HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_02.27.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
F ebruary 27, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The H istor ic and Ar chite ctural R evie w Commission, appointed by the
M ayor and the C ity Counc il, is re sponsible for he aring and taking final
ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppropriateness base d upon
the City C ouncil adopte d Downtown De sign Guide line s and Unifie d
De ve lopme nt Code.
Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s:
· S taff P re se ntation
· Applic ant P r esentation (L imited to ten minutes unle ss state d
othe rwise by the C ommission.)
· Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant
· C omments from C itize ns *
· Applic ant Re sponse
· C ommission De libe rative P roc ess
· C ommission A ction
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the
r oom, to the r ec ording se cr etar y be for e the item the y wish to addre ss be gins.
E ach speaker will be pe rmitte d to addr ess the Commission one time only for
a maximum of thre e minute s.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replac ement of historic architec tural features with non-historic architec tural features for a high priority
c ommercial s tructure at the property located at 110 E. 7th S treet, bearing the legal des cription G eorgetown
C ity O f, BLO C K 40, Lot 2(N/P T ), AC R ES 0.0826 – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown and Historic P lanner
B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for a 5' setback
encroac hment into the required 20' front s etbac k to allow a residential s tructure 15' from the front property
line, and a 9’ setback encroac hment into the required 15' side s etbac k to allow a residential s tructure 6’
from the property line at the property located at 406 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of
G las s coc k Addition, BLO C K 32, Lot 1-2(E/P T S ), AC R ES 0.166 – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown and
Historic P lanner
Page 1 of 48
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 48
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 27, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replacement of his toric arc hitectural features with non-his toric arc hitectural features for a high priority
commerc ial struc ture at the property loc ated at 110 E. 7th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription G eorgetown
C ity O f, BLO C K 40, Lot 2(N/P T ), AC R ES 0.0826 – Britin Bostick, Downtown and His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p licant is req uesting HAR C ap p ro val fo r the replac ement o f the no n-original metal o nion dome
feature that sits atop the no rthwest corner o f the b uilding, which was ins talled in Augus t of 1985. Although
the c urrent dome is not o riginal to the b uilding, it d o es have histo ric s ignific anc e in its o wn right as the
replacement of the build ing’s mos t s ignific ant arc hitectural feature, and o ne o f the mo s t s ignificant
architec tural features on the C ourtho us e S q uare. T he applic ant is als o req uesting HP O ap p ro val fo r the
replacement o f the c urrent b uilt-up b itumen flat roof with a thermo p las tic p o lyolefin (T P O ) ro o f, the
replacement of the no n-his toric head er b o xes and d o wns p o uts , and the res toratio n o f his toric arc hitectural
features s uc h as wo o d windows and trim on the Main S treet and E. 7th S treet facades that have
deteriorated and weathered. T he applic ant is propos ing to repaint the surfaces with the same paint c olors .
T he onion dome feature dis appeared from the Masonic Lodge circ a 1925 and was reportedly dis mantled.
It remained missing fo r nearly 6 d ecades until preservation efforts on the S q uare, spearhead ed by the Main
S treet P rogram, s upported the res toration of the Masonic Lodge in 1985. T he owner at the time, Laura
Weir-C lark, searc hed for the original dome and cons id ered o p tions fo r a rep lacement before dec id ing o n a
galvanized (treated with zinc to prevent rus t) dome fabric ated by C ampbellsville Ind ustries of
C ampbells ville, KY. T he rep lacement dome was not an exac t matc h, b ut was similar in design, c harac ter
and proportio n, and resto red a s ignificant part o f the histo ric c harac ter of the build ing. T he applic ant is
propos ing to ins tall a new dome c onstruc ted of c opper, whic h will be painted to matc h the exis ting and
which will have an internal gutter sys tem to drain o nto the propos ed new T P O ro o f to address water
infiltration issues .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Photos Exhibit
Page 3 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-2-COA – 110 E. 7th Street Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020
File Number: 2020-2-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement
of historic architectural features with non-historic architectural features for a high priority commercial
structure at the property located at 110 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description Georgetown City Of,
BLOCK 40, Lot 2(N/PT), ACRES 0.0826.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 110 E. 7th Rehabilitation Project
Applicant: Michael Winot (NewRuf.com)
Property Owner: Damon-Manriquez Partners LTD & Johanna E Damon
Property Address: 110 E. 7th Street
Legal Description: Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 40, Lot 2(N/PT), ACRES 0.0826
Historic Overlay: Downtown Historic Overlay District
Case History: Original dome was removed c. 1925 and replacement dome was installed in 1985
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1900 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Replacement of historic architectural feature with non-historic architectural feature
HPO:
Restoration of historic architectural features
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the replacement of the non-original metal onion dome
feature that sits atop the northwest corner of the building, which was installed in August of 1985.
Although the current dome is not original to the building, it does have historic significance in its own
right as the replacement of the building’s most significant architectural feature, and one of the most
significant architectural features on the Courthouse Square. The applicant is also requesting HPO
approval for the replacement of the current built-up bitumen flat roof with a thermoplastic polyolefin
Page 4 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-2-COA – 110 E. 7th Street Page 2 of 5
(TPO) roof, the replacement of the non-historic header boxes and downspouts, and the restoration of
historic architectural features such as wood windows and trim on the Main Street and E. 7th Street facades
that have deteriorated and weathered. The applicant is proposing to repaint the surfaces with the same
paint colors.
Charles Sanford Belford, known as C.S. Belford, was born in Newark, Ohio in 1857. He arrived in
Georgetown in 1884 and married Mollie Carothers, who was the daughter of the president of First
National Bank of Georgetown. Belford purchased the Irvine Lumber Co. in 1890 or 1891 with Moses
Harrell, then bought Harrell out in 1892 with the help of other investors. The lumber yard was then
renamed the Belford Lumber Company, and it was located on the west side of Rock Street, between 7th
and 8th Streets. In addition to owning a lumber yard, Belford was a prominent builder, and the Belford
Historic District was designated with his name because of the number of homes he built and their
quality of design and construction. Belford is known for having built the Masonic Lodge and St. John’s
Methodist Church, designed the Georgetown Fire Station and City Hall Building (now the Georgetown
Art Center) and built more than three dozen new homes and home remodels in Georgetown. Belford
died in 1929 and is buried in the Georgetown Odd Fellows Cemetery.
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show that this property had been the location of the Masonic Hall since at
least 1885, when a two-story wood frame structure housed both the Hall and a confectionery. By 1889
the first floor was occupied by a furniture store, and in 1894 the Post Office was located on the first floor.
When the new stone masonic lodge opened it housed additional uses on the ground floor, including the
U. S. Post Office and a drug store. By 1916 the interior had been remodeled to include a balcony and the
Post Office had relocated to the north side of the Square. In the middle of the 20th century it housed a
furniture company, and in the late 1980s through 90s it housed a popular Chinese food restaurant.
The onion dome feature disappeared from the Masonic Lodge circa 1925 and was reportedly dismantled.
It remained missing for nearly 6 decades until preservation efforts on the Square, spearheaded by the
Main Street Program, supported the restoration of the Masonic Lodge in 1985. The owner at the time,
Laura Weir-Clark, searched for the original dome and considered options for a replacement before
deciding on a galvanized (treated with zinc to prevent rust) dome fabricated by Campbellsville
Industries of Campbellsville, KY. The replacement dome was not an exact match, but was similar in
design, character and proportion, and restored a significant part of the historic character of the building.
The applicant is proposing to install a new dome constructed of copper, which will be painted to match
the existing and which will have an internal gutter system to drain onto the proposed new TPO roof to
address water infiltration issues.
Page 5 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-2-COA – 110 E. 7th Street Page 3 of 5
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 4 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
4.1 Avoid removing or altering any significant
architectural detail.
Do not remove or alter architectural
details that are in good condition or that
can be repaired in place.
Complies
Although removal of a significant architectural
feature is not allowed under normal conditions,
in this instance the removal of the feature is
necessary to the roof replacement so that a long-
term water leak can be addressed. The feature is
not to be permanently removed, but rather
replaced with a replica that is proposed to be an
improvement of the current non-original dome.
4.2 Avoid adding elements or details that were
not part of the original building.
For example, details such as decorative
millwork or cornices should not be added
to a building if they were not an original
feature of that structure.
Complies
The onion dome feature is original to the
building, which is demonstrated through
photographic evidence.
4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic
elements.
Distinctive stylistic features and examples
of skilled craftsmanship should be treated
with sensitivity.
The best preservation procedure is to
maintain historic features from the outset
so that intervention is not required.
Employ treatments such as rust removal,
caulking, limited paint removal, and
reapplication of paint.
Complies
In this instance the replacement of the non-
original dome with a replica is proposed to
correct some of the long-term maintenance
issues from the 1985 installation and to provide
a more durable architectural feature. As the
significant stylistic element is maintained on the
building, staff found the replacement to comply
with the guideline.
Page 6 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-2-COA – 110 E. 7th Street Page 4 of 5
4.9 Replace missing original details in kind.
If parts are damaged or missing, replace
them with the same material as the
original.
In some instances, substitute materials
may be used. If substitute materials must
be used, then they should convey the
visual appearance of the original
materials in design, scale, proportion,
finish and appearance.
Complies
The replacement is a replica of the existing dome
feature, and as it will be painted the change in
material will not be noticeable.
CHAPTER 5 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC BUILDING MATERIALS
5.14 Preserve architectural metal features that
contribute to the overall historic character of the
building.
Examples are columns, roofs, window
hoods, and storefronts.
Provide proper drainage to minimize
water retention.
Maintain protective coatings, such as
paint, on exposed metals.
Complies
Although the dome feature is proposed to be
replaced it will remain on the building, and the
new roof and dome are proposed to correct
draining issues that have cause damage to the
building, including to the interior.
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
The application was deemed complete by
Staff.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
Domes and cupolas are not part of the UDC
definition of “building height” and do not
fall within the 40’ building height limit for
the Downtown Historic Overlay District.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
The existing dome is not original to the
building; however, it is historic in its own
right. Because the replacement dome is
proposed to be a replication of the feature
and manufactured by the same company
Page 7 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-2-COA – 110 E. 7th Street Page 5 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
with the same specifications, it meets the SOI
standards.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Complies with applicable Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed replacement maintains the
integrity of the building and site.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No proposed new buildings or additions.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed replacement protects the
character of the historic district.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is included in the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Photos
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 8 of 48
Location
2020-2-COA
Exhibit #1
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
SMYRTLEST
ELMST
E 8TH ST
E 7TH ST
W 6TH ST
W 8TH ST
RO
C
K
S
T
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
E 6TH ST
E 9TH ST
SMAINST
W7THST
SAUSTINAVE
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 9 of 48
Page 10 of 48
Page 11 of 48
33
NewRuf Roofing and Restoration
101 E. Front St., #104
Hutto, Texas 78634
Office: 512 642 6005
Fax: 512 642 5566
www.NewRuf.com
Info@NewRuf.com
2018-07-23-0807 10/30/2018 Page: 33
20 20-IMG_1280 Date Taken: 7/16/2018
Page 12 of 48
34
NewRuf Roofing and Restoration
101 E. Front St., #104
Hutto, Texas 78634
Office: 512 642 6005
Fax: 512 642 5566
www.NewRuf.com
Info@NewRuf.com
2018-07-23-0807 10/30/2018 Page: 34
21 21-IMG_1281 Date Taken: 7/16/2018
Page 13 of 48
45
NewRuf Roofing and Restoration
101 E. Front St., #104
Hutto, Texas 78634
Office: 512 642 6005
Fax: 512 642 5566
www.NewRuf.com
Info@NewRuf.com
2018-07-23-0807 10/30/2018 Page: 45
32 32-IMG_1292 Date Taken: 7/16/2018
Page 14 of 48
46
NewRuf Roofing and Restoration
101 E. Front St., #104
Hutto, Texas 78634
Office: 512 642 6005
Fax: 512 642 5566
www.NewRuf.com
Info@NewRuf.com
2018-07-23-0807 10/30/2018 Page: 46
33 33-IMG_1293 Date Taken: 7/16/2018
Page 15 of 48
70
NewRuf Roofing and Restoration
101 E. Front St., #104
Hutto, Texas 78634
Office: 512 642 6005
Fax: 512 642 5566
www.NewRuf.com
Info@NewRuf.com
2018-07-23-0807 10/30/2018 Page: 70
57 57-IMG_1317 Date Taken: 7/16/2018
Page 16 of 48
Page 17 of 48
Page 18 of 48
Page 19 of 48
Page 20 of 48
Page 21 of 48
Page 22 of 48
Page 23 of 48
Page 24 of 48
Page 25 of 48
Page 26 of 48
Page 27 of 48
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
February 27, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for a 5' s etbac k
enc roachment into the required 20' front setback to allow a res idential struc ture 15' from the front property
line, and a 9’ s etbac k enc roachment into the required 15' s ide setback to allow a res idential struc ture 6’
from the property line at the property loc ated at 406 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal des cription of
G lassc ock Addition, BLO C K 32, Lot 1-2(E/P T S ), AC R ES 0.166 – Britin Bostick, Downtown and
His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is req uesting HAR C ap p ro val fo r two s etbac k mo d ificatio ns fo r the future cons tructio n of a
s ingle-family res idence o n the property. T he firs t is a 5’ front s etbac k enc roachment into the req uired 20’
front s etb ack fo r the R es idential S ingle F amily (R S ) zoning, so that a residential s tructure c o uld be
cons tructed 15’ from the front property line. T he rear o f the property has a 15’ wid e P ub lic Utility
Eas ement (P UE), and develo p ment is no t permitted within that easement. T he rear setb ack for the R S
zoning d is tric t is 10’, and as the P UE acts as an effective 15’ s etbac k, the ap p licant is req ues ting a s etbac k
modification at the front property line to address the loss of developable lot depth caus ed by the P UE.
T his would provid e fo r a front s etbac k that is similar to other properties loc ated along this p o rtion of E. 4th
S treet.
T he sec ond s etbac k modification requested is a 9’ setback encroac hment into the required 15’ side s etbac k
for the R S zo ning d is tric t s o that a res idential struc ture c o uld b e cons tructed 6’ from the s id e (eas t)
property line. T he 15’ side setb ack ap p lies to this p ro p erty b ecaus e o f a R ight-o f-Way (R O W ) fo r As h
S treet. As h S treet has no t b een extend ed in this s ec tio n, but the C ity has retained the R O W, and the 15’
s etbac k therefore ap p lies . T he C ity d o es not have p lans to cons truct the As h S treet extens io n, and the
applicant is reques ting approval o f a 6’ s ide s etbac k, which is what wo uld be required in the R S zoning
dis tric t were the property not abutting a s treet R O W.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Page 28 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-3-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020
File Number: 2020-3-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 5' setback
encroachment into the required 20' front setback to allow a residential structure 15' from the front
property line, and a 9' setback encroachment into the required 15' side setback to allow a residential
structure 6' from the property line at the property located at 406 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description
of Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 32, Lot 1-2 (E/PTS), ACRES 0.166).
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 406 E. 4th Street
Applicant: Tom Yantis
Property Owner: YANTIS THOMAS K & MARY M MITCHEM CO TRUSTESS OF THE Y-M TRUST
Property Address: 406 E. 4th Street
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 32, Lot 1-2(E/PTS), ACRES 0.166
Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District
Case History: COA-2018-059 approved similar side setback for 407 E. 5th Street
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: Vacant Lot
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modifications
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for two setback modifications for the future construction of
a single-family residence on the property. The first is a 5’ front setback encroachment into the required
20’ front setback for the Residential Single Family (RS) zoning, so that a residential structure could be
constructed 15’ from the front property line. The rear of the property has a 15’ wide Public Utility
Easement (PUE), and development is not permitted within that easement. The rear setback for the RS
zoning district is 10’, and as the PUE acts as an effective 15’ setback, the applicant is requesting a setback
modification at the front property line to address the loss of developable lot depth caused by the PUE.
This would provide for a front setback that is similar to other properties located along this portion of E.
4th Street.
Page 29 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-3-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 2 of 5
The second setback modification requested is a 9’ setback encroachment into the required 15’ side setback
for the RS zoning district so that a residential structure could be constructed 6’ from the side (east)
property line. The 15’ side setback applies to this property because of a Right-of-Way (ROW) for Ash
Street. Ash Street has not been extended in this section, however the City has retained the ROW, and the
15’ setback therefore applies. The City does not have plans to construct the Ash Street extension, and the
applicant is requesting approval of a 6’ side setback, which is what would be required in the RS zoning
district were the property not abutting a street ROW. HARC approved a similar side setback
encroachment for 2018-59-COA, which was a 9’ encroachment into the 15’ setback allowing a carport 6’
from property line for the property directly to the south and addressed at 407 E. 5th Street.
The request to HARC is for approval of setback modifications so that the applicant can move forward
with designs for a residential structure. If approved, the new residential structure would have to meet
all other applicable requirements, including COA review requirements. Currently all new construction
in the Old Town Historic Overlay District requires review and approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by HARC, as do any setback, building height and floor area ratio modifications.
Impervious cover requirements do not have the opportunity for modification.
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
The application was deemed complete by
Staff.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
No structures are proposed as part of this
application. Proposed setback modifications
are to address parcel constraints that do not
commonly apply in the Old Town Historic
Overlay District and RS zoning district.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
Subject property is vacant and no structures
are proposed as part of this application.
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;
Not Applicable
Subject property is vacant and no structures
are proposed as part of this application. The
proposed setbacks would be consistent with
other properties adjacent to and
surrounding the subject property, however.
Page 30 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-3-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 3 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
Request does not diminish the integrity of
the site.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
Request is consistent with siting of structures
on other nearby properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Requested setback modifications do not
diminish the character of the 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;
Complies
Proposed front setback encroachments
are to address site constraints – a rear
utility easement and a right-of-way for a
street that has not been constructed.
Although utility easements apply to other
properties in the Old Town Historic
Overlay District, they are not generally
applied to other properties in the zoning
district and zoning overlay district.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
There could be adequate room on the site
to allow construction of a residential
structure without encroaching into the
setback, however (and subject to
impervious cover and Floor Area Ratio
limitations), the developable area of this
lot would normally be within an area 48’
wide and 90’ long, and the current
constraints limit that developable area to
39’ wide and 85’ long.
Page 31 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-3-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 4 of 5
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
No new structures are proposed as part
of this application, however with
approval of the setback modifications a
new structure would have a similar
distance from the street curb as other
structures along E. 4th 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;
Not Applicable
The parcel is currently vacant and no
additions are proposed.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Not Applicable
No structures are proposed with this
application, however future proposals for
new construction will reviewed in the
context of the size of existing structures
on the same block.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
Proposed setbacks will not negatively
impact adjoining properties or the ability
to maintain them.
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.
Page 32 of 48
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-3-COA – 406 E. 4th Street Page 5 of 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 33 of 48
Location
2020-3-COA
Exhibit #1
S
MYRTLEST
ELM
S
T
ASH
S
T
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
E 3RD ST
E 6TH ST
E 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E5THST
SCOLLEGEST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 34 of 48
Page 1 of 14
Page 35 of 48
Page 2 of 14
Site Design (Plot) Plan – 406 E. 4th Street
At this time there is not a formal site design for the lot, however the surveys show the new easement
and the location of the original house on the lot and the attached drawings provide an illustration of the
buildable area of the lot with the UDC required setbacks and City easement versus the proposed setback
exceptions.
Current survey of the lot showing new 15’ easement on rear property line
Page 36 of 48
Page 3 of 14
Survey showing original house on the lot with 14.5’ front setback
Page 37 of 48
Page 4 of 14
Page 38 of 48
Page 5 of 14
Page 39 of 48
Page 6 of 14
Page 40 of 48
Page 7 of 14
Architectural Elevations – 406 E. 4th Street
At this time there are no architectural plans for 406 E. 4th Street. We are seeking the setback exceptions
prior to beginning the design in order to be able to know where on the lot we can place the house.
Page 41 of 48
Page 8 of 14
Specifications and Details – 406 E. 4th Street
At this time there are no architectural plans for 406 E. 4th Street. We are seeking the setback exceptions
prior to beginning the design in order to be able to know where on the lot we can place the house.
Page 42 of 48
Page 9 of 14
Photographs/Renderings – 406 E. 4th Street
Facing the lot on 4th Street
Page 43 of 48
Page 10 of 14
Photographs/Renderings – 406 E. 4th Street
On the east side of the lot from the Ash Street right -of-way
Page 44 of 48
Page 11 of 14
Photographs/Renderings – 406 E. 4th Street
Facing the lot on 4th Street with house next door in view
Page 45 of 48
Page 12 of 14
Photographs/Renderings – 406 E. 4th Street
New carport on neighbor’s lot to the rear with side setback exception
Page 46 of 48
Page 13 of 14
Other Information (Aerial of Block and Current Appraisal Data) – 406 E. 4th St.
Page 47 of 48
Page 14 of 14
Other Information (Aerial of Block and Current Appraisal Data) – 406 E. 4th St.
Page 48 of 48