The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_HARC_03.26.2020Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown March 26, 2020 at 6:00 P M at T he C ity of G eorgeto wn is c ommitted to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assis tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assis tanc e, adap tations, o r accommo dations will be pro vided upon reques t. P leas e contact the C ity S ecretary's O ffice, at least three (3) d ays prior to the sched uled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for ad ditional information; T T Y us ers route through R elay Texas at 711. This Revised Agenda is posted as an Emergency Amendment to the Agenda pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.045 as a result of the National, State and Local Disaster Declarations related to the ongoing public health emergency caused by COVID-19 and in anticipation of potential restrictions on public meetings because of the potential additional local orders for public health and safety. Regular Meeting will convene at 6:00 p.m. March 24, 2020 Via videoconference Website: https://teams.mic rosoft.c om/l/mee tup- join/19%3ame eting_N D I4 ZTRlN TIt O TN jYy00Yzk5 LW I5 M W Q tZW E zM WE 1NzN i YzIz%40thread.v2/0? c ontext=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22a1429869-9c 66-47a7-9f6c - 115d9a1c90d9%22%2c%22O id%22%3a%22dc9a06ed-7865-4eda-a378- 59e 79761e314%22%2c%22 IsB r oadcastM ee ting%22%3atrue%7d Or Call in number: Conference tel:+1 512-672-8405, Conference ID 84353993# Public comment will be allowed via the above conference call number above or the “ask a question” function on the video conference option ; no in-person input will be allowed. •The meeting will be available for viewing at this link: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup- join/19%3ameeting_NDI4Z T RlNTItOTNjYy00Yzk5LWI5MWQtZWEzMWE1NzNiYzIz%40thread.v2/0? context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22a1429869-9c66-47a7-9f6c- 115d9a1c90d9%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22dc9a06ed-7865-4eda-a378- 59e79761e314%22%2c%22IsBroadcastMeeting%22%3atrue%7d Regular Session (T his R egular S ession may, at any time, be rec es sed to convene an Executive S es s ion for any purpose authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.) A T he Historic and Architectural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is resp onsible for hearing and taking final action on applic ations, by issuing C ertificates of App ropriateness based upon the C ity C ouncil adopted Downtown Des ign G uidelines and Unified Development C ode. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: · S taff P resentation · Applicant P resentatio n (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwis e b y the C ommission.) · Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant · C omments from C itizens * · Applicant R espons e · C ommission Deliberative P ro cess · C ommission Action * T hose who s peak must turn in a s peaker form, loc ated at the bac k of the room, to the record ing secretary before the item they wis h to addres s begins . Eac h speaker will b e p ermitted to address the C ommis sion o ne time only for a maximum of three minutes . L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C onsideration and possible action to ap prove the minutes from the March 12, 2020 regular meetings of the Historic and Architec tural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst C Public Hearing and Possible Action on a R equest for a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street fac ing façade; the remo val of an awning o r cano py; and the addition of an awning o r canopy on a high priority structure at the Page 1 of 89 property lo cated at 805 S . Main S treet, bearing the legal description G eorgetown C ity O f, BLO C K 52, Lot 3(N/P T ), AC R ES 0.0548. – Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic P lanner D Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a R equest for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19'-6" S etback Encroachment into the required 25' front s etback fo r the construction of a carport addition 5'-6" from the front p ro perty line, and a 4'-8" S etback Encroachment into the req uired 6' s ide setback for the construc tion of a carport addition 1'-4" from the s ide (north) p roperty line at the property located at 1604 Vine S treet, bearing the legal des cription NO LEN ADDI T IO N, BLO C K 2, LO T 5-6(P T S ), AC R ES 0.160. (2020-8-C O A) – Britin Bostic k, Downtown and Historic P lanner E Disc ussio n and possible ac tion establishing the regular meeting d ate, time and plac e of the Historic and Architectural R eview C ommission for 2020/21 -- Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst F Updates, C o mmissioner q uestions , and comments. - S o fia Nelson, 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 certify that this Notice of Meeting was po s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily accessible to the general pub lic as required by law, o n the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 continuous hours p rec eding the sched uled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Densmore, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review March 26, 2020 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Marc h 12, 2020 regular meetings 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 3 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3 Meeting: March 12, 2020 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Minutes March 12, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Faustine Curry, Robert McCabe; Pam Mitchell; Karalei Nunn; Steve Johnston Members absent: Terri Asendorf-Hyde Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:01 pm. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the February 13 and February 27, 2020 regular meetings of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell. Approved (7-0). B. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a street-facing facade at the property located at 1215 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of Morrow Addition, BLOCK G (SE/PT) (0.236 acres). – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant requests an addition that creates a new or adds to an existing street facing facade for a medium priority structure. The existing structure was constructed in 1921 by Georgetown builder and lumber yard owner C. S. Griffith, competitor to the well-known C. S. Belford. The house was built for local businessman T. E. Stone, who had also owned the original house immediately to the north. It is 1,944 square feet, including the covered front porch. The one-story house has Craftsman features, including low-pitched gable roofs, unenclosed eave overhangs, a front porch with brick columns that extend to the ground, multi-pane upper sash windows, and triangular knee braces under the deep eave overhangs at the gable ends. At the January 23, 2020 HARC meeting, the commissioners provided a conceptual review to the applicant and gave feedback on the proposed design for three specific aspects of the project, which were: Mass, Scale (Design Guidelines 14.12, 14.13 and 14.16), and Design and Materials (Design Guideline 14.13). Alternate Commissioner Mitchell asked if this project complies with both height and masting requirements. Bostick explained that it does. Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item B (2019-70-COA) as submitted by the applicant by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Browner. Page 4 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3 Meeting: March 12, 2020 Amended motion to approve Item B (2019-70-COA) with the condition that the applicant re-use original materials if feasible, by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Browner. Approved (7-0) C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a street-facing façade at the property located at 405 E. 10th Street, bearing the legal description of Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 27, Lot 5-6(E/PTS), ACRES 0.18. – Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval for addition to an existing non-historic detached garage located to the rear of the contributing structure, and to connect it via a covered walkway to the rear of the primary structure. The subject property currently has a detached single-car garage to the rear of the main (contributing) structure, which was constructed in 2005. The applicant is requesting to add height to the garage structure for an attic storage space as well as a ground-floor addition for a workshop extension. The street-facing façade is proposed to maintain the slope of the existing roof, with an upper window to match the proposed new windows of the main structure and an overhang above the garage door with the same asphalt shingle roofing to link to the covered walkway and the same siding and trim as the existing. The main structure is approximately 17’ in height at the roof ridge, and the addition to the garage structure would be 2’-8” taller. The applicant is also replacing non-historic, non-original windows and front porch decking, neither of which require a Certificate of Appropriateness. Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak. Motion to approve Item C (2020-6-COA) as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Approved (7-0). D. Consideration and possible action to appoint a new Historic and Architectural Review Commission Vice-Chair. Motion by Commissioner Browner to nominate Commissioner Morales for the Vice-Chair role. Second by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell. Approved (7-0) E. Consideration and possible action to appoint a new Historic and Architectural Review Commission Secretary. Motion by Commissioner Morales to nominate Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde for the Secretary role. Second by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell. Approved (7-0). F. Consideration and possible action to appoint a new member to the Historic and Architectural Review Demolition Subcommittee. Motion by Commissioner Browner to nominate Commissioner Johnston as a new member for the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. Second by Commissioner Morales. Motion by Commissioner Morales to nominate Commissioner Parr to remain on the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. Motion by Commissioner Morales to nominate Alternate Commissioner Page 5 of 89 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Meeting: March 12, 2020 McCabe as an Alternate for the HARC Demolition Subcommittee. Second by Commissioner Browner. Approved (7-0). G. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Commissioner Morales shared that an article was written about the Commission and shared with the Commission. Bostick explained the new Commissioner materials provided to the Commissioners. Chair Parr asked about the cancellation/shutdown process due to recent health concerns. Bostick explained that the Commission will be notified and the cancellation will be publicly posted. Chair Parr also encouraged Commissioners to let staff know of training opportunities. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Parr. Meeting adjourned at 6:46pm ________________________________ _________________________________ Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary Page 6 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review March 26, 2020 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a R equest for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition that creates a new, or ad d s to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ad e; the removal of an awning or cano p y; and the addition of an awning o r c anopy on a high priority struc ture at the property lo cated at 805 S . Main S treet, bearing the legal desc rip tion G eo rgeto wn C ity O f, BLO C K 52, Lo t 3(N/P T ), AC R ES 0.0548. – Britin Bostick, Downtown and His toric P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he applic ant is proposing to remo ve the existing fabric awnings over up p er flo o r windows and ground floor s to refro nt, to install a new flat cano p y similar to the his toric c anopy o ver the s torefront, to bring the trans om windows forward to the face o f the building in their o riginal loc ation and c o nfiguratio n, and to replace the exis ting non-historic s torefront with a new s torefront in the c urrent location. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit Exhibit 5 - His toric & Current Photos Exhibit Staff Pres entation Pres entation Page 7 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020-9-COA – 805 S. Main St. Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: March 26, 2019 File Number: 2020-9-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; the removal of an awning or canopy; and the addition of an awning or canopy on a high priority structure at the property located at 805 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 52, Lot 3(N/PT), ACRES 0.0548. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Razmataz Storefront and Awning Applicant: Optima Pools (Robert Reavey) Property Owner: 805 South Main Street LLC Property Address: 805 S. Main Street Legal Description: Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 52, Lot 3(N/PT), ACRES 0.0548 Historic Overlay: Downtown Historic Overlay District Case History: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1925 (HRS) Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High National Register Designation: Williamson County Courthouse National Register Historic District Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC:  Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade  Removal of an awning or canopy  Addition of an awning or canopy HPO:  Paint color change STAFF ANALYSIS Property History The current structure is the second structure to be located on this property. The original structure was a wood frame, single-story structure that was constructed between 1889 and 1894, according to Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. In 1894 the building served as a confectionery and fruit shop, in 1900-1910 it was a Page 8 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020-9-COA – 805 S. Main St. Page 2 of 6 barber shop with an addition at the rear, and by 1916 it was a millinery with a larger shed addition to the rear. Around 1925 a new, two-story structure was built. The Alcove, a café and confectionery that was popular with Southwestern students, was on the ground floor, and a beauty shop was upstairs, both owned and operated by the Reas. The historic façade is shown in the photo in the applicant’s Letter of Intent. The building had a flat canopy with a transom window above at the face of the building, with a recessed entrance. It appears that some small modifications had been made to the storefront by the 1980s, and the storefront that exists today is a replacement of the original storefront, including the transom windows, with a storefront that is not compatible with the design and construction period of the building. Applicant’s Request The applicant is requesting approval to remove the existing fabric awnings over upper floor windows and ground floor storefront, to install a new flat canopy similar to the canopy in the historic photo, to bring the transom windows forward to the face of the building, and to replace the existing non-historic storefront with a new storefront. The existing fabric awnings are similar to those seen on other buildings around the Square, and fabric awnings with wood frames have been attached to various buildings on the Square for more than 100 years to provide shade from the sun, protection from the rain or to serve as advertising space for signage. Photographs from the 1980’s, including the 1984 Historic Resource Survey, show fabric awnings on the face of the building, even before the original storefront was replaced. The awning over the upper floor windows is now a single awning, but in the 1980s it was four separate awnings shading the four upper floor windows. Historic photos show fabric awnings are not original to the building, and that it did historically have a flat canopy with transom windows above (the windows are now obscured from street view by the fabric awning). The proposed removal of the fabric awnings and replacement with a flat canopy constructed of painted aluminum with tie rods is more consistent with the historic design of the building. The applicant is also requesting approval to remove the existing non-historic storefront and replace it with a design that is more consistent with the historic storefront design. Although not a true replica, in part due to the current location of electric and water meter access and the slope of the sidewalk on the south end of the façade where there was once a built-out section, the proposed new storefront design would be more consistent with the design of the historic storefront and would retain entrances in similar locations and configuration. Photos with known dates show that the existing storefront was installed after 1984, and the design, trim and front door of the current storefront are not consistent with the period in which the building was constructed, nor do they contribute to its architectural significance. The proposed new storefront, including the installation of transom windows above the flat canopy in the same location and configuration as the historic design, provide a more consistent character with the historic structure. Page 9 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020-9-COA – 805 S. Main St. Page 3 of 6 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 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS 6.3 If a storefront is altered, restoring it to the original design is preferred.  If evidence of the original design is missing, use a simplified interpretation of similar storefronts. The storefront still should be designed to provide interest to pedestrians.  Note that, in some cases, an original storefront may have been altered early in the history of the building, and may itself have taken on significance. Such alterations should be preserved.  See also Preservation Briefs #11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts, published by the National Park Service. Complies The transom windows are proposed to be returned to the face of the building in the original configuration, while the entrance portion is proposed to be a simple storefront with the same entrance locations as previously. While a return to the original storefront configuration is preferred, the new storefront is proposed to remain in the same location as the current storefront to accommodate existing utility locations and access, as well as to accommodate the current sidewalk pavers and accessible slope up to the ground floor entrance. The existing storefront is not historic nor it is consistent with the building character, and it has not attained significance. 6.4 Alternative designs that are contemporary interpretations of traditional storefronts may be considered.  Where the original is missing and no evidence of its character exists, a new design that uses the traditional elements may be considered.  However, the new design should continue to convey the character of typical storefronts, including the transparent character of the display window. Complies The proposed new storefront is similar in character to the historic storefront, with the exception of the display area on the right side, which now has an electrical service panel and a City water meter directly adjacent. The proposed new storefront is a contemporary interpretation of the storefront visible in the historic photo and provides the transparent character of the display windows. 6.18 Maintain recessed entries.  The repetition of recessed entries provides a rhythm of shadows along the street, which helps establish a sense of scale.  These recessed entries were designed to provide protection from the weather and the repeated rhythm of these shaded areas along the street helps to identify business entrances. Complies The recessed entry is maintained, which includes the separate entrance to the second floor. Page 10 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020-9-COA – 805 S. Main St. Page 4 of 6 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS Typically, recessed entries were set back between three and five feet.  Restore the historic recessed entry if it has been altered.  Avoid doors that are flush with the sidewalk, especially those that swing outward. CHAPTER 7 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS, & ALTERATIONS 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.  Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the original building.  Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the building are inappropriate. Complies Proposed alterations do not damage historic features, nor do they hinder the ability to interpret the original design character, rather they return some of the character- defining features, albeit with a modern interpretation in the case of the new canopy. 7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.  Due to special circumstances, a structure’s historic priority may change over time (because a reduced number of similar style structures in stable condition still exist within the district or city, or if unknown historic information becomes available that adds significance). Complies Proposed alterations and additions do not diminish the designation as a high priority structure, rather they return some of the altered or removed architectural features more closely to their original form. CHAPTER 10 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS & CANOPIES 10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.  Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall- mounted brackets, chains and posts.  Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those canopies seen historically. Complies Proposed new metal canopy uses a cable and turnbuckle support mechanism with the same number of supports as the historic canopy and provides a similar appearance. 10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining features.  It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be found above the storefront and should not hide character-defining features.  Its mounting should not damage significant features and historic details. Complies Proposed new metal canopy is mounted to the building face in the same area as the historic canopy, with the supports mounted below a decorative brick band and not hiding character-defining features, including the transom windows. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Page 11 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020-9-COA – 805 S. Main St. Page 5 of 6 In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies The application was deemed complete by Staff. 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies Proposed project complies with UDC requirements. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies Proposed project complies with the SOI Standards, and the owner has worked with the Texas Main Street Program on the design of the façade rehabilitation. 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Complies Proposed project complies with applicable Guidelines. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies Proposed alterations to the non-historic storefront do not diminish the integrity of the building, and removal of the fabric awnings and replacement with a canopy more similar to the original with the transom window in the original location improves the architectural integrity. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies Proposed addition of canopy and replacement of storefront is compatible with surrounding properties in the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies Proposed project does not diminish the character of the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable Signage is not proposed as part of this project. Page 12 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020-9-COA – 805 S. Main St. Page 6 of 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the reasons stated above. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 3 – Public Comments Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey Exhibit 5 – Historic & Current Photos SUBMITTED BY Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 13 of 89 Location 2020-9-COA Exhibit #1 E 10TH ST SAUSTINAVE E 9TH ST SMAINST E 8TH ST E 7TH ST S C H U R C H S T SMYRTLEST W 8TH ST W 9TH ST ELMST ROCKST W7THST TIN B A R N A L Y W 10TH ST 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 14 of 89 Page 1 of 5 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH20-209 Razmataz LOI.doc February 18, 2020 Letter of Intent Re: Razmataz (Storefront and Awning Upgrade) 805 S Main Street Georgetown , Texas 78626 The overall intent of this project is to renovate the existing storefront, in an effort, to convert façade to resemble its original state. (see attached photo named “Historic Facade”) There are a few obstacles (costs, ADA, utilities) to bring it ALL the way back to original façade. Argument, face is old and outdated, rotting away. So, to remodel the storefront, we’d like to bring back to, as much as practical, the original face. First, we would like to remove the canvas awning above the storefront and replace with an appropriate flat awning with turnbuckle supports per the photo and existing adjacent building. (see attached photo named “Historic Facade”) In addition, we would like to remove the upper awning above the second level windows in their entirety. No new awning for upper windows, but rather patch and repair any damaged wood and re-paint. (see attached photo named “Existing Awning”) Next, we’d like to bring the upper transom windows out to the face of the façade and divide them into equal 7 panels. Again, similar to the attached photo (see attached photo named “Historic Facade”) Last, we will upgrade the storefront system in its current plan location. The storefront is set back form the façade approximately 3’-5’ similarly to the Historic Photo. We cannot angle windows into the vestibule, we have existing ADA entry access route issues and have existing electrical meters in that location to prevent changing that portion of the storefront. The store front, wood is rotting and need to be removed and replaced with a similar non ornamental design. The storefront will be re-painted. Page 15 of 89 rhadius p.c. Page 2 of 5 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH20-209 Razmataz LOI.doc Note: With the upper storefront window out to the face, and the lower storefront set back, will have an interior soffit ledge that the awning will now extend from. See Wall /awning section. Scope of Work: Demolition: · Remove upper and lower awning. · Remove lower storefront and doors · Patch and repair upper window trim or replace as needed. Renovation: · Add new structural beam across opening to support new relocated upper storefront windows. · Provide new framed storefront system with new wood non ornamental trim. · Add new back lit signage with decal signage on windows per Downtown Georgetown signage code requirements. · Paint all new wood trim. · Provide all new doors and windows. Additions: · Provide new awning per attached drawing Attachments: Photos (historic façade, existing awnings, door vestibule and electrical meter) Sincerely, Rob Reavey RHadius p.c. rreavey@rhadiuspc.com 303.594.5959 Principal, LEED AP Page 16 of 89 rhadius p.c. Page 3 of 5 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH20-209 Razmataz LOI.doc Historic Facade Page 17 of 89 rhadius p.c. Page 4 of 5 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH20-209 Razmataz LOI.doc Existing Awnings Page 18 of 89 rhadius p.c. Page 5 of 5 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH20-209 Razmataz LOI.doc Existing Vestibule / Electrical meters Page 19 of 89 Page 20 of 89 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:805 Main St 2016 Survey ID:124968 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R041455Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1925 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)* General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: new stained glass in doors; tinted windows) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:698 ID:464 *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 Razmataz salon/None ID:124968 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:30.636301 Longitude -97.676851 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: East Page 21 of 89 Page 22 of 89 Page 23 of 89 Page 24 of 89 Page 25 of 89 Page 26 of 89 Page 27 of 89 Razmataz Storefront and Awning 805 S. Main St. 2020-9-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission March 26, 2020 Page 28 of 89 Item Under Consideration 2020-9-COA –Razmataz Storefront &Awning •Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; the removal of an awning or canopy; and the addition of an awning or canopy on a high priority structure at the property located at 805 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 52, Lot 3(N/PT), ACRES 0.0548. Page 29 of 89 Item Under Consideration HARC: •Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade •Removal of an awning or canopy •Addition of an awning or canopy HPO: •Paint color change Page 30 of 89 Item Under Consideration Insert Project Image Page 31 of 89 Historic Courthouse Page 32 of 89 Current Context Insert Historic Properties Map Screenshot (locate property to center of map and show surrounding properties for at least one block surrounding highlight property with box if applicable) Page 33 of 89 Historic Photos –The Alcove & White Auto Store Page 34 of 89 Historic Photos –c. 1980 Page 35 of 89 Historic Photos -1984 Page 36 of 89 Current Photos Page 37 of 89 Current Photos Page 38 of 89 Proposed Design *Note: Signage is not proposed as part of this request Page 39 of 89 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;Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Complies 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.N/APage 40 of 89 Public Notification •One (1) sign posted •No public comments Page 41 of 89 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request. Page 42 of 89 HARC Motion •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 43 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review March 26, 2020 S UB J E C T: Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a R equest for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19'-6" S etbac k Enc roachment into the required 25' front setback for the c onstruc tion of a c arport addition 5'-6" from the front property line, and a 4'-8" S etback Encroac hment into the required 6' s ide setback for the cons truction of a carport addition 1'-4" from the side (north) property line at the property loc ated at 1604 Vine S treet, bearing the legal desc ription NO LEN ADDI T I O N, BLO C K 2, LO T 5-6(P T S ), AC R ES 0.160. (2020-8-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown and Historic P lanner IT E M S UMMARY: T he Applic ant is req uesting HAR C approval for a 19’-16” setb ack enc ro ac hment into the required front s etbac k fo r the c ons truc tio n of a c arp o rt additio n 5’-6” fro m the fro nt p ro p erty line, and a 4’-8” s etbac k enc roachment into the required side s etbac k fo r the c onstruc tion of a c arp o rt ad d ition 1’-4” from the north s ide property line. T he propos ed new carport is to replace the exis ting carport. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit Exhibit 5 - Public Comments Exhibit Staff Pres entation Pres entation Page 44 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 File Number: 2020-8-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19'-6" Setback Encroachment into the required 25' front setback for the construction of a carport addition 5'-6" from the front property line, and a 4'-8" Setback Encroachment into the required 6' side setback for the construction of a carport addition 1'-4" from the side (north) property line at the property located at 1604 Vine Street, bearing the legal description NOLEN ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOT 5-6(PTS), ACRES 0.160. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1604 Vine Carport Addition Applicant: Optima Pools (Robert Reavey) Property Owner: Angela Harris Property Address: 1604 Vine Street Legal Description: Nolen Addition, BLOCK 2, LOTS 5-6 (PTS), ACRES 0.17 Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District Case History: HPO approved exterior alterations in 2019-81-COA HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1960 (HRS), actual construction date 1952 (public records) Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC:  Setback modification HPO:  Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing the addition of a 2 1’-4” deep, 22’-6” wide carport to the front of the low priority residential structure to replace an existing carport which has some deterioration causing a need for its removal. The proposed new carport would encroach 19’-6” into the required 25’ front setback and result in a 5’-6” front setback, as well as encroach 4’-8” into the required 6’ side (north) setback and result in a 1’-4” side setback if approved. Along this portion of Vine Street and in this area the residential structures are low and medium priority, and they vary in distance to front and side property lines. This block is at the southern boundary of the Old Town Historic Overlay District, near the southeast corner of the district. Page 45 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 2 of 8 Part of the evaluation criteria in UDC 3.13.030.D for a setback modification is whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located, and whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block. In this block of Vine Street, the abutting property to the north has a carport on its front façade, as does the property across the street, diagonally north. The front setbacks for these properties are closer to the street than other units within the block. The two adjacent properties are depicted below. 1604 Vine St (Subject Property) 1602 Vine St (Abutting Property to North ) The proposal is for a carport replacement in the same footprint as the existing. The subject residential structure is currently set back 27’ from the front property line. With the carport addition, the setback would be 5 ’-6” from the front property line. The right of way along Vine Street is 50’ wide and there is approximately 5’ between the street curb and the front property line. In total, the existing residential structure is approximately 36’ from the street curb. If the carport addition was approved, the front of the carport would be located approximately 10’-6” from the street curb. The side setback encroachment is adjacent to a driveway for the property to the north, and the proposed new carport structure would leave approximately 15’ between the residential structures, whic h is slightly more than what the spacing would be were both of the 6’ side setbacks between the structures observed. The proposed design of the carport, which would be able to accommodate two vehicles, is of a style, scale and materials that are compatible with the structure, which is having its asbestos shingle siding and windows replaced, as well as a gable added over the porch. The proposed carport addition would compliment the roof pitch and gable feature, as well as building façade materials. Page 46 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 3 of 8 APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT 14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.  Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the original 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 existing carport is an addition to the original structure and is not historic, nor is it constructed of historic materials. The replacement of the existing carport would remove a metal frame, roof shingles and some wood/plywood trim, but not alter the design character of the original structure. 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 In this case the proposed carport addition is to replace an existing carport that, while not original to the main structure, has been part of the structure and the neighborhood context, to the extent that the residence immediately to the north has a similar carport addition, as does the structure at the northeast corner of Vine and 16th Streets. 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 the original structure can help define the addition.  See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service. Complies The proposed carport is meant to replace an existing carport that can be understood as a later, functional addition to the original structure, which had minimal construction and decoration. The proposed new carport can also be understood as a later addition due to its relationship to the original structure, position on the site, materials and design. It does not obscure the main structure. Page 47 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 4 of 8 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. • Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining façade will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.  Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when feasible. Partially Complies Both the existing and proposed carports have a visual impact in their location at the front and within the front and side setbacks. However, setback modifications would also be needed for alternate solutions, because a carport in the rear of the building would not be feasible in this location. Although it may be feasible to expand the garage to the north, which would eliminate the need for a modification to the front yard setback and allow for better visibility of the front of the building, a side setback encroachment would still be required, and it would place a solid, more permanent structure closer to the property line. 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 prima ry façade.  Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Complies The addition will be compatible in scale, materials, and character, and architectural style with the main building. 14.18 The roof form 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.  Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies The roof of the proposed addition is to be a pitched roof with a slope compatible with the pitched roof of the primary building and of the same roofing materials. Page 48 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 5 of 8 GUIDELINES FINDINGS  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 The application was deemed complete by Staff. 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Partially Complies Proposed carport addition encroaches into required side and front setback and requires setback modification s. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies Standards 9 and 10 apply specifically to new additions: (9) “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.” (10) “New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” 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 addition complies with applicable Guidelines, except partially complies with Guideline 14.14, “Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts.” Page 49 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 6 of 8 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies The proposed carport replacement maintains the existing relationship of the main structure to the carport addition. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies Some surrounding properties have carports, including some similarly located on the front of historic structures and in setbacks. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies Proposed addition does not diminish the character of the Downtown Historic Overlay District. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable No signage proposed. In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a request for COA for a setback modification: SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; Partially Complies Addition of a carport is for the convenience of covered parking for the owner’s vehicles. The garage depicted on the plans could be expanded into the side setback, however, a carport has existed in this location for many years and there are a number of carports in other front yard s within the block. b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Complies Addition of a carport, or a garage expansion, would require encroachment into at least one setback. The proposed carport requires encroachment into the side (north) setback and the front setback. c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; Complies The property to the north and the property diagonally north have front yard carports at a similar setback. With the other setbacks on Page 50 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 7 of 8 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS the block varying, the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block. d. Whether the proposed additio n or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; Complies The proposed addition will be setback approximately in line with the abutting structure to the north and the structure across the street and to the north . Other structures within the block are set back further from the street curb. e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; Complies Proposed carport is to replace an existing carport that has some deterioration. f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Complies Proposed carport is to replace a structure that has approximately the same footprint, size and encroachment into the front and side setbacks. g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; Complies The proposed replacement structure is not larger than the original , although it does have a slightly steeper roof pitch and will be slightly taller than the existing carport. h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; Complies The scale of the proposed addition (a 2-car carport) is not oversized and is appropriate to the scale of the residential structure . i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; Complies Proposed structure is consistent with the size of other structures (2-car carport/garage) within the block. j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; Complies Proposed addition does not negatively impact adjoining properties. k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Complies Proposed carport addition does not restrict room for maintenance. l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. Not Applicable Large trees or significant features not proposed to be removed for addition. Page 51 of 89 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2020 -8-COA – 16 04 Vine St. Page 8 of 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for setback modifications to the front and side (north) setbacks for the construction of a carport addition. The carport is replacing an existing carport, is designed to be compatible with the scale and character of the primary building, complies with most applicable guidelines and review criteria, and is not out of character with surrounding properties . As of the publication date of this report, staff has received two (2) written comments in favor and zero (0) in opposition of the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans & Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey Exhibit 5 – Public Comments SUBMITTED BY Britin Bostick , Downtown & Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 52 of 89 Location 2020-8-COA Exhibit #1 E15THST E 16TH ST HU T T O RD OLI V E S T E 18TH S T KATHERINECT E 17TH S T E 16TH S T VI N E S T E 14TH ST JA M E S S T E 19TH S T VIN E S T LO U I S E S T VI R G I N I A S T L A U R E L S T LA U R E L S T E 17TH S T 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 53 of 89 Page 1 of 2 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH19-198 Harrris Residence LOI HARC.doc February 16, 2020 Letter of Intent Re: Harris Residence 1604 Vine Street Georgetown , Texas 78626 We have previously been approved for this project administratively. However, the existing carport is causing addition concerns and problems. The carport is a non-conforming structure due to it being the side easement. The proposed HPO approval was leaving “carport “as is” other than painting and adding new roofing. After starting project, the structural engineer (K&W Engineering) proclaimed the existing structure is failing and non-repairable and that a full demolition of carport in recommended and required for safety. Therefore, we are asking for the existing structure be removed and replaced with a new updated structure in the same footprint. Basically nothing changed from what’s there, except updating to provide a better aesthetic and not change the footprint. We understand that a HARC Review is required for both the non-conforming structure and by the demolition in the Historic district. The argument is we are providing an updated safe structure with updated aesthetic to the neighborhood. Not really a difference to the approved HPO, other than updated materials and safe. The adjacent neighbors have been contacted and review the proposed plans. We have their approvals letter attached. Scope of Work: Demolition: · Remove existing unsafe carport. Page 54 of 89 rhadius p.c. Page 2 of 2 1 1 2 R a n c h o T r a i l G e o r g e t o w n, T e x a s 7 8 7 2 8 P: 3 0 3 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 5 9 RH19-198 Harrris Residence LOI HARC.doc Additions: · Provide new carport in exact same location with upgraded materials and structure. Existing Carport Attachments: · Revised Construction Plans · Revised Rendering showing new carport · Neighbor Approval letters Sincerely, Rob Reavey RHadius p.c. rreavey@rhadiuspc.com 303.594.5959 Principal, LEED AP Page 55 of 89 2/17/2020 827453.570396.jpg (1700×2200) https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl1.mygovernmentonline.org/2020/portal/570396/827453.570396.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIZG3DNWBCUV3ZRDQ&Ex…1/1 Page 56 of 89 Page 57 of 89 Page 58 of 89 Page 59 of 89 Page 60 of 89 Page 61 of 89 Page 62 of 89 Page 63 of 89 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1604 Vine St 2016 Survey ID:125358 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information Owner/Address YOUNG, ARTIE D, 1604 VINE ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-7226 Latitude:30.630115 Longitude -97.66428 Addition/Subdivision:S4201 - Nolen Addition WCAD ID:R043463Legal Description (Lot/Block):NOLEN ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOT 5-6(PTS), ACRES 0.160 Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Current Designations: NR District Yes No) NHL NR (Is property contributing? RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other Date Recorded 5/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC Other: Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Other: Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture Function EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1960 Builder:Architect: Healthcare Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4 Vacant Vacant Old Town District Current/Historic Name:None/None Photo direction: West Page 64 of 89 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1604 Vine St 2016 Survey ID:125358 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 2 Architectural Description General Architectural Description: One-story, rectangular, ranch style house clad in asbestos siding with a side-gabled roof, attached carport, and a partial- width, inset porch with a single front door. Relocated Additions, modifications:Garage enclosed; carport added Stylistic Influence(s) Queen Anne Second Empire Greek Revival Eastlake Italianate Log traditional Exotic Revival Colonial Revival Romanesque Revival Renaissance Revival Folk Victorian Shingle Monterey Beaux Arts Tudor Revival Mission Neo-Classical Gothic Revival Moderne Craftsman Spanish Colonial Art Deco Prairie Pueblo Revival Other: Commercial Style Post-war Modern No Style Ranch International Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet Structural Details Roof Form Mansard Pyramid Other: Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other: Roof Materials Wall Materials Metal Brick Wood Siding Stucco Siding: Other Stone Glass Wood shingles Asbestos Log Vinyl Terra Cotta Other: Concrete Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash Windows Decorative Screenwork Other: Single door Double door With transom With sidelights Doors (Primary Entrance) Other: Plan Irregular L-plan Four Square T-plan Rectangular Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage Other Bungalow Chimneys Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps Interior Exterior Other Specify #0 PORCHES/CANOPIES Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other Support Suspension rods Box columns Classical columns Wood posts (plain) Spindlework Wood posts (turned) Tapered box supports Masonry pier Other: Fabricated metal Jigsaw trim Suspension cables Materials:Metal FabricWood Other: # of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement: Ancillary Buildings Garage Barn Shed Other: Landscape/Site Features Stone Sidewalks Wood Terracing Concrete Drives Well/cistern Gardens Other materials:Brick Other Landscape Notes: Wood Integral Metal Posts None None None None Unknown Asphalt Page 65 of 89 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1604 Vine St 2016 Survey ID:125358 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 3 Historical Information Immigration/Settlement Religion/Spirituality Commerce Law/Government Science/Technology Communication Military Social/Cultural Education Natural Resources Transportation Exploration Planning/Development Other Health Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria: National State LocalLevel of Significance: Integrity: Setting Feeling Location Association Design Materials Workmanship Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined Is prior documentation available for this resource?Yes No Not known General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: detached carport added at front) Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts C D B A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinctions Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Areas of Significance: Periods of Significance: Integrity notes:See Section 2 Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined High Medium Priority: Low Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity Other Info: Type:HABS Survey Other Documentation details 2007 survey Contact Survey Coordinator History Programs Division, Texas Historical Commission 512/463-5853 history@thc.state.tx.us Questions? 1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:1178 2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded Page 66 of 89 County Williamson TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Local District:Old Town District Address:1604 Vine St 2016 Survey ID:125358 City Georgetown HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 67 of 89 Page 68 of 89 3/19/2020 Mail - Britin Bostick - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADJmYTI3NjJjLTM4MzctNDg2My05ZTRlLTBiZWQ5Yzc2MzQ5NQAQAEbr%2FI0gLyhEqJ%2BQF6O…1/1 -----Original Message----- From: Kerry Williams Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:36 AM To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1604 Vine Street [EXTERNAL EMAIL] I have no problem with the Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for carport setback encroachment at 1604 Vine Street. Kerry Williams 1702 Vine Street Georgetown, Tex Sent from my iPad Page 69 of 89 1604 Vine St. 2020-08-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission March 26, 2020 Page 70 of 89 Item Under Consideration 2020-8-COA –1604 Vine St. •Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19'-6" Setback Encroachment into the required 25' front setback for the construction of a carport addition 5'-6" from the front property line, and a 4'-8" Setback Encroachment into the required 6' side setback for the construction of a carport addition 1'-4" from the side (north) property line at the property located at 1604 Vine Street, bearing the legal description NOLEN ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOT 5-6(PTS), ACRES 0.160. Page 71 of 89 Item Under Consideration HARC: •Setback modification HPO: •Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade Page 72 of 89 Item Under Consideration Page 73 of 89 Annie Purl Elementary Page 74 of 89 Current Context Page 75 of 89 Current Context Abutting property to the north (1602 Vine St) also has a carport that encroaches into the front and side setbacks. Page 76 of 89 Proposed Setbacks 1604 Vine St 6’ Side Setback 1’-8” Modified Side Setback 25’ Front Setback 5’-6” Modified Front Setback Page 77 of 89 Current Photo Page 78 of 89 Survey & Current Photo Page 79 of 89 Proposed Design Page 80 of 89 Proposed Design Roof Plan Elevation from Vine StreetPage 81 of 89 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;Complies 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 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not ApplicablePage 82 of 89 Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially Complies b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback;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;Complies f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies Page 83 of 89 Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2 Criteria Staff’s Finding g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house;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.Not Applicable Page 84 of 89 Public Notification •One (1) sign posted •Twenty -six (26) letters mailed •Two (2) public comments in favor Page 85 of 89 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for both setback modifications. Page 86 of 89 HARC Motion •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 87 of 89 1st and 3rd Tuesday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Friday Monday Wednesday Monday Wednesday Friday 1st & 3rd Tuesdays 28 days prior 22 days prior 21 days prior 20 days prior 18 days prior 15 days prior 13 days prior 8 days prior 6 days prior 4 days prior Tuesdays Jan 6 Dec 9, 2014 Dec 15, 2014 Dec 16, 2014 Dec 17, 2014 Dec 19, 2014 Dec 22, 2014 *Dec 23, '14*Dec 23, '14*Dec 23, '14*Dec 23, '14 Dec 29, 2014 Dec 31, 2014 Jan 2, 2015 Jan 6Jan 6Jan 6Jan 6 Jan 20 Dec 23 Dec 29 Dec 30 Dec 31 Jan 2 Jan 5 Jan 7 Jan 12 Jan 14 Jan 16 Jan 20Jan 20Jan 20Jan 20 Feb 3 Jan 6 Jan 12 Jan 13 Jan 14 Jan 16 *Jan 20*Jan 20*Jan 20*Jan 20 Jan 21 Jan 26 Jan 28 Jan 30 Feb 3Feb 3Feb 3Feb 3 Feb 17 Jan 20 Jan 26 Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 30 Feb 2 Feb 4 Feb 9 Feb 11 Feb 13 Feb 17Feb 17Feb 17Feb 17 Mar 3 Feb 3 Feb 9 Feb 10 Feb 11 Feb 13 Feb 16 Feb 18 Feb 23 Feb 25 Feb 27 Mar 3Mar 3Mar 3Mar 3 Mar 17 Feb 17 Feb 23 Feb 24 Feb 25 Feb 27 Mar 2 Mar 4 Mar 9 Mar 11 Mar 13 Mar 17Mar 17Mar 17Mar 17 Apr 7 Mar 10 Mar 16 Mar 17 Mar 18 Mar 20 Mar 23 Mar 25 Mar 30 Apr 1 Apr 3 Apr 7Apr 7Apr 7Apr 7 Apr 21 Mar 24 Mar 30 Mar 31 Apr 1 Apr 3 Apr 6 Apr 8 Apr 13 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 21Apr 21Apr 21Apr 21 May 5 Apr 7 Apr 13 Apr 14 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 20 Apr 22 Apr 27 Apr 29 May 1 May 5May 5May 5May 5 May 19 Apr 21 Apr 27 Apr 28 Apr 29 May 1 May 4 May 6 May 11 May 13 May 15 May 19May 19May 19May 19 Jun 2 May 5 Apr 13 May 12 May 13 May 15 May 18 May 20 *May 22*May 22*May 22*May 22 May 27 May 29 Jun 2Jun 2Jun 2Jun 2 Jun 16 May 19 *May 26*May 26*May 26*May 26 May 26 May 27 May 29 Jun 1 Jun 3 Jun 8 Jun 10 Jun 12 Jun 16Jun 16Jun 16Jun 16 Jul 7 Jun 9 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 19 Jun 22 Jun 24 Jun 29 Jul 1 Jul 3 Jul 7Jul 7Jul 7Jul 7 Jul 21 Jun 23 Jun 29 Jun 30 Jul 1 *Jul 2*Jul 2*Jul 2*Jul 2 Jul 6 Jul 8 Jul 13 Jul 15 Jul 17 Jul 21Jul 21Jul 21Jul 21 Aug 4 Jul 7 Jul 13 Jul 14 Jul 15 Jul 17 Jul 20 Jul 22 Jul 27 Jul 29 Jul 31 Aug 4Aug 4Aug 4Aug 4 Aug 18 Jul 21 Jul 27 Jul 28 Jul 29 Jul 31 Aug 3 Aug 5 Aug 10 Aug 12 Aug 14 Aug 18Aug 18Aug 18Aug 18 Sep 1 Aug 4 Aug 10 Aug 11 Aug 12 Aug 14 Aug 17 Aug 19 Aug 24 Aug 26 Aug 28 Sep 1Sep 1Sep 1Sep 1 Sep 15 Aug 18 Aug 24 Aug 25 Aug 26 Aug 28 Aug 31 Sep 2 *Sep 4*Sep 4*Sep 4*Sep 4 Sep 9 Sep 11 Sep 15Sep 15Sep 15Sep 15 Oct 6 Sep 8 Sep 14 Sep 15 Sep 16 Sep 18 Sep 21 Sep 23 Sep 28 Sep 30 Oct 2 Oct 6Oct 6Oct 6Oct 6 Oct 20 Sep 22 Sep 28 Sep 29 Sep 30 Oct 2 Oct 5 Oct 7 Oct 12 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct 20Oct 20Oct 20Oct 20 Nov 3 Oct 6 Oct 12 Oct 13 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct 19 Oct 21 Oct 26 Oct 28 Oct 30 Nov 3Nov 3Nov 3Nov 3 Nov 17 Oct 20 Oct 26 Oct 27 Oct 28 Oct 30 Nov 2 Nov 4 Nov 9 Nov 11 Nov 13 Nov 17Nov 17Nov 17Nov 17 Dec 1 Nov 3 Nov 9 Nov 10 Nov 11 Nov 13 Nov 16 Nov 18 Nov 23 Nov 25 *Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25 Dec 1Dec 1Dec 1Dec 1 Dec 15 Nov 17 Nov 23 Nov 24 Nov 25 *Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25 Nov 30 Dec 2 Dec 7 Dec 9 Dec 11 Dec 15Dec 15Dec 15Dec 15 Reports due to Principal Planner for review Novus Agenda items submitted for review Novus Items finalized and forwarded to Planning Tech Novus completed. Commission emailed link. Posted online and City Hall. P&Z Meeting * Dates adjusted due to holiday - subject to change depending on updates to holiday calendars, etc. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 2015 P&Z MEETING Public notice agenda deadline Staff finalizes notice items on agenda (Word doc) Notice items approved for notice Notice Items sent to Sun by noon Letters mailed and signs ready for pick up after lunch Non-public notice agenda deadline Page 88 of 89 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review March 26, 2020 S UB J E C 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 Page 89 of 89