HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_03.25.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 25, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at Virtual
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 r egular me e ti ng wi ll c onve ne at 6:00pm on M ar c h 11, 2021 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: http://bit.ly/3t L Z Xv1
Webinar I D: 974-0433-0622
Passwo rd: 441686
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (346)248-7799 or Toll-F r ee : 888-475-4499
P assword: 441686
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 116
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
Page 2 of 116
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
C At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D Nomination and selec tion of Vic e-chair and S ec retary for the 2021-22 year.
E Disc ussion and possible action to approve meeting time, date and plac e for 2021-22 year.
F C ons ideration and possible action to appoint a new member to the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview
Demolition S ubc ommittee.
G C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 11, 2021 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
H P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone
approximately 0.33 acres, being all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, G las s coc k Addition, from the O ld Town
Historic O verlay zoning dis tric t to the Downtown Historic O verlay zoning dis tric t, for the property
generally loc ated at 1004 S C hurch S t (2021-1-R EZ). Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
I P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
a 6’-8” enc roachment into the required 15’-0” s ide street s etbac k, to allow a s econd-floor residential
addition 8’-4” from the s ide street (north) property line;
a 3’-4” enc roachment into the required 20’-0” front setback to reopen an enclosed porch 16’-8”
from the front (eas t) property line;
a 5’-8” building height modific ation to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the s ide street
(north) setback, to allow a dormer addition of 20’-8” at the s ide street (north) s etbac k;
and a new fence, railing or wall that is inc onsistent with the overlay district's c harac teristics and
applic able guidelines
at the property loc ated at 904 Walnut S treet, being an approximately 0.2597-acre trac t of land out of the
William Addison S urvey, Abs trac t No. 21, als o being known as a portion of Block 89, Dimmitt Addition,
an unrec orded subdivision. (2021-5-C O A) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
J Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 25, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Nomination and s election of Vice-c hair and S ecretary for the 2021-22 year.
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ommission will selec t a Vice-c hair and S ecretary for the 2021/22 year.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia. Management Analys t
Page 4 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 25, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible ac tion to approve meeting time, date and place for 2021-22 year.
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ommission will disc uss and pos s ibly approve a new meeting time, date and plac e for the 2021-22
year.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia. Management Analys t
Page 5 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 25, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Marc h 11, 2021 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 6 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: March 11, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
March 11, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: http://bit.ly/3rzSv48
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on March 11, 2021 via teleconference at:
http://bit.ly/3rzSv48. Webinar ID: 941-7668-5787. To participate by phone: Call in number: (346)
248-7799 or Toll-Free: 888-475-4499. Password: 638030. Public Comment was allowed via the
conference call number or the “ask a question” function on the video conference option; no in-
person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn; Faustine Curry; Terry
Asendorf-Hyde; Pam Mitchell; Michael Walton
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide
comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, please identify yourself by either entering your name, address and item
number on the Q/A chat on your screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3
minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a
Page 7 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: March 11, 2021
member of the public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their
name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be addressed
to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers during the public hearing
portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing
and provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing
a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The
request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient
information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the February 11, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item D by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Approved (5-0).
E. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the February 25, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item E by Commissioner Hyde. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Approved (5-0).
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Historic Landmark Designation for the
site and building located on approximately 0.1899 acres situated in the Barney C. Low Survey,
Abstract No. 385, for the property generally located at 1208 Westinghouse Road (2020-1-HL).
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting approval of a Historic Landmark
Designation for the Johnson House, which is estimated to have been constructed c. 1868 by the
J. J. Johnson family, Swedish immigrants who settled in Texas in the 1850s and began farming
their own homestead in Williamson County in 1866, with the stone two-story farmhouse located
close to what is now Westinghouse Road. The subject property is located on the south side of
Westinghouse Road, at the intersection of Westinghouse Road and Blue Ridge Drive. The house
proposed for Historic Landmark Designation is the historic J. J. Johnson House, the two-story
limestone farmhouse constructed by the Johnson family in the late 1860s. Although the historic
house has been vacant for several years, the property is still occupied as a primary residence
and farmed by the fourth generation of the J. J. Johnson family. The most prominent site feature
is the two-story limestone farmhouse facing toward the southeast. The historic house is situated
Page 8 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: March 11, 2021
within the 0.1899-acre subject property, part of a larger agricultural tract that slopes downward
toward the south and which has been planted for crops since at least the late 1860s. The City of
Georgetown recognizes that as a matter of public policy the protection, enhancement, and
perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historical and cultural importance and significance is
necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public.
Historic overlay districts are created to: • Protect and enhance the landmarks and districts
which represent distinctive elements of Georgetown's historic, architectural, and cultural
heritage; • Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past; • Protect and enhance
Georgetown's attractiveness to visitors and the support and stimulus to the economy thereby
provided; • Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the city
that is sensitive to its historic resources; • Promote economic prosperity and welfare of the
community by encouraging the most appropriate use of historic properties within the city; and
• Encourage stabilization, restoration, and improvements of such properties and their values by
offering incentives for rehabilitation and preservation. Historic Landmark Designation is a type
of zoning overlay that is applied in addition to the base zoning of the property. The purpose of
the historic landmark designation is to protect, preserve and enhance buildings or structures of
historical, architectural or cultural importance or value to the City of Georgetown. Accordingly,
exterior modifications to designated Historic Landmarks require approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness in accordance with UDC Sec. 3.13, similar to the existing Downtown and Old
Town Historic Overlay District, however in the case of a Historic Landmark the base zoning for
the property provides development standards and use restrictions for that property. As the
subject property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a rehabilitation or adaptive
reuse of the property that is found to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation would qualify to apply for state and federal historic preservation tax credits as
long as the property is income-producing. Although the local historic landmark designation
does not affect the owner’s ability to apply for the tax credits, and owner-occupied residential
properties do not qualify for the tax credits, the zoning and use of the property as a commercial
or income-producing property would potentially position a future project for the tax credits
while the local landmark designation would provide the zoning protections to maintain the
required standards for the exterior modifications to the structure during and after any proposed
rehabilitation or adaptive reuse.
Charles Johnson, the applicant, addressed the Commission and was available to answer
questions.
Logan Walters, the developer, also addressed the Commission.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-1-HL) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner
Hyde. Approved (5-0).
G. Presentation and discussion of Historic Overlay Zoning District Designation.
Staff report by Bostick. Bostick presented the process to designate, the criteria to designate,
review requirements for changes to the property for a Historic Overlay District as well as
standards specific to the Down and Old town Historic Overlay Districts.
Page 9 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: March 11, 2021
H. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Bostick explained that a Historic intern was hired.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Hyde. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved (5-0).
Meeting adjourned at 7:06pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 10 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 25, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone
approximately 0.33 ac res , being all of Lots 1 and 2, Bloc k 22, G lassc ock Addition, from the O ld Town
His toric O verlay zoning district to the Downtown His toric O verlay zoning district, for the property
generally located at 1004 S C hurc h S t (2021-1-R EZ). Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment (rezoning) to rezone the subject property
from the R es idential S ingle-F amily (R S ) zoning dis tric t to the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT ) zoning
dis tric t, whic h als o requires the s ubjec t property to be located within the Downtown his toric zoning overlay
dis tric t. T he s ubjec t property is currently located within the O ld Town his toric zoning overlay dis tric t. T he
applicant is reques ting this zoning c hange to be able to use the his toric Jesse Daniel Ames House, the
historic main s tructure on the subject property, as a day s pa.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request meets the c riteria es tablished in UDC
S ection 3.06.060 for a Historic O verlay Dis tric t, as outlined in the attac hed S taff R eport.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), all property owners and registered neighborhood
as s ociations within 300-feet of the s ubjec t property were notified of the request (21 notices mailed), a legal
notice advertis ing the public hearing was plac ed in the S un News paper on March 10, 2021 and s igns were
pos ted on-site. As of the public ation date of this report, s taff has received 0 written c omments in favor and
1 in oppos ition to the request.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Page 11 of 116
Exhibit 6 - Public Comment Backup Material
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 12 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 1 of 9
Report Date: March 19, 2021
Case No: 2021-1-REZ
Project Planner: Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 1004 Church Street Rezoning
Project Location: 1004 Church Street, within City Council district No. 6.
Total Acreage: 0.33 acres
Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, Glasscock Addition
Applicant: Halina Day Spa c/o Richard Ryan
Property Owner: Richard Ryan
Request: Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject property from the Old Town
Overlay zoning district to the Downtown Overlay zoning district.
Case History: This is the first public hearing of this request.
Page 13 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 2 of 9
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment (rezoning) to rezone the subject
property from the Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning district to the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-
DT) zoning district, which also requires the subject property to be rezoned to the Downtown historic
zoning overlay district. The subject property is currently located within the Old Town historic zoning
overlay district. The applicant is requesting this zoning change to be able to use the historic Love Daniel
Ames House, the historic main structure on the subject property, as a day spa.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located on the west side of Church Street, two blocks north of University Avenue
and directly east of Main Street Baptist Church.
Physical and Natural Features:
The subject property is the northeast quarter of a block shared with another single-family residential
property and Main Street Baptist Church. Although the site does not have distinct natural features, the
historic two-story main structure is listed as a high priority structure on the 2016 Historic Resource
Survey (HRS), and the house was once owned and occupied by Jessie Daniel Ames, the noted women’s
suffrage and civil rights advocate, as well as David Love, a merchant and civic leader whose David
Love Building, a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, is on the west side of the Courthouse Square.
Future Land Use and Zoning Designations:
The subject property has a Mixed Density Neighborhood Future Land Use designation and is currently
zoned Residential Single Family (RS). It is also located within the Old Town Overlay zoning district.
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is located along the boundary line between the Downtown and Old Town historic
zoning overlay districts, within the Old Town Overlay district. Surrounding properties include
residential properties to the east and south, a church property on the west half of the block, and a city
parking lot to the north.
The current zoning, Future Land Use designation, and existing uses of the adjacent properties to the
north, south, east and west are outlined in the table below:
DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE EXISTING USE
North MU-DT Special Area City Parking Lot
East RS Mixed Density Neighborhood Single Family Residence
South RS Mixed Density Neighborhood Single Family Residence
West MU-DT Special Area Church
Page 14 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 3 of 9
Property History:
This is the first development application for the subject property. Prior applications for this property
include residential building permits.
Comprehensive Plan Guidance
Future Land Use Map:
Mixed-Density Neighborhood (MDN)
This category includes a blend of single-family and medium-
density housing types. Medium density housing options are
consistent with and complementary to the traditional single-
family neighborhood with emphasis on connectivity and access
to neighborhood amenities including schools and parks.
Development standards for medium density housing and any
nonresidential uses are in place to ensure compatibility through
increased setbacks for taller buildings, architectural designs that
are consistent with the neighborhood, location of more intense
uses and development nearer to the edge of developments, and
enhanced landscaping. Additionally, any non-residential uses
are located primarily at arterials and other major roadway
intersections and include appropriate buffering and pedestrian orientation to support the surrounding
residents.
The Mixed-Density Neighborhood designation has been applied to the majority of the Old Town
Overlay District because this historic residential area has a mix of home types and limited,
neighborhood-scale commercial development, although the primary residential type is single-family
City Parking Lot
Main Street
Baptist Church
WILCO Tax Office
DUA: 5.1-14.0
Target Ratio: 80% residential,
20% nonresidential
Primary Use: Variety of single-family home types (detached, duplex, townhome)
Secondary Uses: Limited
neighborhood-serving retail,
office, institutional, and civic uses
Page 15 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 4 of 9
homes. Commercial areas, churches, and school campuses – which have a different designation as
Institutional – are primarily located along major roadways such as University Avenue and Austin
Avenue, although they may also be located in transition areas, such as the transition from the Old Town
Overlay District to the Downtown Overlay District. The Future Land Use Map’s Mixed-Density
Neighborhood in which the subject property is located comprises approximately 657 acres of primarily
residential use, with a relatively small percentage of commercial uses relative to the target ratio of 80%
residential and 20% nonresidential. As the subject property’s size is approximately 0.33 acres, however,
the proposed zoning change’s impact to the target ratio is minimal – less than one hundredth of a
percent.
Other Master Plans:
The Downtown Master Plan seeks to maintain the city’s unique character while maximizing
opportunities for economic development and for enhancing the quality of life for its residents. The
intent is to move the downtown area towards becoming a center of activity not only in the day, but also
at night and on weekends, by promoting a mix of commercial, entertainment, residential, and civic
uses. Creative forms of housing are encouraged, such as attached homes, “lofts,” and live-work units.
The subject property is not included in the Downtown Master Plan as is it nor presently located within
the Downtown overlay zoning district. However, it is adjacent to an area designated by the Downtown
Master Plan as the Downtown South Character Area. This area is noted to include a mix of traditional
commercial storefronts, transitional business uses and residential structures that have converted to
commercial uses, while other houses have remained in residential use. The Downtown Master Plan
recommends the development of commercial uses that support the surrounding neighborhoods, with
a mix of retail and office space that locates parking to the rear of new buildings. Recommended projects
for this character area include restaurants, multifamily housing, professional offices, and
neighborhood-based services, as well as improved sidewalks, streetscapes, and landscaping.
Additionally, due to its adjacency to the Downtown, the subject property is identified as a part of the
transition area between the concentration of civic and commercial land uses and the primarily single-
family neighborhood to the east. Properties within these transition areas offer a special opportunity for
unique design solutions to help buffer the two areas. Development that is compatible in design and
scale with abutting residential uses is especially important, as is providing places that serve nearby
residents while utilizing measures to mitigate impacts of new uses. Where applicable, new building
designs should draw upon residential forms, have variation in massing, and maintain view
opportunities and pedestrian circulation through blocks.
It should also be noted the Downtown Master Plan recommends that development along the edges of
the Downtown Overlay District should be sensitive to the existing established residential
neighborhoods to the east. Some compatible redevelopment, such as repurposing existing single family
homes into professional offices or restaurants, can provide appropriate transitional uses similar to those
already existing in other transition areas, such as further north along Church Street. Other transitional
uses such as Bed and Breakfast establishments, professional offices and light commercial uses can be
considered if the architectural design is context sensitive and responds to the surrounding residential
character.
Page 16 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 5 of 9
Proposed Zoning district
Downtown Overlay District
The City of Georgetown recognizes that as a matter of public policy the protection, enhancement, and
perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historical and cultural importance and significance is
necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public. Historic
overlay districts are created to:
• Protect and enhance the landmarks and districts which represent distinctive elements of
Georgetown's historic, architectural, and cultural heritage;
• Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past;
• Protect and enhance Georgetown's attractiveness to visitors and the support and stimulus to the
economy thereby provided;
• Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the city that is
sensitive to its historic resources;
• Promote economic prosperity and welfare of the community by encouraging the most
appropriate use of historic properties within the city; and
• Encourage stabilization, restoration, and improvements of such properties and their values by
offering incentives for rehabilitation and preservation.
The Downtown Overlay District is intended to protect the aesthetic and visual character of the Town
Square and downtown Georgetown through the establishment of two distinct zones, designated as
Area 1 (Town Square Historic District) and Area 2 (remainder of the Downtown Overlay District). The
standards for review of projects in the Downtown Overlay District include application of the
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines through the Certificate of Appropriateness application
process.
Intergovernmental and Interdepartmental Review
The proposed rezoning request was reviewed by all applicable City Departments to determine the
appropriateness of the requested zoning on the subject property. No comments were issued regarding
the zoning request.
Approval Criteria
Staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning request and has found that it complies with the criteria
established in UDC Section 3.06.060 for a Historic Overlay District, as outlined below:
HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT APPROVAL CRITERIA
1. Character, interest, or value of the structures, sites or area because of
their unique role in the development, heritage or cultural
characteristics of the City, County, State or Nation.
Complies
The subject property has one of the oldest know residential structures in Georgetown, which is
estimated to have been constructed in 1867. According to public records, David Love bought the
east half of Block 22 of the Glasscock Addition from Alfred S. Harbin on August 24, 1867and died
in 1892. His wife Mary died in 1905, and their heirs sold the property to A. P. Johnson in 1909.
Although the HRS notes an estimated construction date of 1890 for the house, further research and
Page 17 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 6 of 9
HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT APPROVAL CRITERIA
analysis of the style of the house suggest that the house was constructed as early as 1867, which
would make it one of the oldest structures in Georgetown. Jessie Daniel Ames bought the house
from her mother, Laura Daniel, in 1932 and sold it two years later. Public records indicate that the
Daniel-Ames family owned the subject property from 1915 to 1934, and that during that time both
Laura Daniel and Jessie Daniel Ames both took out building loans. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of
Georgetown indicate that the style of the house as well as the E 10th Street porch and rear two-story
porch changed between 1900 and 1905, during the time of the Love family’s ownership. The maps
also indicate that between 1910 and 1916 the south half of the lot was sold for the construction of a
new house at 1006 S Church Street, and the porch was removed from the north side of the house on
the subject property. The house changed chape again between 1925 and 1940 with the removal of
the rear porches and one-story addition, and addition of first and second floor area that changed
the shape of the house from an “L” to a more rectangular shape, with a porch added back on the E
10th Street facade.
The association with owners who were known to have operated businesses in Downtown
Georgetown – David Love, who owned a mercantile on the west side of the Square, and Laura
Daniel and Jessie Daniel Ames, who owned and operated the Georgetown Independent Telephone
Company – as well as the age and style of the house, including its evolution over time, all played a
unique role in the development and heritage as well as historic characteristics of Georgetown. Per
UDC Sec. 4.04.050.B, historic overlay districts are created to protect and enhance the landmarks and
districts which represent distinctive elements of Georgetown's historic, architectural, and cultural
heritage; protect and enhance Georgetown's attractiveness to visitors and the support and stimulus
to the economy thereby provided; and ensure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and
development of the city that is sensitive to its historic resources, among other goals. Additionally,
the Downtown Overlay District is intended to protect the aesthetic and visual character of the
Town Square and downtown Georgetown, and inclusion within the Downtown Overlay District
would provide those protections.
2. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the structures, sites or area. Does Not Comply
The subject property is not known to have had the occurrence of a notable historical event.
3. Identification of the structures, sites, or area with a person or persons
who contributed notably to the culture and development of the City,
County, State, or Nation.
Complies
The subject property has had at least two notable owners:
1. David M. Love, born in South Carolina in 1821, had moved to Texas circa(?) 1848 and was
one of the signatories for the petition to create Williamson County from Milam County. He
and his second wife, Mary, a native of Missouri, farmed and ranched in Williamson County
before moving into Georgetown, where they constructed their home at the corner of Church
and 10th Streets (Orange Street at the time), in which they raised their large family. David
opened a mercantile business on the Square, constructing a two-story stone building on the
west side of the Square that is still known as the David Love building. The structure was
Page 18 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 7 of 9
HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT APPROVAL CRITERIA
designated a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark in 1988. Prior to his death in 1892, David
Love was part of the group that funded and organized the Georgetown Railroad Company
and served in other business and civic capacities. He is buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery
in Georgetown. The Love family owned the house on Church Street until 1909, when it was
purchased by A P Johnson.
2. Jessie Harriet Daniel Ames was the founder and first president of the Texas League of
Women Voters. Born in Palestine, Texas in 1883, she attended the Ladies Annex at
Southwestern University beginning at the age of thirteen. After completing her Bachelor of
Arts degree in 1902 she moved with her family to Laredo, where she met and married army
surgeon Roger Post Ames. Her husband served as a doctor in Central America until his
death in 1914 from a tropical disease, and Jessie and her three children lived with her
parents and sister until her father’s death in 1911, after which she worked with her mother
to run their Georgetown Independent Telephone Company. Jessie’s father had been the
I&GN Railroad station agent and owner and manager of the telephone company. Jessie
organized the Georgetown Equal Suffrage League in 1916 and wrote a women’s suffrage
column for the Williamson County Sun. She led efforts for Texas to be the first southern
state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution and founded and served as the
first president of the Texas League of Women Voters, an organization that continues to this
day. Her civic and advocacy work continued with anti-lynching advocacy throughout Texas
and the southern US, and she founded the Association of Southern Women for the
Prevention of Lynching in 1930, after moving to Atlanta, Texas in 1929. She retired in 1944
and moved to North Carolina but returned to Georgetown in 1968, where she lived until her
death in 1972. She is buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery in Georgetown. According to
public records Jessie’s mother, Laura, bought the Love’s house from A P and Cora Johnson
in 1915, and Laura sold the house to Jessie in 1932. Jessie owned the house until December
1934.
4. Embodiment in multiple buildings in a site, or area under
consideration of distinctive elements of architectural design, detail
material, or craftsmanship related to a uniqueness to the area, or the
related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a
style or innovation, including but not limited to:
a. Scale of buildings and structures typical of the area;
b. Architectural style of the buildings and structures;
c. Architectural period of the buildings and structures;
d. Building materials typical of the area;
e. Colors and textures used in the buildings and structures
typical of the area;
f. Typical relationships of buildings in the area to the street;
g. Setbacks and other physical patterns of buildings in the area;
h. Typical patterns of rooflines of buildings in the area; or
i. Typical patterns of porch and entrance treatments of buildings
in the area.
Partially Complies
Page 19 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 8 of 9
HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT APPROVAL CRITERIA
The subject property’s high priority historic structure is a two-story Folk Victorian house, a style
that was popular in the US from around 1870 to 1910. Folk Victorian houses were a simpler, early
form of the well-known Queen Anne Victorian style, and the Folk styles were known to be more
symmetrical, have simpler ornaments and usually constructed of wood. Some examples of Folk
Victorian could also have more distinctive wood details, particular at porches and eaves, or have
front gables or decorative windows and L-shaped floor plans. The Folk Victorian style, which pre-
dated the arrival of the railroad in Georgetown and access to more decorative building elements,
meant that even large residential structures were constructed with more simple designs and details
than the later Queen Anne houses that are well-known in Georgetown’s historic districts.
Based on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and Historic Resource Survey photos, the house has had
several exterior alterations over the years, with substantial additions and alterations made between
1900 and 1940. Those alterations included the addition of bay windows, changes to the porches and
additional living area that would have “modernized” the house, bringing it from the mid-19th
century into a time of electricity, indoor plumbing and automobiles. The second-floor porches
currently visible on the street facades were added after 1984.
Although the Downtown Overlay District is primarily commercial structures and properties today,
at the time this structure was built residential properties were within a block of the Courthouse
Square, which was the commercial district. Maps and photographs show that by the 1920s and
1930s commercial, religious, and school properties had developed further outside of the boundaries
of the nine blocks surrounding the Courthouse to the south, but it was not until the middle of the
20th century that many of the residential structures in today’s Downtown Overlay District were
replaced by commercial structures and uses. Many of the residential structures that were removed
were some of the oldest residential structures in the Town of Georgetown and were part of the
early development of Georgetown.
This structure is estimated by staff to have been constructed less than two decades after the
founding of Georgetown. It serves as an important reminder of the architectural styles and
materials of the past, prior to the well-recognized Victorian style structures that were constructed
following the arrival of the railroad. Its association historically, however, would have been with a
residential neighborhood and district rather than the commercial district a couple of blocks away.
The expansion of the Downtown commercial district over the decades has altered the context of this
historic structure, which is indicated by the current placement of the Downtown and Old Town
Overlay boundary line. Because of this, this residential structure has been included in the primarily
residential Old Town Overlay. The Future Land Use and Zoning Maps, which designates this half
of the block as Medium Density Neighborhood and Residential Single Family rather than Special
Area and Mixed-Use Downtown, also contribute to the residential character of this property.
5. Archaeological value in the sense that the structures, sites, or area
have produced or can be expected to yield, based on physical
evidence, information affecting knowledge of historic or prehistory.
Does Not Comply
The subject property is not anticipated to yield archaeological value.
Page 20 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
2021-1-REZ
1004 Church Street Rezoning Page 9 of 9
In summary, the request to include the subject property within the Downtown Overlay District is
generally consistent with the approval criteria for a historic overlay district, complying with two of the
five criteria and partially complying with one of the criteria for approval. The structure is significant
because of its construction period and architectural design and materials, and for its association with
two notable Georgetown residents, David Love and Jessie Daniel Ames. By continuing the subject
property’s inclusion in the Downtown Overlay district, the Design Guidelines and Certificate of
Appropriateness application review process will remain in place to protect the historic Love Daniel
Ames House and provide guidance for any proposed future exterior changes to the property.
Meetings Schedule
March 25, 2021 – Historic and Architectural Review Commission
April 6, 2021 – Planning and Zoning Commission
April 27, 2021 – City Council First Reading of the Ordinance
May 11, 2021 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Public Notification
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners and registered neighborhood
associations within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Zoning Map
Amendment request (21 notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper March 10, 2021 and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written
comments in favor, and 1 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 7).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 6 – Public Comment
Page 21 of 116
Location
2021-1-REZ
Exhibit #1
W 10TH ST
W 11TH ST
WUNIVERSITYAVE
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
ELM
S
T
W 9TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
E 11TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
RO
C
K
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 22 of 116
Mixed Density
Neighborhood
Special Area
Parks and
Recreation
Parks and
Recreation
W 10TH ST
W 11TH ST
WUNIVERSITYAVE
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
ELM
S
T
W 9TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
E 11TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
RO
C
K
S
T
FM
1
4
6
0
BOOTYSCROSSINGRD
SUNCI T Y BLVD
WIL
LIA
M
S
D
R
NAWGRIMESBLVD
LEAND
E
R
R
D
UNIVERSITYBLVD
SAMHOUSTONAVE
CHANDLERRD
SHELL
R
D
LIMMER LOOP
N A USTINAVELAKEWAYDR
WUNIVERSITYAVE
SAUSTINAVE
CR 105
EUNIVERSITYAVE
SU
N
R
I
S
E
R
D
CR
175
WESTINGHOUSE RD
CR112
FM 971
NEINNERLOOP
CR
1
1
0
DELWE BBBLVD
SEINNERL O OP
D B
W
O
O
D
R
D
P AT RIOTWAY
RO
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
BE
L
L
G
I
N
R
D
SOUTHWES
T
E
RNBLVD
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
¯0 200100
Feet
Future Land Use/
Overall Transportation
Plan
2021-1-REZ
Exhibit #2
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Future Land Use
Community Center
Employment Center
Institutional
Mining
Mixed Density Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Open Space
Parks and Recreation
Regional Center
Rural Residential
Special Area
Thoroughfare
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Collector
Proposed Freeway
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Collector
\Proposed Rail
Page 23 of 116
RS RS
RS
RS RS
RS RS RS RS
RS
RS RS
RS
RS RS
OF
OF
OF
MU-DTMU-DTMU-DT MU-DT
MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT
MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT
MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT
MU-DT
MU-DT
MU-DT
MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT MU-DT
W 10TH ST
W 11TH ST
W UNIVERSITY AVE
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
ELM
S
T
W 9TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
E 11TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
RO
C
K
S
T
FM
1
4
6
0
BOOTYSCROSSINGRD
SUNCI T Y BLVD
WILLIA
M
S
D
R
NAWGRIMESBLVD
LEAND
E
R
R
D
RM2243
UNIVERSITYBLVD
SAMHOUSTONAVE
CHANDLERRD
SHELL
R
D
LIMMER LOOP
N A USTINAVELAKEWAYDR
WUNIVERSITYAVE
SAUSTINAVE
CR 105
EUNIVERSITYAVE
C
R
175
WESTINGHOUSE RD
CR112
FM 971
NEINNERLOOP
CR
1
1
0
DELWE BBBLVD
SEINNERL O OP
D B
W
O
O
D
R
D
P AT RIOTWAY
RO
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
BEL
L
G
I
N
R
D
SOUTHWES
T
E
RNBLVD
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
¯0 200100
Feet
2021-1-REZ
Exhibit #3
Site
PUD
City Limits
Courthouse View Overlay
Old Town Overlay
Historic Overlay
Downtown Overlay
SPO Overlay
Gateway Overlay
Parcels
Georgetown ETJ
Zoning
AG -Agriculture
BP - Business Park
C-1 - Local Commercial
C-3 - General Commercial
CN - Neighborhood Commercial
IN - Industrial
MF-1 - Low-Density Multi-family
MF-2 - High-Density Multi-family
MH - Manufactured Housing
MU-DT - Mixed-Use Downtown
OF - Office
PF - Public Facility
RE - Residential Estate
RL - Residential Low-Density
RS - Residential Single-Family
TF -Two-Family
TH -Townhouse
Zoning
Page 24 of 116
1. County Williamson
City/Rurai Georgetown
2. Name Love-Daniel-Ames House
WM
GE
Address 1004 Church
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
5. USGS Quad No 3097-313 Site No 304
UTM Sector
6 Date: Factual
7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner Vi rginia Engelbrecht 8 Style/Type vernacular
Address 1009 Church_ 9. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Masscock/Blk. 21/Lot 8 Present Use religious
10. Description Two-story wood frame dwelling w/ modified L-plan; exterior walls w/ weatherboard
siding: gable roof w/ composition shingles; exposed rafter ends; front elev. taces E.;
exterior brick chimney: wood sash double-hung windows w/ 4/4 lights and crown modling;
primary -ingle-dnor entrance on E. elev.; secondary, single-doorc entrance on N. elev.;)
11. Present Condition fair; severely altered--porch changed; additions
12. Significance Primary areas of significance: a rchitecture and association w/ prominent
indlividual: an example of a two-story L-plan dwelling w/ Victorian details. former home
of David Tove, mprrhant and rivic leader during late nineteenth & early twentieth centuries.
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site A (describe)
14. Bibliography Tay rolls, Sanborn Maps. 15. Informant
GHS files 16. Recorder A. Taylor /HHM Date July 1984
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TNRIS No. Slid THC Code B&W 4x5s 2 - 1976 Slides
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME NR: q Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
9 12
40 29 40 33
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE No _2__.
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM - TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
t County
City/Rural
2. Name
#10.
Williamson 3097-313 5. USGS Quad No. Site No 504
Georgetown
three-bay porch w/ shed roof on E. elev.;
elev.; two-story box supports on both porches.
David Love House
Description (cont'd): two-story
two-story, one-bay porch on N.
Other noteworthy features include one-story window bay on E. & W. elev.; barge boards
w/ turned spindles on N. & E. gables ends; jig-sawn rafter ends; trellis addition
extending toward W.; diamond-shaped cutouts on shelters.
#12. Former home of Jessie Daniel Ames, a prominent supporter of voting rights for
women; Ames was very active in women's voting rights on a national level.
Est 18W/1940
626-3389
Page 25 of 116
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1004 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:124677
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R327905Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1890
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:818
ID:504
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name Love-Daniel-Ames House
ID:124677 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.634711 Longitude -97.676242
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Southwest
Page 26 of 116
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1004 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:124677
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SouthPhoto Direction
WestPhoto Direction
Page 27 of 116
Letter of intent for 1004 Church St Georgetown Tx.
Date 2-24-2021
This is a formal request to change the zoning from residential to mixed use. The property will be further
improved by providing gardens, lighting that promotes safety and a beautification of the facility within
historic period design.
The property is .33 acres and is 2 city lots
This change is consistent with the long term vison to maintain the historic heritage while developing
Georgetown. It fits in nicely with 2035 interactive map.
The change will promote health, safety and welfare by the preservation and upgrade of landscape and
lighting.
The zoning change is compatible with present zoning and should fit in nicely with future plans.
The property to be rezoned will be upgrade to suitability for uses granted by council and the district.
I am excited to be able to offer more commercial business in the Georgetown area to help promote
continued commerce growth in the city.
Given the foot print of the lot I am confident that we can create a plan that would accommodate the 7
required parking spots. It would be nice to only need 4 or 5 given the public access across the street so
we can hold the and enhance the beautification of the property.
Thank you for your consideration
Richard Ryan
Page 28 of 116
Page 29 of 116
11
1004 Church Street Rezoning
2021-1-REZ
Historic & Architectural Review CommissionMarch 25, 2021
Page 30 of 116
2
Item Under Consideration
2021-1-REZ
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone approximately 0.33 acres, being all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, Glasscock Addition, from the Old Town Historic Overlay zoning district to the Downtown Historic Overlay zoning district, for the property generally located at 1004 S Church St.
Page 31 of 116
3
Main Street Baptist
Church
City Parking Lot
WILCO Tax Office
Page 32 of 116
4
Main Street Baptist
Church
City Parking Lot
WILCO Tax Office
Page 33 of 116
5
Main Street Baptist
Church
City Parking Lot
WILCO Tax Office
Page 34 of 116
6
Main Street Baptist
Church
City Parking Lot
WILCO Tax Office
Page 35 of 116
7
DUA: 5.1-14.0
Target Ratio: 80% residential, 20% nonresidential
Primary Use: Variety of single-family home types (detached, duplex, townhome)
Secondary Uses: Limited neighborhood-serving retail, office, institutional, and civic uses
Mixed Density Neighborhood (MDN)
•Provides for a variety of housing types within a traditional neighborhood
•Duplexes, townhomes, quadplexes, or potentially moderate density multi-family
•Compatibility between housing types can be achieved through development standards like lot size, setbacks, and building design
•Transitions of land uses and connectivity to neighborhood serving commercial is encouraged
Page 36 of 116
8
Downtown Overlay District
•The Downtown Overlay District is intended to protect the aesthetic and visual character of the Town Square and downtown Georgetown through the establishment of two distinct zones, designated as Area 1 (Town Square Historic District) and Area 2 (remainder of the Downtown Overlay District).
Development Standards
•Max building height = 40’
•Buildings along Austin Ave = 2
stories in height
•Setbacks = 0’
•Up to 90% impervious cover
•No parking minimums in Area 1
•1:500 parking ratio in Area 2
•Signs require approval of a COA
Page 37 of 116
9
1004 Church Street –Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Georgetown –the 1900 map is on the left and the 1905 map is on the right, showing the house during the Love family’s ownership.
Page 38 of 116
10
1004 Church Street –Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Georgetown –the 1910 map is on the left and the 1916 map is on the right, showing changes to the property from 1910 to 1916.
Page 39 of 116
11
1004 Church Street –Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Georgetown –the 1925 map is on the left and the 1940 map on the right, indicating the changes made by the Daniel-Ames family.
Page 40 of 116
12
1004 Church Street –c. 1934
Photo courtesy Special Collections at Southwestern UniversityPage 41 of 116
13
1004 Church Street –1976
Photo courtesy Texas Historical Commission Page 42 of 116
14
1004 Church Street –1984 Historic Resource Survey
Page 43 of 116
15
1004 Church Street –Current Church Street Facade
Page 44 of 116
16
1004 Church Street –Current E. 10th Street Facade
Page 45 of 116
17
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.06.060
Criteria for Rezoning Complies PartiallyComplies Does Not Comply
Character, interest, or value of the structures, sites or area because of their unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, County, State or Nation;
X
Occurrence of a notable historical event at the structures, sites or area;X
Identification of the structures, sites, or area with a person or persons who contributed notably to the culture and development of the City, County, State, or Nation;
X
Page 46 of 116
18
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.06.060
Criteria for Rezoning Complies Partially Complies Does Not Comply
Embodiment in multiple buildings in a site, or area under consideration of distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship related to a uniqueness to the area, or the related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not limited to:1.Scale of buildings and structures typical of the area;2.Architectural style of the buildings and structures;3.Architectural period of the buildings and structures;4.Building materials typical of the area;5.Colors and textures used in the buildings and structures typical of the area;6.Typical relationships of buildings in the area to the street;7.Setbacks and other physical patterns of buildings in the area;8.Typical patterns of rooflines of buildings in the area; or9.Typical patterns of porch and entrance treatments of buildings in the area.
X
Page 47 of 116
19
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.06.060
Criteria for Rezoning Complies Partially Complies Does Not Comply
Archaeological value in the sense that the structures, sites, or area have produced or can be expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of historic or prehistory.
X
Page 48 of 116
20
Public Notifications
•21 property owners within the 300’ buffer
•Notice in Sun News on March 10, 2021
•Signs posted on the property
•To date, staff has received:
•0 written comments IN FAVOR
•1 written comments OPPOSED
Page 49 of 116
24
Summary
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone approximately 0.33 acres, being all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, Glasscock Addition, from the Old Town Historic Overlay zoning district to the Downtown Historic Overlay zoning district, for the property generally located at 1004 S Church St.
•Per UDC Section 3.06.020.D, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall hold a Public Hearing… and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Page 50 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 25, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
a 6’-8” encroac hment into the required 15’-0” side s treet setback, to allow a sec ond-floor res idential
addition 8’-4” from the side s treet (north) property line;
a 3’-4” encroac hment into the required 20’-0” front s etbac k to reopen an enc los ed porc h 16’-8”
from the front (east) property line;
a 5’-8” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side s treet
(north) s etbac k, to allow a dormer addition of 20’-8” at the side s treet (north) setback;
and a new fenc e, railing or wall that is incons is tent with the overlay dis tric t's characteris tic s and
applicable guidelines
at the property located at 904 Walnut S treet, being an approximately 0.2597-ac re tract of land out of the
William Addis on S urvey, Abstract No. 21, also being known as a portion of Bloc k 89, Dimmitt Addition,
an unrecorded s ubdivis ion. (2021-5-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p licant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val fo r a garage and living spac e additio n on the ground floor
and the ad d ition of dormer wind o ws and a larger staircase fo r the s ec o nd floor o f the ho use. As the low-
priority his to ric hous e is pres ently encroac hing into the s ide s treet setb ack, the addition of o ne o f the
dormers requires HAR C approval of a s etbac k modific ation. Additio nally, the applic ant is reques ting
HAR C ap p ro val o f a setb ack encroac hment for the enclosed front p o rch so that the p o rch c an be opened
back up and the enc lo s ure removed . T here is no ad d itional fo o tprint propos ed for the front porc h, b ut the
existing porc h encroac hes into the front setb ack. T he ap p licant is als o req uesting HAR C approval of a 4’
tall front and side yard fenc e in a wood p icket s tyle. T he reques t fo r a 4’ fenc e height rather than the
s tandard 3’ height is so that the fence can meet the height requirements to serve as a pool enc los ure.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request meets 5 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in
UDC S ec tion 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in the attached S taff R eport.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), two (2) s igns were posted on-s ite. As of the
public ation date of this report, s taff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in oppos ition of the
request.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
Page 51 of 116
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 Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 52 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 1 of 10
Meeting Date: March 25, 2021
File Number: 2021-5-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
• a 6’-8” encroachment into the required 15’-0” side street setback, to allow a second-floor
residential addition 8’-4” from the side street (north) property line;
• a 3’-4” encroachment into the required 20’-0” front setback to reopen an enclosed porch 16’-8”
from the front (east) property line;
• a 5’-8” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side
street (north) setback, to allow a dormer addition of 20’-8” at the side street (north) setback;
• and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines
at the property located at 904 Walnut Street, being an approximately 0.2597-acre tract of land out of the
William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, also being known as a portion of Block 89, Dimmitt Addition,
an unrecorded subdivision.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: The Balck-Palmo Residence
Applicant: J. Bryant Boyd
Property Owner: Nina J. Palmo and Ralph E. Balck
Property Address: 904 Walnut Street
Legal Description: 0.2597 acres, being the northeast part of Block 89, Dimmit Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1910 (HRS), public records suggest 1914
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modification (for second floor addition)
Setback modification (to reopen front porch)
A new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines (4’ tall fence for pool area)
Page 53 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 2 of 10
HPO:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade
Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to original condition
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a garage and living space addition on the ground floor
and the addition of dormer windows and a larger staircase for the second floor of the house. As the low-
priority historic house is presently encroaching into the side street setback, the addition of one of the
dormers requires HARC approval of a setback modification. Additionally, the applicant is requesting
HARC approval of a setback encroachment for the enclosed front porch so that the porch can be opened
back up and the enclosure removed. There is no additional footprint proposed for the front porch, but
the existing porch encroaches into the front setback. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval of
a 4’ tall front and side yard fence in a wood picket style. The request for a 4’ fence height rather than the
standard 3’ height is so that the fence can meet the height requirements to serve as a pool enclosure.
According to public records, P. C. and Mary Harty gifted the northeast one-fourth of Block 89 of the
Dimmitt Addition to their son, W. R. Harty on September 23, 1913. They gifted the lot south of this lot to
their son Charles the following day. W. R. Harty and his wife Pearl hired the Belford Lumber Company
the following month to construct their new home. The Hartys sold their home to F. D. Love and E. M.
Edens on August 9, 1917 for cash and the assumption of the debt on the property and moved to a 175-
acre homestead in Milam County.
Although the house is not visible in the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, being located just outside of
the map boundary, it does appear on the 1925 and 1940 maps with a small accessory structure. The maps
show a full-width front porch, which was enclosed by 1984. A small addition was made to the rear for a
water heater closet, and a dormer was added to the rear for a second-floor window. The property
currently has a prefabricated metal carport and a few accessory structures. The house was listed on the
2016 Historic Resource Survey as a low priority structure, therefore changes to the exterior are reviewed
by the Historic Preservation Officer. The proposed setback modifications and building height
modification, as well as approval of a 48” tall front yard fence, are reviewed by the Historic &
Architectural Review Commission.
The proposed project would remove the carport and accessory structures, which are not historic, and
construct a new addition to the rear of the historic main structure for a garage and additional living
space, as well as to construct a new stairwell to access the second floor. The current second floor appears
to be converted attic space, with a narrow staircase constructed toward the rear of the house. The first
floor is 1,790 sq. ft. and the second floor is 1,030 sq. ft. The existing accessory structures including the
carport total 790 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing to then construct an approximately 1,300 sq. ft.
addition, to include a garage, living space and stairwell to access the second floor. The addition is
proposed to be to the rear and side of the historic main structure and does not require setback or building
height modifications. The proposed materials for the addition are a horizontal lapped fiber cement
siding, asphalt shingle roof, and fiber composite single hung windows with a 1/1 pattern.
Page 54 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 3 of 10
To improve the second floor living space the applicant is also requesting approval for the addition of two
dormers, one of which would encroach into the side street setback, as the footprint of the existing historic
structure currently encroaches into the side street setback by more than ten feet. The proposed dormers
do not project past the roof eaves. The street-facing dormer would also require approval of a building
height modification due to the eave height and location of the dormer. The dormers are proposed to have
standing seam metal roofs with the same fiber cement siding and windows as the addition.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a setback modification to alter the current enclosed
front porch so that the porch can be reopened to its original condition. The porch encroaches 3’-4” into
the front 20’-0” setback, and was enclosed for living space prior to 1984, as indicated in the 1984 Historic
Resource Survey. The project drawings show porch columns and railing compatible with the
architectural style and character of the main structure and propose to retain the existing siding on the
front façade.
The proposed project includes a pool area, which must be enclosed by a min. 48” tall fence. The applicant
is proposing to construct a wood picket fence with 50% transparency in two parts – a 36” tall section
along the E. 9 ½ Street property line, and a 48” tall section along the Walnut Street property line, which
would be divided by an internal fence and gate at the northeast corner of the property. Front and side
yard fences taller than 36” require approval by 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 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.25 A new fence may be considered in
transitional areas with a residential context.
A fence that defines a front yard should be low
to the ground and “transparent” in nature.
A front yard fence should not exceed three feet
in height.
Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views
into front yards and are inappropriate.
Chain link, concrete block, unfaced concrete,
plastic, solid metal panel, fiberglass, plywood,
and mesh construction fences are not
appropriate.
A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its
front yard counterpart may be considered. See
UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards.
Partially Complies
Proposed wood picket fence is 50%
transparent but a portion of the fence is
proposed to be 48” tall to comply with safety
requirements for swimming pools.
Page 55 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 4 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The applicant is proposing to retain the
existing wood siding and to install a similar
fiber cement horizontal lapped siding for the
garage and living area and dormer
additions.
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 or period of
significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier
period than that of the building are
inappropriate.
Complies
The applicant is proposing to reopen the
front porch and bring the front façade closer
to its original state. The roof materials are not
historic and are not damaged by the dormer
additions. The rear and side addition
proposes to minimize alterations to the street
façade and do not hinder the ability to
interpret the design character of the original
building.
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.
Complies
The addition is proposed to replace some of
the existing non-historic accessory structures
and is approximately 400 sq. ft. smaller than
or 74% of the current first floor square
footage. The proposed materials and style
are compatible with the existing historic
structure and character.
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 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 new trim board at the
connection point between the addition and
Complies
The addition is proposed to be to the rear
and side of the main structure which leave
the front and side street facades prominent,
and the proposed dormer additions use a
different roof material to distinguish them as
later additions.
Page 56 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 5 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
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.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building
or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impacts.
This will allow the original proportions
and character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a
structure is usually inappropriate.
Complies
The addition is proposed to be to the rear of
the main structure and set back from both
street facades.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with
the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic
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
Complies
The proposed addition represents a change
to the site and an expansion of the building
footprint. The addition is proposed to nearly
double the first-floor area of the house by
including a garage and living space, as well
as new stair. However, the additional
footprint is proposed to replace existing
structures that are less compatible with the
historic structure and is balanced against the
reopening of the enclosed front porch, which
improves character and style of the structure
by returning a key feature of the front façade.
The addition is also proposed as a single
story, with the addition of dormers to the
existing second floor living area not
changing the overall height of the structure.
The proposed materials and character are
different from but compatible with the main
structure and do not compete with the
primary façade.
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 may be more appropriate for
commercial buildings.
Complies
The historic structure has a hip roof and the
addition is proposed to have a hip roof with
gables. The dormers are proposed to have
shed roofs. The combination of roof styles
have similar slopes and materials.
Page 57 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 6 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of
the addition should be similar.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project requires two setback
modifications, a building height
modification and approval of a 4’ tall front
yard fence.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The proposed addition does create new
spatial relationships on the site but is
compatible with and differentiated from the
historic structure. One of the key spatial
relationships of the site is the close proximity
of the house to the side street, which is not
altered by the proposed addition. The
reopening of the front porch restores a key
Page 58 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 7 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
architectural feature of the house as well as
the relationship of the house to the street.
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 project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The subject property was discovered in the
application process to be a Belford house,
which is a significant aspect of the house
given the role the builder played in the
development of Georgetown’s historic
overlay districts. The proposed project
improves the front façade by reopening the
front porch and retains key features and
street facades while locating the main
addition to the rear and interior side of the
lot. The proposed dormer additions in lieu of
more substantial changes to the roof retain
the overall form and scale of the historic
main structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed additions are compatible with
surrounding properties in the Old Town
Overlay District.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
to allow for the addition of a dormer
Page 59 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 8 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
above a portion of the historic structure
that is already encroaching into the
setback, and to allow for alterations to
open the original front porch back up to
be used as an open porch rather than an
enclosed living space.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments do
not add additional building footprint.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The proposed setback modifications are
for a dormer addition over an existing
encroachment for a portion of the historic
structure and for modifications to the
existing historic porch and are
compatible and in context with the
surrounding block.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments do
not add additional building footprint or
encroach further toward the street than
the existing encroachments of the historic
structure.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures have been removed or 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 have been removed or 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 have been removed or are
being replaced.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
Proposed dormer addition creating the
new encroachment is scaled to the
original historic structure and is a size
and location compatible with the style of
the residential structure.
Page 60 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 9 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The proposed dormer addition and porch
modifications that require the setback
encroachments do not change the size of
the existing historic structure.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
not anticipated to negatively impact
adjacent properties or the ability to
maintain existing buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
for front and side street setbacks and
leave adequate space for maintenance as
well as do not enable the encroachment of
structures near adjacent properties.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or significant features of
the lot are proposed to be preserved.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not impact any
views to or from the Courthouse or to or
from the Town Square Historic District.
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is not located within or
adjacent to the Downtown Overlay
District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Complies
The proposed building height
modification is for the addition of a
dormer feature and does not change the
overall height of the historic structure or
the relationship of the proposed project to
the existing structures in the immediate
vicinity.
Page 61 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-5-COA – 904 Walnut Street Page 10 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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
Proposed project is not located within or
adjacent to the Downtown Overlay
District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
Proposed project is not located within or
adjacent to the Downtown Overlay
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the
request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 62 of 116
Location
2021-5-COA
Exhibit #1
SCOLLEGEST
WALNUTST
ASH
S
T
E 7TH ST
PIN
E
S
T
E 8TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
E 8TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
E 9TH 1/2 ST
E 9TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 63 of 116
1
City of Georgetown
Planning and Development Services/HARC
Georgetown, TX 78626
HARC Submission for CoA
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
February 12th, 2021
The Project Scope Summary:
This application is for a CoA relating to the remodeling and addition to the existing structure at 904 South Walnut Street. The
home was originally built in 1910. The style of the original home is a minimal traditional, and it is currently classified as Low Priority
in the 2016 survey.
The home is in a state of disrepair, and was recently bought with the hopes of restoring and improving the appearance and usa bil-
ity of the house and property as a whole. In order to enhance the historic qualities of the house, the enclosed front porch will be
reopened to restore it to it’s original condition, with the addition of style appropriate square columns and a new, safer stair leading
up to it. The rear facing dormer (which is not original to the house) will be enlarged and extended in order to house the ne w interi-
or staircase. This new staircase will be a replacement for the substandard existing stair, which is in need of replacement a s it lacks
a railing, and is narrower and steeper than allowable by code. Upstairs currently houses 2 long narrow bedrooms and a small bath-
room with sloping ceilings. The bathroom will be relocated and enlarged, and 2 dormers will be added to extend out each side of
the house in order to improve upon the features and usability of the bedroom spaces. The existing ceiling windows in each be d-
room will be replaced with 3 single hung style-appropriate windows as a means of egress. The 9 1/2 Street-facing dormer will ex-
tend over the building setback line by 5 feet, and we request a setback modification for this dormer, as it is not altering t he foot-
print of the original building and will act as an architectural feature that is characteristic of the original building style .
To create more usable space, the various accessory buildings scattered around the site will be removed, and in their place a 1556
SF addition to the rear of the existing house will be built that will include a study, guest suite, and pool bath, along with a double
garage and shop space to replace the existing carport. The connection point between the existing and new structures will consist
of a back door and mud area, and construction will include the removal of the non -original water heater closet and shed roof at the
rear of the house, with the existing rear covered porch being rebuilt in a similar configuration. The addition will replace the carport
and 3 accessory buildings on the site. It is located on the Southeast corner of the lot, farthest away from the street front s, and will
be single story in order to minimize the visual impact on the site. Both the style and materials will be picked to match tho se of the
existing house and to enhance the stylistic continuity of the home.
The existing windows are of various styles making it difficult to confirm if they are original or truly historic in nature. New windows
will be Andersen composite fiberglass (100 Series). The lite patterns and configuration will reflect the original architectural style of
the home. The roof of the existing structure is currently comprised of composite shingles. New roofing material for the main struc-
ture will be composition shingles while roofing material over the North and South facing dormers and the rear facing porch will be
Snaplock galvalume metal. The main exterior color will be Pineapple Cream (SW 1668) and the trim will be Classic Light Buff (SW
0050). These colors are reflected in the renderings in this package.
The overall intent of this project is to improve upon the appearance, usability and historic nature of the home, while extend ing
both the indoor and outdoor living spaces of the home and lot. The overall style will remain the same and will be rounded ou t with
the addition of architectural details appropriate with the overall style.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC.
Sincerely,
Page 64 of 116
2
AERIAL VIEW
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 65 of 116
3
VIEW OF FRONT FROM SOUTH WALNUT STREET
VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOUSE
VIEW OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOUSE
VIEW OF NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE FROM 9 1/2 STREET VIEW OF BACK OF HOUSE
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 66 of 116
4
VIEW OF CARPORT AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS VIEW OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (DOG SHED NOT SHOWN ON
SURVEY—SHOWN ON EXISTING SITE PLAN)
VIEW OF GREENHOUSE (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY—SHOWN
ON EXISTING SITE PLAN)
VIEW OF ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY—SHOWN ON
EXISTING SITE PLAN)
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 67 of 116
5
NON-ORIGINAL DORMER AND SHED ROOF
MISMATCHED WINDOWS (WINDOWS TO RIGHT ON
ENCLOSED FRONT PORCH)
DAMAGED DOOR MOULDING
NARROW UPSTAIRS BEDROOMS W/ ROOF WINDOWS UNSAFE STAIR TO SECOND FLOOR
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
ROOF WINDOWS IN UPSTAIRS BEDROOMS
Page 68 of 116
1
EXISTING SITE SURVEY
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
ACCESSORY BLDGS. NOT SHOWN
ON OFFICIAL SURVEY
160 SF
190 SF
20 SF
50 SF
550 SF
Page 69 of 116
2
EXISTING SITE PLAN
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
EXISTING BUILDING AREA
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Rear Deck & Closet
Accessory Buildings
Total Area of Existing Structures
*Note: Bldg. areas taken from
outside of stud walls.
1,790 SF
1,030 SF
240 SF
970 SF
4,030 SF
Page 70 of 116
3
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
BUILDING AREA
Total Area of Existing Structures
Total Area w/ Proposed Addition
1st Floor (Heated)
2nd Floor (Heated)
Garage
Rear Deck (Covered)
Front Porch (Covered)
*Note: Building areas are taken
from exterior face of stud walls
4,030 SF
4360 SF
2055 SF
970 SF
980 SF
80 SF
275 SF
IMPERVIOUS COVER
Total Lot Area
Total Covered Area
Flatwork
Pool
Total Impervious Cover
Permeable Cover Remaining
11,313 SF
3,417 SF
1,564 SF
216 SF
5089 SF (45%)
6116 SF (55%)
BUILDING HEIGHT
Existing Structure
New Addition
FLOOR AREA RATIO
Existing FAR
New FAR
24’-9” AFF
24’-0” AFF
35%
38%
Page 71 of 116
4
PROPOSED PLAN (FIRST FLOOR)
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 72 of 116
5
PROPOSED PLAN (SECOND FLOOR)
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 73 of 116
6
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN (NTS)
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 74 of 116
7
ELEVATIONS
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 75 of 116
8
ELEVATIONS
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 76 of 116
9
View from South along S. Walnut Street
View from Northwest along 9 1/2 Street
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
EXISTING NEW ADDITION
EXISTING NEW ADDITION
NEW DORMERS
RE-OPENED FRONT PORCH
Page 77 of 116
10
Arial View from Southwest
North Elevation along East 5th Street
HARC submittal for CoA
February 12th, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
NEW ADDITION EXISTING
EXISTING NEW ADDITION
NEW DORMERS
NEW DORMER
RE-OPENED FRONT PORCH
RE-OPENED FRONT PORCH
Page 78 of 116
1
Exterior Paint Selections
Main Exterior color —”Pineapple Cream”
Trim Color—”Classic Light Buff”
HARC submittal for CoA
February 1st, 2021
The Balck-Palmo Residence Addition and Remodel
904 South Walnut Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 79 of 116
2 Page 80 of 116
3 Page 81 of 116
4 Page 82 of 116
5 Page 83 of 116
6
Example of Typical Picket Fence Section
Example of Typical Self-Latching Gate
Page 84 of 116
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY
1. County Williamson
FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
5. USGS Quad No 3097-313
(rev. 8-82)
Site No 689 WM
City/Rural Georgetown GE UTM Sector 627-3389
2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est 1910
Address 904 Walnut 7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner Edmund Knaught 8 Style/Type vernacular
Address Same. 78626 9 Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Dimmit/Blk . 89/Lot N. E. corner Present Use residential
10. Description One—story wood frame dewlling; exterior walls w/beveled wood siding; hip roof w/
composition shingles; extended box eaves; front elev. . faces E.; interior brick chimney;
wood sash double—hung windows w/ 1/1 lights: single—door entrance; two—bay enclosed porch
inset within E. elev. at N. end. Other noteworthy features include a three—sided window>
11. Present Condition fair; altered--porch changed
12. Significance Primary area of significance: architecture. An example of an early
twenti eh century vernacular dwelling.
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site X (describe)
14. BibliographyTax rolls. GHS files
15. Informant
16. Recorder David Moore/HHM Date 1984 __lay
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TNRIS No Old THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL 0 HABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME NR: 0 Individual 0 Historic District
0Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
29A
2 44 4
Other
No of -2____ CONTINUATION PAGE
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Williamson WM 5. USGS Quad No Site No. 3097-313 689
City/Rural Georgetown GE
2. Name
#10. Description (cont'd): bay projects on both N. and S. Elevs.; fixed stained-glass
windows in each. Outubidings include small board-and-batten outbuilding at rear.
Page 85 of 116
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:904 Walnut St 2016 Survey ID:125125
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042056Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 4/22/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1910
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: porch enclosed; new vinyl windows at enclosed porch)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:1053
ID:689
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:125125 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks integrity
Latitude:30.636199 Longitude -97.671211
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northwest
Page 86 of 116
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:904 Walnut St 2016 Survey ID:125125
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
WestPhoto Direction
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Page 87 of 116
208 S. Austin Ave.
2021-5-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
March 25, 2021
1Page 88 of 116
Item Under Consideration
2021-5-COA –The Balck-Palmo Residence
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
•a 6’-8” encroachment into the required 15’-0” side street setback, to allow a second-floor residential
addition 8’-4” from the side street (north) property line;
•a 3’-4” encroachment into the required 20’-0” front setback to reopen an enclosed porch 16’-8” from the
front (east) property line;
•a 5’-8” building height modification to the required 15’-0” maximum building height at the side street
(north) setback, to allow a dormer addition of 20’-8” at the side street (north) setback;
•and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines
at the property located at 904 Walnut Street, being an approximately 0.2597-acre tract of land out of the
William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, also being known as a portion of Block 89, Dimmitt Addition, an
unrecorded subdivision.
2Page 89 of 116
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Setback modification (for second floor addition)
•Setback modification (to reopen front porch)
•A new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics
and applicable guidelines (4’ tall fence for pool area)
HPO:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade
•Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to original condition
3Page 90 of 116
Item Under Consideration
4Page 91 of 116
Hammerlun
Center
5Page 92 of 116
Current Context
6Page 93 of 116
1916, 1925 & 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
7Page 94 of 116
c. 1934 SU Special Collections Photo
8Page 95 of 116
1964 Aerial Photo
9Page 96 of 116
1974 Aerial Photo
10Page 97 of 116
1984 HRS Photo
11Page 98 of 116
Current Photo
12Page 99 of 116
Current Photos
13Page 100 of 116
Current Site Plan
14Page 101 of 116
Proposed Site Plan
15
20’ Front Setback
Page 102 of 116
Proposed Elevations
16
Dormer
Requiring
Setback &
Building Height
Modification
Dormer
Requiring
Setback &
Building Height
Modification
Page 103 of 116
Proposed Elevations
17
Dormer Requiring Setback &
Building Height Modification
Page 104 of 116
Proposed Roof Plan
18
Dormer Requiring Setback &
Building Height Modification
Page 105 of 116
Proposed Materials
19Page 106 of 116
Proposed Fence
20
36” tall fence
48” tall fencePage 107 of 116
Proposed Design
21Page 108 of 116
Proposed Design
22Page 109 of 116
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Not Applicable
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Does Not
Comply
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Copy
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;From
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Staff
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 24Page 110 of 116
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
25Page 111 of 116
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
26Page 112 of 116
Building Height Modification Approval Criteria
–UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and N/A
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.N/A
27Page 113 of 116
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•34 letters mailed
•0 comments in favor and 0 opposed
28Page 114 of 116
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requests for setback modifications,
building height modification and fence.
29Page 115 of 116
HARC Motion –2021-5-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
30Page 116 of 116