesting a six foot fence. The
applicant explained that it is due to safety, as she does not want children to be endangered by
having a low fence.
Commissioner Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item C (2019-85-COA) as presented by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell.
The motion dies due to no second motion.
Motion to approve Item C (2019-85-COA) with the stipulation that the fence be no higher than
four feet, by Commissioner Browner. Second by Morales. Motion dies as there is a tie, (3-3),
Page 5 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
with Alternate Commissioner Mitchell, Commissioner Johnston, and Commissioner Asendorf-
Hyde opposed.
There was discussion amongst the Commissioners as to whether there should be an exception
to allow the six foot fence due to safety concerns. Alternate Commissioner Mitchell commented
that there should be an exception because there is a far setback from the street. Commissioner
Browner does not agree, and if approved, this will set precedence for future requests.
Alternate Commissioner Johnston asked the applicant if they would reconsider an alternative
design for the fence, while keeping the existing height. Alternate Commissioner Mitchell also
asked if the applicant would consider adding another barrier between the pool and fence.
Commissioner Parr asked staff what would happen if this item is postponed to the next
meeting. Waggoner explained that the item has to be brought back to the Commission within 35
days.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the applicant if they would consider a different design to
the fence that is less climbable. The applicant is open to other designs.
Motion to postpone Item C and be considered at the next meeting by Alternate Commissioner
Johnston. Second by Asendorf-Hyde. Motion does not pass, (2-4) with Commissioner Parr,
Morales, Browner, and Alternate Commissioner Mitchell opposed.
Motion to approve Item C with the conditions that the fence remain at four feet height and
the applicant redesign the fence to address the safety issue (staff recommendations), by
Commissioner Parr. Second by Morales. Approved (4-2) with Commissioner Browner and
Alternate Commissioner Johnston opposed.
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
demolition of a carport structure and rear addition at the property located at 1215 S. Main
Street, bearing the legal description of Morrow Addition, BLOCK G (SE/PT) (0.236 acres). -
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. This property is located just south of University Ave. on the
east side of S. Main St. It is in the Belford National Register Historic District. The parcel size is
nearly a quarter of an acre and has two structures listed on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey.
The Main Structure is designated as a medium priority structure and is estimated to have been
constructed in 1920. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Georgetown from 1916 shows that lot
as vacant. The house has Craftsman features, including the low-pitched gable roofs, unenclosed
eave overhangs, front porch with brick columns that extend to the ground, multi-pane upper
sash windows, and triangular knee braces under the deep eave overhangs at the gable ends.
The rear porch addition in the demolition request is an enclosed porch, and the construction of
the enclosure indicates that the framing and siding for the porch were constructed atop the
existing porch floor boards. The detached carport with storage is located toward the rear of the
main structure and is designated as a low-priority structure on the 2016 Historic Resource
Survey. It is estimated to have been constructed in 1950. The carport structure incorporates
some of the elements of the main structure, such as the low-pitched gable roof. Its column
Page 6 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
supports are constructed on the ground rather than on a slab, and the rear storage portion has
some deterioration.
Based on the construction of the rear porch enclosure atop the porch floorboards, the rear
enclosed porch is not part of the original structure, although an open porch is likely to have
been an original feature of the pier-and-beam house. The trim board below the wood siding of
the enclosed porch has a different width than does the main portion of the structure, and the
overlapped edges of the siding on the rear addition do not match with the siding on the original
structure. The porch is not original to the house and does not provide character-defining
features, nor would its removal damage character-defining features. The carport, which is
designed to be consistent with the character and features of the main structure, is noted on the
Historic Resource Survey sheet for the structure as having been re-designated from a medium
priority structure on the 2007 Survey to a low priority structure on the 2016 survey because
“Property lacks significance”. In the Demolition Subcommittee Meeting, both Staff and
Committee Members found that the structure lacks significance of its own, and that its
construction has likely been improved more recently from the original structure with the
addition of features such as the decorative columns. It appears to have been originally
constructed atop the ground with metal poles for the column supports, and the existing
concrete drive was poured after the carport was constructed. Staff concurs with the Demolition
Subcommittee finding that the structure does not have salvage value, and that the demolition of
the structure would not negatively impact either the subject property or the surrounding
neighborhood.
Commissioner Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Liz Weaver, public speaker, is in favor of the request.
Commissioner Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item D (2019-70-COA) as presented by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell.
Second by Commissioner Parr. Motion approved (6-0).
E. Conceptual Review of a request for an addition to a residential property located at 1215 S. Main
Street, bearing the legal description of MORROW ADDITION, BLOCK G (SE/PT), ACRES .236. -
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. Bostick explained that this item is seeking feedback from the
Commission.
The existing structure proposed to have an addition has an estimated construction year of 1920,
and is 1,944 square feet, including the covered front porch. The one-story house has Craftsman
features, including the low-pitched gable roofs, unenclosed eave overhangs, front porch with
brick columns that extend to the ground, multi-pane upper sash windows, and triangular knee
braces under the deep eave overhangs at the gable ends. The proposed 2,263 square foot
addition is designed to be two stories in height and will be visible behind the rear and right side
of the main structure as viewed from Main Street. The addition will be attached directly to the
main structure and will provide useable carport space with storage on the ground floor, and
Page 7 of 72
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: January 23, 2020
bedrooms and family area on the second floor. The addition will require the removal of a rear
wall of the main structure, removal of 11 windows and a door with trim, siding, two non-
functioning brick chimneys, and a section of the existing roof. The applicant has expressed a
desire to reuse the windows, door and salvageable siding materials in the new addition.
The Commissioners discussed issues of scale. Mass and scale need to be reduced relative to the
existing structure, which might be accomplished by reducing the overall height of the addition
or by reducing the added square footage. Commissioner Browner asked if dormers can be
utilized for the proposed addition to reduce the overall height of the structure.
Bostick continued to explain design and materials.
Commissioner Parr invited the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant commented
on trying to make the necessary changes to accommodate the desired living spaces while
adhering to the rules and not needing to request setback or height modifications.
F. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
No updates.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Alternate Commissioner Johnston.
Meeting adjourned at 7:32p.m.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Page 8 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
s ignage that is inco ns is tent with ap p licab le guidelines fo r the p ro p erty lo cated at 708 R o c k S treet, b earing
the legal desc riptio n of G eo rgeto wn C ity O f, BLO C K 42, Lo t 3-4(P T S ), AC R ES 0.2226. (2019-82-
C O A) – Britin Bos tick, Do wntown & His to ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he proposed s ignage for 6 W his key is two (2) s igns , a flus h-mounted primary s ign above the b usines s
entranc e fac ing R o ck S treet and a flus h-mounted s ign fac ing W. 8th S treet next to two p revious ly-
ap p ro ved s igns fo r the two other b uilding tenants . T he illumination style for the primary sign is a mo d ern
interp retatio n of text b acklighting and is no t s pec ifically addressed in the ap p ro val criteria of S ectio n 9.21
o f the Des ign G uid elines. T he p ro p o s ed sign fac ing W. 8th S treet is different from the exis ting s igns in
d es ign, color and alignment, ho wever it is s imilar in s ize. T he proposed s ign fo r this lo catio n o n the
b uilding is not c o ns is tent with the existing tenant s ignage and does not meet the requirements of S ectio n
9.12 of the Des ign G uidelines for a multi-tenant s ign.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Drawings & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - His toric Res ource Survey Exhibit
Page 9 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020
File Number: 2019-82-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for signage
that is inconsistent with applicable guidelines for the property located at 708 Rock Street, bearing the
legal description of Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 42, Lot 3-4(PTS), ACRES 0.2226.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 6Whiskey Exterior Signage
Applicant: Allison Ray
Property Owner: Doering Danny & Sylvia Coulter & Steven Doering Trustees
Doering Irrevocable Tr
Property Address: 708 Rock Street
Legal Description: Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 42, Lot 3-4(PTS), ACRES 0.2226
Historic Overlay: Downtown Historic Overlay District
Case History: 2019-6-COA for window signage
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1930 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Sign that does not conform to the Downtown & Old Town Design Guidelines
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed signage for 6 Whiskey is two (2) signs, a flush-mounted primary sign above the business
entrance facing Rock Street and a flush-mounted sign facing W. 8th Street next to two previously-
approved signs for the two other building tenants.
The proposed primary sign is a flush-mounted sign that is 21.85 square feet in size. The sign is
proposed to be a black and matte gold finish aluminum and vinyl with the business name and artistic
detail incorporated into the shape of the sign. The business name portion of the sign – 6 Whiskey – is
proposed to be a push-thru illumination style of lighting, which would have a warm illuminated glow
along the edge of the “6 Whiskey” lettering of the sign while the rest of the sign – the cutout
background and artistic details in vinyl – would not have illuminated features. According to the
applicant, the push-through illumination style is proposed for this sign so that the “6 Whiskey” letters
Page 10 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 2 of 7
can be illuminated, which would not be feasible in other illumination styles due to the fonts and size of
the letters that are illuminated. Observers would see the illumination from the sides of the letters while
the fronts of the letters would remain black and would not show the illumination. The color
temperature of the lighting is proposed to be a warm, golden glow to coordinate with the matte gold
finish of the sign background. Because this illumination style is a modern interpretation of text
backlighting and is not specifically addressed in the approval criteria of Section 9.21 of the Design
Guidelines, the request for approval is made to HARC.
As this is a multi-tenant building, approved signage requires a Master Sign Plan so that multiple business
signs can be coordinated for review and approval. The existing signage has received approval and
dimensions were provided for the installed signage so that Staff were able to determine that the
additional proposed signage for 6 Whiskey is supported by the Master Sign Plan.
The proposed flush mounted secondary sign facing W. 8th Street would be located next to two existing
secondary signs advertising the building’s other two tenants. Per the Design Guidelines, secondary
signs are utilized in addition to the primary building sign. Typically, a secondary sign protrudes from
the building below the awnings or canopies but above pedestrian heads. The secondary sign is
generally intended to capture the attention of the pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. The existing
secondary tenant signs are used in a multi-tenant directory configuration, having similar size,
proportion, color and alignment. The applicant’s proposed sign is different from the existing signs in
design, color and alignment, however it is similar in size. Because the applicant’s proposed sign for this
location on the building is not consistent with the existing tenant signage and does not meet the
requirements of Section 9.12 of the Design Guidelines for a multi-tenant sign, the request for approval
is made to HARC.
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 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
9.1 Consider the building front as part of an overall
sign program.
Coordinate a sign within the overall façade
composition.
A sign should be in proportion to the building,
such that it does not dominate the appearance.
• Develop a master sign plan for the entire
building; this should be used to guide
individual sign design decisions.
• This is especially important in Area 2 where
the use of contemporary building forms and
Partially Complies
Proposed signs are coordinated with the
facades and relate to the composition and
scale of the building. However, the proposed
flush-mounted sign facing W. 8th Street is not
consistent with the existing signage.
Page 11 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
styles and several colorful, attention-getting
signs have appeared in the past. Such a typical
“strip-commercial” development pattern is
inappropriate in the Downtown and Old
Town Overlay Districts.
9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building
composition.
A sign should appear to be in scale with the
façade.
Locate a sign on a building such that it will
emphasize design elements of the façade itself.
Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural
features. Use the shape of the sign to help
reinforce the horizontal lines of moldings and
transoms seen along the street.
Complies
Proposed signs are in scale with the façade
and do not disturb architectural features.
9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or
business offered within.
To avoid driver confusion, the information on
the primary sign should be in a large enough
font or design that it is easily viewable from a
vehicle.
The sign should contain only enough
information to alert the viewer in a vehicle to
the location of the business or entity at the
building.
Whenever possible, other signs should be
utilized for information geared towards
pedestrian or other viewers.
The primary sign should be easily viewable
from a vehicle with as little visual clutter as
possible.
Complies
Proposed primary sign identifies the
business and is clear and sufficiently large to
be viewable from a vehicle. The proposed
secondary sign directs the viewer to the
location of the business and is easily
viewable.
9.4 A secondary sign should identify the services or
businesses offered within.
Typically, a secondary sign is intended to
capture the attention of pedestrians walking
on the sidewalk.
The sign should contain only enough
information to alert the viewer on a sidewalk
to the location of the business or entity at the
building.
Complies
Proposed secondary sign is oriented toward
pedestrians, is easily viewed from the
sidewalk, and clearly identifies use of the
building and location of the business.
Page 12 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 4 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
The secondary sign should be easily viewable
from the sidewalk with as little visual clutter
as possible.
9.7 A flush-mounted wall sign shall not exceed one
square foot for every one foot of linear façade width.
For instance, a building with twenty feet of
street frontage would be eligible for a sign of
twenty square feet (20 x 1 = 20). In true sign
dimensions, this would be a sign of
approximately two feet by ten feet.
Note that the formula establishes the
maximum permitted sign area, when all other
factors of scale, proportion, and compatibility
are met. A sign does not have to be as large as
this equation allows. The first consideration
shall be compatibility with the size and
character of the façade.
In a case where a building has more than one
face exposed to a public way, the allowed sign
area may not be combined.
Complies
When considered in relation to the total
width of the business lease space and in
relation to the building width as a whole, the
two proposed flush-mounted signs are
within the total allowed sign area for the
building based on the Rock Street building
facade.
9.12 A directory sign for multi-tenant buildings must
be considered.
A Master Sign Plan is required for multi-tenant
buildings.
• Where several businesses share a building,
coordinate the signs. Align several smaller
signs, or group them into a single panel as a
directory.
• Use similar forms or backgrounds for the signs
to tie them together visually and make them
easier to read.
The manner in which a directory sign is
mounted to a building, either flush to or
projecting from a wall, will determine the
maximum allowable sign area.
Electronic message centers are not allowed.
Signage allocation must be considered when
setting up a building for multiple tenants, and
the appropriate distribution of allowable sign
square footage and sign sizes and locations
planned for the various tenants.
Partially Complies
The proposed sign facing W. 8th Street meets
the size requirements for a multi-tenant
directory sign and for flush-mounted
signage for the building. However, it has
proportions, design and color that are not
consistent with or aligned to the existing
tenant signs. It is also not a directory sign.
Page 13 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 5 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that of
the building façade.
A simple, easy-to-read sign design is
preferred.
Typefaces that are in keeping with those seen
in the area traditionally are encouraged.
Select letter styles and sizes that will be
compatible with the building front. Generally,
those are typefaces with serifs.
Avoid hard-to-read or overly intricate type-
face styles.
Painted wood and metal are appropriate
materials for signs. Their use is encouraged.
Unfinished materials, including untreated
wood, are discouraged because they are out of
character with the context of the Overlay
Districts.
Plastic is not permitted, except for flush,
adhesive, professionally installed lettering.
Highly reflective materials that will be difficult
to read are inappropriate.
Painted signs on blank walls were common
historically and may be considered.
Complies
Sign materials and fonts are consistent with
the building façade and do not detract from
architectural details of the building. The
proposed signs are to be professionally
constructed and installed. The illumination
of the primary sign has acrylic or plastic
elements, which are mounted flush with the
face of the sign and which are set behind the
faces of the lettering. This is a serif font.
9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with
those of the building front.
Sign colors should be limited. In general, no
more than three colors should be used. For
these Guidelines, black and white are not
counted as colors.
HARC may consider different shades of a
color similar enough to count as one color in
the determination of the numbers of colors
being allowed.
Signs with photo images, including multiple
colors, are appropriate on A-frame/sandwich
board type signs only.
Complies
Sign colors are limited and compatible with
the building.
9.21 If internal illumination is used, it should be
designed to be subordinate to the overall building
composition.
• Internal illumination of an entire sign panel is
discouraged. If internal illumination is used, a
Partially Complies
Sign illumination is proposed to be a push-
through illuminations style, which would
illuminate the side edges of the “6
Whiskey” text rather than the faces of the
Page 14 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 6 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
system that backlights only the sign text is
preferred.
Neon and other tubular illumination may be
considered. However, use neon in limited
amounts so it does not become visually
obtrusive.
Internal illumination of an awning is
inappropriate.
text. This illumination style is considered
“backlit” by sign professionals but is not
specifically referenced in the Design
Guidelines and would illuminate a portion
of the sign background in attention to the
text edges.
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 have determined that the
application is complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies – Complies with UDC Standards.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies – Proposed signage does not alter
or negatively affect the historic property.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies – Proposed primary sign
uses a lighting style that is not consistent
with Guideline 9.21. Proposed secondary
sign does not meet the requirements for
multi-tenant directory signage per Guideline
9.12.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies – Proposed signage is consistent
with cultural and architectural integrity of
the structure.
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 proposed as part of this project.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies – Proposed signage does not
diminish the character of the Downtown
Historic Overlay District.
Page 15 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-82-COA – 708 Rock St. Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Partially Complies – Proposed signage is
within the total allowed for the building per
the Design Guidelines. Proposed sign facing
W. 8th Street is not consistent with the other
signs on that building face and does not meet
the criteria for a multi-tenant directory sign.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for signage. The total
area of the proposed additional signage for the building is within the maximum sign area allowed, and
the sign facing W. 8th Street provides direction to the business location within the building while
maintaining a consistent character with the other business signage. The illumination style of the primary
sign above the business entrance, while a modern illumination style, is proposed to have a warm glow
consistent with the design and character of the sign and does not propose an excess of illumination or
excessively bright lighting that would be inconsistent with the character of the building or the block in
which the business is located.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Drawings & Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey Sheet
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 16 of 72
Location
2019-82-COA
Exhibit #1
RO
C
K
S
T
SAUSTINAVE
W 8TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 9TH ST
W7THST
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 17 of 72
What is 6Whiskey? What does it mean?
Well I can tell you what we are not ~ a bar for starters and we are not like any other store in
Georgetown.
6Whiskey is an experience in retail shopping with product knowledge and customer service. It’s name
comes from my father, Bill Snead who is a glider pilot when he is not running his local business. 6W is
his tail sign and us kids have always been part of the 6Whiskey crew. It’s catchy and gets a lot of people
who are walking by for parking to come in.
We are devoted to the lone star lifestyle, preserving outdoor activities, dressing up for the arts, giving
back and getting involved in our community, helping the planet out with less pl astics, promoting
American made products and being open in the evenings for the working crowd. We sell men’s and
women’s apparel, gifts for the home and indulge in friendly conversations with our patrons over fine
chocolates.
6Whiskey is also unique because we are not on the square but one block west, located at 708 S. Rock
Street. We experience quite a bit of foot traffic from getting or searching for parking spaces both to the
north and south of us. Going to and from Blue Corn or seeking out the Day Tripper. Barrel and Amps
has brought a healthy crowd as well. Not to mention the Library with Red Poppy Café and the other
City Offices. We feel like we are in the perfect spot as well as wanting to be part of the development of
the west side. Hence the 3 signs request.
Staying with the uniqueness thread we also find ourselves with room to advertise on actually all 4 sides
of our building, instead of just the front facade. Especially with the new parking spaces going in behind
us. Don’t worry, I am still on Steve Doering who owns the building to liven up the back.
We are hoping to attract interest and give direction in the old fashion way of beautiful signage for these
areas, to catch us on their way coming in or on the way out and of course at the front door. Google
does it part, and we are grateful, but we grew up here, and want to promote our business with old
heritage type fonts, great shapes and timely colors.
Please come experience 6Whiskey for yourself. We are open Tues ~ Friday 6pm to 8pm and all day
Saturday 10am ~ 8pm.
Page 18 of 72
Page 19 of 72
Page 20 of 72
Page 21 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:708/716 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:125218
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address DOERING DANNY COULTER SYLVIA &, STEVEN DOERING, TRUSTEES, 30412 LA QUINTA DR,
GEORGETOWN,TX 78628-1115
Latitude:30.636798 Longitude -97.679189
Addition/Subdivision:S3667 - Georgetown City Of
WCAD ID:R041415Legal Description (Lot/Block):GEORGETOWN CITY OF, BLOCK 42, LOT 3-4(PTS),
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 3/3/2016Recorded 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:1930
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Downtown District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Northwest
Page 22 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:708/716 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:125218
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, brick, commercial building with a two-story, brick addition at the rear dating to c.1945. The one-story portion
of the building is rectangular with a flat roof with a parapet, and it has multiple storefront entries, including a flat roofed
canopy supported by metal posts over a single door, and a flat roofed canopy supported by suspension rods over three
single doors.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:One window converted to a door with sidelights; one door replaced; addition at rear; brick
painted
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:2 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, Wood
Multiple single door storefronts, one
with sidelights
Awning over sidewalk
Metal Posts
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 23 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:708/716 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:125218
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
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:
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:Despite some alterations, property is
significant and contributes to neighborhood
character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:Not Recorded
2007 Survey Priority:Not Recorded 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 24 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:708/716 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:125218
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 25 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r the
relo catio n o f a co ntrib uting his toric residential s truc ture at the p ro p erty loc ated at 1813 S . Main S treet,
b earing the legal d es criptio n o f EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9 R ES UB), BLO C K 4, Lo t 9A. – Britin
Bostick, Do wnto wn and Histo ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p licant is reques ting HAR C approval for the relo catio n o f a 923 s q . ft. res id ential struc ture
currently lo cated at 1813 S . Main S treet, which is listed on the 2016 Histo ric R es o urc e S urvey as a
med ium p rio rity s truc ture, to the lo t direc tly behind the c urrent loc atio n, which is ad d res s ed at 105 E. 18th
S treet. W hen the ap p licant p urc hased the pro p erty at 1813 S . Main S t. the two lots were still one single lot,
and the ap p licant s ub s eq uently re-p latted the lot into two lo ts in 2009 so that the lot fac ing E. 18th S treet
could b e s eparately develo p ed with a residenc e. T he exis ting his toric s truc ture at 1813 S . Main is in need
o f fo und ation rep airs , and the applic ant would like to relo cate the struc ture to 105 E. 18th S t. in order to
cons truct a new fo und ation for the his toric s truc ture.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Demolition Subcommittee Report Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - His toric Res ource Survey Exhibit
Page 26 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 1813 S. Main St. Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020
File Number: 2019-86-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation of
a contributing historic residential structure at the property located at 1813 S. Main Street, bearing the
legal description of EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9 RESUB), BLOCK 4, Lot 9A.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1813 S. Main Relocation
Applicant: Gregory Lynn Haag II
Property Owner: Gregory Lynn Haag II
Property Address: 1813 S. Main Street
Legal Description: EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9 RESUB), BLOCK 4, Lot 9A
Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District
Case History: Lot in the Eubank Addition was re-platted as two lots in 2009
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1947 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the relocation of a 923 sq. ft. residential structure
currently located at 1813 S. Main Street, which is listed on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey as a medium
priority structure, and which can be identified as a minimal traditional style residence. Minimal
traditional is a style of house associated with low or intermediate -pitched roofs, often with gables; small,
generally one-story in height; roof eaves with little to no overhang; double-hung windows, typically
multi-pane or 1/1; minimal amounts of added architectural detail; and rarely has dormers. This house
style was predominant before, during and after World War II due to its cost efficiency and ease of
construction. The applicant is proposing to relocate the structure to the lot directly behind the current
location, which is addressed at 105 E. 18th Street. When the applicant purchased the property at 1813 S.
Main St. the two lots were still one single lot, and the applicant subsequently re-platted the lot into two
lots so that the lot facing E. 18th Street could be separately developed with a residence. The existing
historic structure at 1813 S. Main needs foundation repairs, and the applicant is requesting to relocate
Page 27 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 1813 S. Main St. Page 2 of 6
the structure in order to construct a new foundation for the historic structure and a two-car garage
addition with a second story. In its current configuration, there is a non-historic addition on the left side
(if viewing the structure from S. Main Street or north side) of the original structure of a single car garage.
The garage is an addition as the siding of the addition is not aligned with the original structure and the
flashing of the roof of the garage addition has been cut into the siding of the original structure. The
existing one-car garage addition at 1813 S. Main is to either remain in place or be demolished as it is not
constructed on a pier and beam foundation and may not be able to be successfully relocated, and the
applicant expects to redevelop the lot with a new residence in the future. In an on-site meeting on January
28, 2020 the Demolition Subcommittee found that the garage addition was not original to the main
structure, which was evidenced by the siding of the addition not aligning with the siding of the original
structure, and the method by which the roof of the addition was attached to the original structure. The
siding of the original structure had been cut out for the garage roof flashing with sealant, rather than
installed in the same period of construction. Due to this evidence, the construction of the attached garage
and the lack of architectural significance, the Demolition Subcommittee found that the garage addition
was not original, lacks historic significance and recommended that the structure be demolished or
relocated rather than retained on the site.
1813 S. Main Street is located one block from the south edge of the Old Town Historic Overlay District
and is surrounded by medium and low priority structures that were constructed between the 1910s and
1970s or later, with several nearby structures estimated to have been built in the 1940s per the most recent
Historic Resource Survey. The architectural styles and stylistic influences include Craftsman and
Minimal Traditional, while some structures are not historic or do not have a defined stylistic influence.
The primary structures along S. Main Street are generally situated along a similar front setback, and are
mostly single-story residences, although some two-story residences are within a block of the subject
property. The subject structure is smaller in footprint and overall size than many of the surrounding
structures, and the current size of the lot is smaller than most of the surrounding lots.
The proposed new location for the subject structure is directly behind (east) of the current location and
the context is similar. The structure will have a different orientation and face a different set of residences.
The residences along E. 18th Street are generally smaller in size and are situated on smaller lots than the
properties along S. Main Street, and their estimated construction dates vary from 1935 to 1950. These
surrounding structures are either Minimal Traditional in style, or lack defined stylistic influence, and the
subject structure would fit the context of this portion of E. 18th Street because of its similar size and
architectural style to the existing structures.
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 7 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS, & ALTERATIONS
Page 28 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 1813 S. Main St. Page 3 of 6
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period
than that of the building are inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed relocation of the structure does not
hinder ability to interpret original design
character nor does it imply an earlier period,
including the possible demolition of non-
historic addition
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or
Medium Priority Historic Structure should be
preserved and their historic character retained.
Due to special circumstances, a structure’s
historic priority may change over time
(because a reduced number of similar style
structures in stable condition still exist within
the district or city, or if unknown historic
information becomes available that adds
significance).
Partially Complies
Proposed relocation will alter the overall
historic character of the lot facing S. Main St.,
which would retain the original structure on
what was the original site but in a different
configuration as the residence is proposed to
face E. 18th Street instead of S. Main Street. In
this instance the special circumstances are
structural issues dictating the need for
foundation repairs, which are proposed to be
accomplished through relocation onto a new
foundation.
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.24 When use changes demand that structures be
altered such that little or no use can be made of the
original structure, consider moving the structure to a
compatible location.
This move can be made to another location on
the same site or to a vacant site in the
neighborhood or another neighborhood.
Historic structures should be relocated within
Georgetown whenever possible.
Complies
While this Guideline section is specific to use
changes, and there is no change of use
proposed for this project, the principle for
relocation on the same site or to a vacant site
in another neighborhood can be applied to
the need for structural repairs that require a
new foundation.
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 – application was deemed
complete by Staff.
Page 29 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 1813 S. Main St. Page 4 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies – Proposed lot for relocation of
structure meets zoning requirements.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies – Relocating the
structure alters the historic relationship
between the buildings on S. Main Street, or
the sense of place and time associated with
the structure, although the original structure
will be retained in a nearby location and on
the original lot.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies – Relocation of structure
alters the character of the medium priority
property as it will no longer face S. Main
Street and will instead face onto E. 18th Street.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies – General integrity of the
building is preserved and general integrity
of the site is partially preserved.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies – Relocated building is compatible
with proposed site and with surrounding
properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies – Structure is retained within the
overlay district and on the original site.
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 Included
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a relocation:
SECTION 3.13.030.F.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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
Complies
The applicant proposes that the
relocation of the structure will not
cause significant adverse effect on the
historic overlay district or the City’s
historic resources under criteria IV of
this section, because the structure will
be relocated to the rear portion of
what was the original lot and will
continue to be part of the historic
Page 30 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 1813 S. Main St. Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.F.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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
iv. 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
overlay neighborhood fabric as a
residence. The Demolition
Subcommittee found that as the
proposed relocation would retain the
original structure in the same block
and on what was the original parcel,
and as the structure is similar to
surrounding structures in the
proposed new location, the relocation
does not cause significant adverse
effect to the historic overlay district of
the City’s historic resources.
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; or
Not Applicable
c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies the
relocation, removal or demolition of the structure.
Not Applicable
In the event the building or structure is proposed to be relocated to a property in a Historic Overlay
District, in addition to the above, the applicant must demonstrate the following with the application:
SECTION 3.13.030.F.3 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. The architectural compatibility of the relocated
building or structure with adjacent buildings according
to the applicable Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and UDC standards for new construction;
and
Complies
Relocated structure is compatible
with adjacent buildings in the
proposed location.
b. The proposed siting, setback and other applicable site-
specific treatments according to pertinent Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines and UDC standards
of the applicable historic overlay district; and
Complies
The siting of the relocated structure
with the proposed setback
modifications related to the proposed
addition is consistent with other
similarly-situated structures facing
Page 31 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 1813 S. Main St. Page 6 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.F.3 CRITERIA FINDINGS
onto E. 18th St., and the relocation
otherwise generally meets the
applicable Design Guidelines.
c. Relocation will not damage existing contributing
historic buildings or structures, or the character of the
Historic Overlay District.
Complies
The relocation of the structure is
proposed in part to provide a new
foundation, which could contribute to
the longevity of the historic structure,
thus protecting the resource, and the
proposed new location does not
damage the character of the Historic
Overlay District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for relocation.
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
Exhibit 4 – Demolition Subcommittee Report
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 32 of 72
Location
2019-86-COA
Exhibit #1
E18THST
KNIGHT
ST
B
R
U
S
HYST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
PA
I
G
E
S
T
E 17TH 1/
2
S
T
CYRUS AV
E
W 18TH ST
EU
B
A
N
K
S
T
SAUSTINAVE
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
E 19TH ST
W 19TH ST
W 18TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 33 of 72
Gregory Lynn Haag II
1221 Ascot St., Georgetown, TX 78626
512-481-2710, Lynn@lynnhaag.com
December 23, 2019
City of Georgetown
Planning Department
Attn: Britin Bostick
406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
512-930-3581
RE: Planning & HARC Application for Relocation
1813 S. Main St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Ms. Bostick:
This application is to relocate the existing 1-story 913 square foot residence from Lot 9a
of the Eubank Addition to Lot 9b as indicated on the exhibit. The house is on the corner
of S. Main Street and 18th Street. The house was originally built on Lot 9 of the Eubank
Addition in Old Town Georgetown. When I re-platted this property into 2 lots, it was
with the intention to relocate this house to the back lot. I completed the plat before I
relocated the house.
The house requires foundation modifications and repairs to be able to level it. The house
will need to be lifted and leveled, and new peers be placed under it, or be relocated onto a
new foundation engineered for the house and soils in the area. My intention is to build a
new peer foundation on Lot 9B and then place the house on the new engineered
foundation.
With the new peer foundation, I am also wanting to build a 2-car garage on the side of the
house, attached to the same side of the house where the garage is on Main Street. The old
garage is not structurally sound and would likely not survive the relocation with the
Page 34 of 72
Gregory Lynn Haag II
1221 Ascot St., Georgetown, TX 78626
512-481-2710, Lynn@lynnhaag.com
house, so I am going to leave the old garage in place and just relocate the house and build
a new slab and garage onto the house as shown on the exhibit.
Lot 9B and Lot 9A are in the same historic zoning designation, so I am not removing a
historic property from the downtown zoning area, I am requesting to move it to the space
behind where it was originally built. It would be consistent with the adjacent houses
along 18th street.
I am also requesting a variance to the front setback lines to accommodate the house’s
architectural design. I am asking for the house to be 17 feet from the front property line
for part of the house, 18 feet 4 inches off the front property line from the main part of the
house, and 24 feet 2 inches for the garage. These requested setbacks are consistent with
the adjacent houses along 18th street.
The requested impervious cover for lot 9B after the improvements is 2,176 square feet
and is only approximately 36% of the entire lot (6,117 square feet). This meets the UDC
code standards. Lot 9B has water, wastewater, gas and overhead electric that I will be
connecting the house to.
Thank you for your review and consideration on my requests. Please feel free to contact
me should you have any further questions.
Respectfully,
Gregory Lynn Haag II, P.E.
Page 35 of 72
Page 36 of 72
Page 37 of 72
Page 38 of 72
Page 39 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1813 Main St 2016 Survey ID:124745
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address HAAG, GREGORY LYNN, II, 1221 ASCOT ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-7669
Latitude:30.627116 Longitude -97.676617
Addition/Subdivision:S9914 - EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9 RESUB)
WCAD ID:R503509Legal Description (Lot/Block):S9914 - EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9 RESUB), BLOCK 4, Lot
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 3/15/2016Recorded 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:1947
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: East
Page 40 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1813 Main St 2016 Survey ID:124745
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, Minimal Ranch style house clad in wood siding with a side-gabled roof, attached garage, and an
entry stoop with a pedimented gable and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Door replaced
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:
Wood
Gabled pediment
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Ranch
Page 41 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1813 Main St 2016 Survey ID:124745
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
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:
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 retains a relatively high degree of
integrity; property is significant and
contributes to neighborhood character
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:534
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 42 of 72
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1813 Main St 2016 Survey ID:124745
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 43 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r the
fo llo wing:
3' setbac k encroac hment into the required 20' front setb ack to allow a res idential struc ture 17' from
the front property line;
10" s etbac k encroac hment into the required 25' garage setb ack to allow an attac hed garage ad d itio n
24'-2" from the property line;
7' building height modification from the required 15' maximum building height at the 24'-2" setback to
allow a building height of 22' at the garage setback;
7' build ing height mo d ificatio n from the req uired 15' maximum build ing height at the 10' rear s etbac k,
allo wing for a build ing height o f 22' at the rear s etb ack;
An additio n to a s treet facing façade; and
T he rep lac ement o f his toric arc hitectural features with non-histo ric arc hitec tural features
at the p ro p erty lo cated at 105 E. 18th S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n of EUBAN K ADD (BLK 4 LT
9 R E S UB), BLO C K 4, Lo t 9B (0.14 acres). – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn and His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p licant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val for setb ack and build ing height modific ations related to the
relo catio n o f and an additio n to a 923 sq. ft. res id ential s tructure currently lo cated at 1813 S . Main S treet,
which is lis ted o n the 2016 Histo ric R es o urc e S urvey as a medium priority s tructure, and whic h c an be
id entified as a minimal trad itional s tyle residence. T he fro nt 17’ s etb ac k for the relo cated s tructure is
req uested to ac commodate the ad d ition o f a two-c ar garage, whic h is proposed to have s torage and
laund ry spac e at the rear, s o that the garage additio n wo uld no t req uire a setb ack modific ation alo ng the
rear or no rth property line. If the 17’ front s etbac k were approved , the reloc ated s truc ture wo uld be
s ituated a similar d is tance from the c urb as the existing res idential struc tures ac ro s s E. 18th S treet. T he
ap p licant is also req ues ting a front s etbac k o f 24’-2” fo r the garage ad d ition, which wo uld allo w fo r a two-
car garage with s to rage and laundry areas at the rear without encroac hing into the rear or no rth p ro p erty
s etbac k and wo uld s till s ite the front o f the garage ad d ition behind the reloc ated s truc ture.
T he ap p licant is also reques ting two build ing height mo d ificatio ns of 7’, o ne at the fro nt and one at the rear
o f the p ro p os ed two-s to ry garage addition. S ec . 4.08.080.C .2 res tricts the b uilding height at the presc ribed
s etbac k of the und erlying b as e zo ning d is tric t (R esidential S ingle-F amily or R S fo r the sub ject p ro p erty) to
15’, and the ap p licant is proposing an ad ditio n that would be ap p ro ximately 22’ in height at b o th the front
and rear setb acks . O ther s tructures alo ng E. 18th S treet are generally one s to ry in height and have lo w
p itc hed ro o fs , and a few s truc tures alo ng S . Main S treet have two s tories , although most are a single s tory
in height.
T he applic ant is req uesting an additio n to a s treet-fac ing fac ad e with the req ues ted additio n o f the two-c ar
garage and sec o nd s tory above the garage ad d itio n. T he reques ted ad d ition is within the flo o r area ratio
and imp ervious cover limitations fo r the lot, although it would mo re than d o uble the size o f the o riginal
s tructure. As the ad d ition is propos ed to be s et bac k fro m the primary facade o f the original struc ture it
would no t o b s cure the c harac teris tic s of the o riginal s truc ture, however d ue to the height and footp rint of
the p ro p o s ed ad d ition relative to the o riginal s tructure, the ad d ition would no t be sub o rd inate to the o riginal
s tructure.
T he applic ant is als o reques ting to replac e the exis ting wo o d windows with new vinyl wind o ws , and to
Page 44 of 72
rep air and rep lac e damaged and deterio rated wood trim and siding on the exterior of the original struc ture
with wood materials . T he exis ting wood windows , which are o riginal to the s truc ture, have deterio ratio n
and in s o me c as es the glas s panes have s lipped fro m the d amaged muntins . T he wood s id ing is mo s tly
intact, but s o me o f the wo o d trim along eaves, gutters and at the foundatio n has either rotted or
d eteriorated and req uires rep lacement.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Page 45 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 1 of 10
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020
File Number: 2019-86-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following:
• 3' setback encroachment into the required 20' front setback to allow a residential structure 17'
from the front property line;
• 10" setback encroachment into the required 25' garage setback to allow an attached garage
addition 24'-2" from the property line;
• 7' building height modification from the required 15' maximum building height at the 24'-2"
setback to allow a building height of 22' at the garage setback;
• 7' building height modification from the required 15' maximum building height at the 10' rear
setback, allowing for a building height of 22' at the rear setback;
• An addition to a street facing façade; and
• The replacement of historic architectural features with non-historic architectural features
at the property located at 105 E. 18th Street, bearing the legal description of EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9
RESUB), BLOCK 4, Lot 9B (0.14 acres).
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1813 S. Main Relocation
Applicant: Gregory Lynn Haag II
Property Owner: Gregory Lynn Haag II
Property Address: 105 E. 18th Street
Legal Description: EUBANK ADD (BLK 4 LT 9 RESUB), BLOCK 4, Lot 9B
Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District
Case History: Lot in the Eubank Addition was re-platted as two lots in 2009
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1947 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
An addition to a street-facing façade (garage addition)
Two setback modifications for an attached garage and residential structure
Two building height modifications for an addition to a residential structure
Replacement of historic architectural features with non-historic architectural features
Page 46 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 2 of 10
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for setback and building height modifications for a 923 sq.
ft. residential structure, currently located at 1813 S. Main Street in order to construct an attached two-car
garage addition with a second story. The property is listed on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey as a
medium priority structure and is identified as a minimal traditional style residence. Minimal traditional
is a style of house associated with low or intermediate-pitched roofs, often with gables; small, generally
one-story in height; roof eaves with little to no overhang; double-hung windows, typically multi-pane or
1/1; minimal amounts of added architectural detail; and rarely has dormers. This house style was
predominant before, during and after World War II due to its cost efficiency and ease of construction.
The applicant is requesting an addition to a street-facing façade with the requested addition of the two-
car garage and second story above the garage addition. The requested addition is within the floor to area
ratio and impervious cover limitations for the lot. The proposed addition is approximately 1,120 sq. ft
and the existing structure is 923 sq. ft, and the addition would more than double the size of the original
structure. As the addition is proposed to be set back from the primary façade of the original structure it
would not obscure the characteristics of the original structure, however due to the height and footprint
of the proposed addition relative to the original structure, the addition would not be subordinate to the
original structure. Locating the addition to the rear of the original structure would not be feasible due to
the orientation and dimensions of the lot, and the addition of the second floor adds square footage to the
available living space. With the addition of the garage and second floor, the structure would be larger in
size and taller in height than the 7 nearby structures situated along E. 18th, St. which are single-story,
although it would be a similar size and/or height to 8 of the 10 structures along S. Main Street between
Cyrus Ave. and E. 18th Street. Minimal Traditional as an architectural style includes two-story structures,
although single-story structures are more typical of the style in Georgetown. The addition is proposed
to have wood siding to be similar in profile to the existing wood siding but not an exact match to
differentiate the original structure from the addition. The roof material is proposed to be asphalt shingles
to match the existing roof on the original structure, and the windows are proposed to be single-hung
vinyl windows.
The front 17’ setback modification for the 923 sq. ft. original structure is requested to accommodate the
addition of an attached two-car garage, which is proposed to have storage and laundry space at the rear,
so that the garage addition would not require a setback modification along the rear or north property
line to accommodate the depth of the garage addition. If the 17’ front setback were approved, the
relocated structure would be situated a similar distance from the curb as the existing residential
structures across E. 18th Street. The applicant is also requesting a front setback of 24’-2” for the garage
addition, which would allow for a two-car garage without encroaching into the rear or north property
setback and would still site the front of the garage addition behind the relocated structure.
The applicant is also requesting two building height modifications of 7’, one at the front and one at the
rear of the proposed two-story garage addition. Sec. 4.08.080.C.2 restricts the building height at the
prescribed setback of the underlying base zoning district (Residential Single-Family or RS for the subject
property) to 15’, and the applicant is proposing an addition that would be approximately 22’ in height at
Page 47 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 3 of 10
both the front and rear setbacks. Other structures along E. 18th Street are generally one story in height
and have low pitched roofs, and a few structures along S. Main Street have two stories, although most
are a single story in height.
The applicant is also requesting to replace the existing wood windows with new single-hung vinyl
windows and to repair and replace damaged and deteriorated wood trim and siding on the exterior of
the original structure with wood materials. The existing wood windows are original to the structure, and
in some cases the glass panes have slipped from the damaged muntins. The wood siding is mostly intact,
but some of the wood trim along eaves, gutters and at the foundation has either rotted or deteriorated
and requires replacement.
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
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage
historic features.
• Avoid alterations that would hinder the
ability to interpret the design character of
the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier
period than that of the building are
inappropriate.
Partially Complies
Proposed replacement of windows would alter
the design character of the original building;
however, replacement windows could be
installed that would provide the same or a
similar pattern to retain significant window
characteristics such as the 6 over 1 pattern.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
• An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be
designed to remain subordinate to the
main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Partially Complies
Proposed addition has compatible materials and
character (form) of the original building, with
similar roof pitch, gables and limited
architectural detail. In terms of scale the
addition is two stories compared to the single
story of the original structure. It is large in scale
as an addition, which is approximately 1,120
square feet, relative to the original structure,
which is 923 square feet. Massing is a term in
architecture which refers to the perception of the
general shape and form as well as size of
a building. The proposed two-story addition,
with its close proximity to both the front of the
original structure and to the front property line,
relates to the original structure in a way that is
Page 48 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 4 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
dominant rather than subordinate. However, the
original structure can be clearly identified as
such.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to
the building.
An addition should be made
distinguishable from the original
building, even in subtle ways, such that
the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between
the original and new structures may help
to define an addition.
Even applying a new trim board at the
connection point between the addition
and the original structure can help define
the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New
Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings,
published by the National Park Service.
Complies
Proposed addition is set to the side of and set
back from the front of the main structure and is
distinguishable from the original structure due
to its height, windows, siding material and
design as a contemporary interpretation of the
Minimal Traditional original structure.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or
set it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
Setting an addition back from any
primary, character-defining façade will
allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a
structure is inappropriate, and an
addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back from the front of
the original building, and due to the dimensions
and orientation of this lot a rear addition with a
two-car garage would not be feasible and would
require additional setback modifications.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or
remove original architectural details and
materials of the primary structure.
• When preserving original details and
materials, follow the guidelines presented
earlier in this chapter.
Partially Complies
Original windows are proposed to be replaced
with vinyl windows and wood siding and trim
is proposed to be repaired with in-kind
replacement of damaged portions that cannot be
repaired. Wood siding and trim in sound
condition are to be retained.
Page 49 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 5 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character, and architectural style
with the main building.
• An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be
designed to remain subordinate to the
main structure.
• While a smaller addition is visually
preferable, if a residential addition would
be significantly larger than the original
building, one option is to separate it from
the primary building, when feasible, and
then link it with a smaller connecting
structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the
primary façade.
• Consider adding dormers to create
second story spaces before changing the
scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
Partially Complies
The addition is compatible with the original
structure in materials, character and
architectural style, however its size of
approximately 1,120 sq. ft. relative to the
original structure of 923 sq. ft. and its height as a
two-story addition of approximately 22’ are not
subordinate to the original structure. The
dimensions and orientation of the lot do
constrain the feasible locations on the site for an
addition, as well as the configuration of the
addition.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any
primary, character-defining façade.
An addition should be made to the rear of
the building, when feasible.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back from the primary
façade and locating it to the rear of the original
structure is not feasible.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in
character with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are
appropriate for residential additions. Flat
roofs are appropriate for commercial
buildings in the downtown area.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of
the addition should be similar.
The roofs of additions should not interfere
with the original roof form by changing
its basic shape or view of the original roof,
and should have a roof form compatible
with the original building.
Complies
Roof of proposed addition has similar gable
type, slopes, and overhangs to the original roof,
and is proposed to match the existing asphalt
shingle roof of the original structure.
Page 50 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 6 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure
architecturally important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a porch
should be avoided.
Addition of a porch may be
inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed addition retains architecturally
important features of the façade and is proposed
to be in a similar configuration as the prior
garage addition.
14.21 An addition may be made to the roof of a
building if it does the following:
An addition should be set back from the
primary, character-defining façade, to
preserve the perception of the historic
scale of the building.
Its design should be modest in character,
so it will not attract attention from the
historic façade.
The addition should be distinguishable as
new, albeit in a subtle way.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back from the primary,
character-defining façade, does not have a
design character that obscures the scale of the
historic portion of the structure and is
distinguishable as new.
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 – application was deemed
complete by Staff.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies – Siting of relocated
structure and addition requires setback and
building height modifications.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies – The scale of the
proposed addition is large in relationship to
the original structure, and the location of the
two-story addition to the side rather than to
the rear increases the perception of the size
or mass of the addition relative to the
original structure. The SOI Standards
recommend repair, rather than replacement
of original architectural features such as
wood windows.
Page 51 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 7 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies – Complies or partially
complies with applicable Guidelines.
Partially complies with Guidelines 14.11,
14.12, 14.15, and 14.16.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies – General integrity of the
building and site is partially preserved, as
the character of the original structure can be
clearly seen, but the addition is large in scale
and mass relative to the original structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies – Proposed addition
creates a structure that overall is larger than
some surrounding properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies – The proposed addition, setbacks
and building height modification and
replacement of original windows does not
diminish the overall character of the historic
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 Included
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
Proposed front setback encroachments
are to accommodate construction of an
addition without encroaching into the
rear setback.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
There is adequate room on the site for the
relocated structure without encroaching
into the setbacks. However, the front
setback encroachment for the relocated
structure allows for the addition of a two-
car garage that is set back from the front
of the original structure without also
encroaching into the rear setback.
Page 52 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 8 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
Proposed setbacks are compatible and in
context with properties within the block.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
Relocated structure and proposed garage
addition will not be set closer to the street
than other units within the block but will
have a similar distance from the street
curb as other structures along E. 18th
Street.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Does Not Comply
The 10” setback encroachment for the
garage addition provides for a two-car
garage with storage and laundry area to
the rear that has a smaller footprint than
the original structure, however the
garage is proposed to have a second floor
above which increases the size of the
addition to a larger square footage than
the original structure.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Partially Complies
Relocated structure is similar in size to
some structures within the same block
but is larger than the structures facing the
property along E. 18th Street.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
Proposed future addition for which
setback is requested will not negatively
impact adjoining properties or ability to
maintain them.
Page 53 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 9 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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 for maintenance will be
available for proposed and existing
structures.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
Setback encroachment is not being
requested for the protection of large trees
or other significant features.
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
Proposed addition does not obstruct
views of the Courthouse or the
Downtown.
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Not Applicable
Project is not located within and does not
impact the Downtown Overlay District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Does Not Comply
Proposed two-story addition does not
have a consistent relationship to the
existing one-story structures in the
immediate vicinity.
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
Project is not located within and does not
impact the Downtown Overlay District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
Project is not located within and does not
impact the Downtown Overlay District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends the following:
• Staff recommends approval of the request for both setback modifications.
• Staff recommends approval of the request for the addition with condition that the addition be the
two-car garage portion only, and not include the addition of the second floor.
• Staff recommends disapproval of the request for the building height modifications.
Page 54 of 72
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-86-COA – 105 E. 18th St. Page 10 of 10
• Staff recommends the approval of the replacement of the wood windows with the condition that
the replacement windows be wood and in the same window pane configuration as the original
windows.
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 55 of 72
Location
2019-86-COA
Exhibit #1
E18THST
KNIGHT
ST
B
R
U
S
HYST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
PA
I
G
E
S
T
E 17TH 1/
2
S
T
CYRUS AV
E
W 18TH ST
EU
B
A
N
K
S
T
SAUSTINAVE
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
E 19TH ST
W 19TH ST
W 18TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 56 of 72
Gregory Lynn Haag II
1221 Ascot St., Georgetown, TX 78626
512-481-2710, Lynn@lynnhaag.com
December 23, 2019
City of Georgetown
Planning Department
Attn: Britin Bostick
406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
512-930-3581
RE: Planning & HARC Application for Relocation
1813 S. Main St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Ms. Bostick:
This application is to relocate the existing 1-story 913 square foot residence from Lot 9a
of the Eubank Addition to Lot 9b as indicated on the exhibit. The house is on the corner
of S. Main Street and 18th Street. The house was originally built on Lot 9 of the Eubank
Addition in Old Town Georgetown. When I re-platted this property into 2 lots, it was
with the intention to relocate this house to the back lot. I completed the plat before I
relocated the house.
The house requires foundation modifications and repairs to be able to level it. The house
will need to be lifted and leveled, and new peers be placed under it, or be relocated onto a
new foundation engineered for the house and soils in the area. My intention is to build a
new peer foundation on Lot 9B and then place the house on the new engineered
foundation.
With the new peer foundation, I am also wanting to build a 2-car garage on the side of the
house, attached to the same side of the house where the garage is on Main Street. The old
garage is not structurally sound and would likely not survive the relocation with the
Page 57 of 72
Gregory Lynn Haag II
1221 Ascot St., Georgetown, TX 78626
512-481-2710, Lynn@lynnhaag.com
house, so I am going to leave the old garage in place and just relocate the house and build
a new slab and garage onto the house as shown on the exhibit.
Lot 9B and Lot 9A are in the same historic zoning designation, so I am not removing a
historic property from the downtown zoning area, I am requesting to move it to the space
behind where it was originally built. It would be consistent with the adjacent houses
along 18th street.
I am also requesting a variance to the front setback lines to accommodate the house’s
architectural design. I am asking for the house to be 17 feet from the front property line
for part of the house, 18 feet 4 inches off the front property line from the main part of the
house, and 24 feet 2 inches for the garage. These requested setbacks are consistent with
the adjacent houses along 18th street.
The requested impervious cover for lot 9B after the improvements is 2,176 square feet
and is only approximately 36% of the entire lot (6,117 square feet). This meets the UDC
code standards. Lot 9B has water, wastewater, gas and overhead electric that I will be
connecting the house to.
Thank you for your review and consideration on my requests. Please feel free to contact
me should you have any further questions.
Respectfully,
Gregory Lynn Haag II, P.E.
Page 58 of 72
Page 59 of 72
Level 1
0' -0"
Level 2
8' -0"
Level 0
-2' -0"
Page 60 of 72
Level 1
0' -0"
Level 2
8' -0"
Level 0
-2' -0"
Page 61 of 72
Level 1
0' -0"
Level 2
8' -0"
Level 0
-2' -0"
18
'
-
4
"
24
'
-
0
7
/
3
2
"
10
'
-
0
"
Page 62 of 72
Page 63 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and Up d ate R egarding the F Y2020 Home R ep air P rogram - Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn &
His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ity o f G eorgetown's Ho me R epair P rogram has an increase in funding fo r F Y2020 o ver p rio r year
fund ing levels , and is combining C DBG funds fro m Williamson C ounty with C ity o f G eo rgeto wn funding
fo r $130,000 in to tal fund ing to sup p o rt the p ro grams goals o f:
P res ervation of Neighb o rhoods
Energy C ons ervatio n
Ho using Affo rd ab ility
Build ing P artners hips with the Non-P rofit C ommunity
S taff will p rovid e the C o mmis s io n a program o verview inc luding a list of eligib le repairs and o utreach
effo rts.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Pres entation - FY2020 Home Repair Program Pres entation
Page 64 of 72
Home Repair FY20
Page 65 of 72
•https://youtu.be/LBi90lxv9YM
Page 66 of 72
FY19 Successes
•For the $25,000 HFHWC partnership impacted:
•15 families (25 people)
•26 volunteers, 800 volunteer hours
•Funding is exhausted
•Interdepartmental coordination
Page 67 of 72
FY20 Funding
•$130K Total Funding
•$75K -CDBG funds from Williamson County
•$55K -City of Georgetown
•$25,000 (General Fund)
•$30,000 (Conservation –Water & Electric)
Page 68 of 72
•Preservation of neighborhoods
•Energy conservation
•Housing affordability
•Support homeownership
•Support homeowners with Historic requirements for
rehabilitation
•Building partnerships with the non-profit community
Program Goals
Page 69 of 72
Program Strategy
•Citywide eligibility to apply for program
•Direct outreach efforts
•Old Town and Downtown districts
•Homeowners in need of utility bill assistance
•Seniors in need of accessibility improvements
•Awareness of ability to assist urgent repairs (subject to fund
availability)
Page 70 of 72
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n of annual training for His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommis s io ners . - Britin Bostick,
Do wntown and His to ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
To s upport the wo rk o f HAR C , C ommissio ners receive training thro ughout the year o n items related to
histo ric p res ervation and the C ity of G eorgeto wn Unified Develo p ment C o d e, as well as the requirements
o f the Des ign G uid elines. T his d is cus s io n is an o p p o rtunity fo r HAR C C ommis s ioners to provid e
feed b ack on items fo r whic h they would like to receive additio nal information and training, and to disc uss
with s taff what training o p p o rtunities are availab le.
Attached is the 2019 proposed training sc hed ule as a s tarting plac e for the c onvers atio n with 2020 HAR C .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
2019 Propos ed Training Schedule Exhibit
Page 71 of 72
Month Training Overview Speaker Outcome
March (new Commissioners) Robert's Rules & Meeting Procedures Provide handouts, give copy of Design Guidelines, provide
future educational opportunities.
Madison Knowledge of how to conduct a meeting, how to make a
motion, general meeting procedures
1st Quarter UDC HARC Approval Criteria
How to make a motion, make findings, reference approval
criteria (regular, height, setback, demolition)
Madison
Knowledge of how to use the HARC approval criteria to make
a motion. Use criteria and guidelines to support or deny
1st Quarter Design Guidelines
Basic overview of chapters and how it is used, project
review , practice reviewing a project
Madison Understanding the purpose of the guidelines, reviewing the
different chapters, knowing which chapters to use and
when.
1st Quarter COA Process & Procedures
Overview of the process and the procedures that the
applicants go through prior to appearing at HARC.
Presentation from last year. Include process after HARC
(site plan & staff's role)
Madison Understand the COA process from an applicant's perspective
and the review process the proposed project goes through
prior to going to HARC, also understanding the continuation
of that process after HARC approval, i.e.. Site plan and staff's
role.
2nd Quarter Lessons Learned: Previous COA Case Review
Site visit of properties and previous projects. Could bring
back previous commissioners to help?
Visualizing how the guidelines can be interpreted based on
context of the area. How to read paper drawings and
visualize the built structure and its future impact on the
area.
2nd Quarter Downtown Visit properties in the Downtown that have been through
the HARC process. Discuss how the changes impacted the
priority level, discuss the design guidelines used and do
exercise on how to implement the guidelines based on
before & after. (size, massing, scale)
Downtown project discussions tend to focus on size,
massing and scale, focus on understanding these words and
how they relate. Seeing how drawings translate to the built
form.
2nd Quarter Old Town Visit properties in the Old Town that have been through
the HARC process. Discuss how the changes impacted the
priority level, discuss the design guidelines used and do
exercise on how to implement the guidelines based on
before & after. (style, additions) Same as above but focus on additions and style that tend to
be topics of discussion for projects in Old Town.
3rd Quarter Demolition Process & Procedures Review application process for demolition, CLG
requirements, Demo. Subcommittee responsibility, and
HARC findings.
Understand how to review the Demolition criteria for HARC,
how to make those findings to either support or oppose the
request.
3rd Quarter Archival Record: 1111 E. 7th Street Have Britin come and speak on the archival process,
salvage process and share what they were able to
discover about the history of this house during this
process.
Britin Bostick
Understand the archival record process and reasearch that is
required. See the benefits of what can be discovered from it.
3rd Quarter Rehabilitation Process Projects that are located in the overlay districts are
required to maintain their homes. Review this policy and
process. See the before and after for the Austin Ave.
property. Understand the policy and process.
4th Quarter CLG Overview To provide overview of what it means to be a CLG and
what resources it provides.
Texas Historical Commission
Rep.
To provide overview of what it means to be a CLG and what
resources it provides.
4th Quarter Main Street Training Bring in a representive from Main Street to share the
benefits that a historic preservation has on economic
development.
2019 HARC Training
Page 72 of 72