HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_03.28.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 28, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at City Council Chambers - 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, T X 78626
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.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A Nomination and elec tion of Vic e-chair and S ec retary for the 2019 C ommis s ion.
B C ons ideration and appointment of one member to the Demolition S ubc ommittee.
C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for the Demolition of
an approximate 1,300-sq.ft. residential s tructure identified as a low priority res ourc e for the property
loc ated at 903 N. Myrtle S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.33 ac. P orter, N. S urvey, (C O A-2018-
063). Madison T homas, Downtown Historic P lanner
D P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a A C ertificate of Appropriateness for: 1) 13’ 1"
setback encroac hment along the north property line into the required 25’ s etbac k, allowing for a residential
struc ture 11’ 11" from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.D;
2)s treet fac ing patio addition, for the property located at 1601 E. 17th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription
of 0.33 ac . Nolan Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4 (2019-5-C O A). Madis on T homas , Downtown His toric
P lanner
E Disc ussion and possible action regarding the potential Historical and Arc hitectural R eview C ommittee
meeting and training s chedule for the 2019-2020 c alendar year.
F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions and comments. S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
C E RT IF IC AT E O F P O S T IN G
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 pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily
ac cessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained so pos ted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
____________________________________
R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary
Page 1 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Nomination and election of Vice-c hair and S ecretary for the 2019 C ommission.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
Page 2 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and appointment of one member to the Demolition S ubcommittee.
IT E M S UMMARY:
A minimum of two members are needed to serve on the Demolition S ubcommittee, whic h reviews ,
dis cus s es and makes rec ommendations to the C ommission regarding applic ations for demolition of
s tructures on the Historic R es ourc es S urvey.
S ection 1.3. Delegation of a Demolition S ubcommittee.
a. T he HAR C s hall appoint a Demolitio n S ub committee to review and provid e a rec ommendation
to the HAR C o n req ues ts for a C ertific ate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s for the reloc ation, remo val or
demolition o f a build ing or s truc ture designated as a His toric Landmark or a contributing historic
s tructure, in ac cordance with the proc es s establis hed in the Unified Development C ode.
1. T he Demolition S ubcommittee s hall be c ompos ed of at leas t three members.
2. T he members of the Demolition S ubc ommittee shall c onsist of two HAR C members and the
Building O fficial.
3 . W henever possible, one o f the HAR C memb ers to b e appointed to the Demolition
S ubc ommittee shall meet one or more of the following c ategories :
1. Licens ed Architec t, or
2. S tructural Engineer, or
3. His toric P reservationis t.
b . T he Demolitio n S ub c ommittee may c o nsult with a lic ens ed architec t, s tructural engineer or
historic preservationis t to review the req uest, and make a preliminary report to the s ubc ommittee.
In this event, the report s hall be made part of the s ubc ommittee’s rec ommendation to the HAR C .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P Historic and Downtown P lanner
Page 3 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of
an approximate 1,300-s q.ft. res idential struc ture identified as a low priority resource for the property
located at 903 N. Myrtle S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.33 ac . P orter, N. S urvey, (C O A-2018-
063). Madis on T homas , Downtown His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Background
T his approximately .33 ac re property inc ludes a low priority s tructure identified on the 2016 Historic
R es ourc e S urvey. It was not included on the 1984 or 2007 his toric resource s urveys. T he s urvey identifies
as the s tructure having an irregular plan and no s tylis tic influences, it also inc ludes that the “property lac ks
integrity”. T he property was previously a res idenc e, but is currently owned by Brookwood in G eorgetown.
T hey are c urrently us ing this s tructure for ac cessory us es for their organization. T hey would like to
inc reas e the hous ing opportunities they have for their residents, however the cost to retrofit this struc ture to
meet their needs would be beyond the value of the home. T hey have an additional his toric residential
s tructure that is a medium priority home next door that they will be able to relocate.
Public Comments
As req uired by the Unified Development C o d e, all property o wners within a 200 fo o t radius of the s ubjec t
property that are lo cated within C ity limits were notified of the rezoning ap p licatio n (9 notices mailed), and
one (1) s ign was posted on-s ite. To date, s taff has not rec eived any public comments.
Findings
T he s tructure has had the s id ing replac ed and the windows rep lac ed with non-histo ric materials . T he front
porch, b o th c o nc rete fo und ation and roofing has been altered and or added o n in the rec ent past as well as
the entire rear half o f the struc ture being an additio n. T here is wo o d ro t fro m water damage and evid enc e of
termite damage. T he foundatio n interio r is unkno wn, b ut the o uts id e is perimeter beam c o nc rete, with the
lack of vis ib le vents, there is a high chanc e for low to no drainage and water retention under the ho me. In
addition, with this type of foundatio n, reloc ation would be extremely challenging and costly. T he s tructure
itself lacks a dis tinct arc hitectural s tyle and lac ks integrity with non-historic materials.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Demolition Subcommittee Form Exhibit
Exhibit 3- HPO Demolition Report Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit
Page 4 of 53
Exhibit 5- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Supporting Document Exhibit
Page 5 of 53
N AUSTIN AVE
E MORROW ST
N
MY
R
T
L
E
S
T
L O W E R P A R K R D
N CHURCH S
T
E VA L L EY ST
ENTR 262 NB
C
H
A
M
B
E
R
W
A
Y
N IH 35 SB
WILLIAMS DR
N IH 35 FWY NB
S IH 35 NB
N IH 35 FWY SB
N MA
IN
ST
E S P R I N G S T
W MOR ROW ST
W S P R I N G S T
N COLLEGE ST
WILLIAMSDRTNNB
ENTR 261 NB
MCCOY LN
W VALLEY ST
H
O
L
L
Y S
T
W SPRING ST
COA-2018-063Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 6 of 53
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: COA-2018-063
MEETING DATE: 3/28/2019
MEETING LOCATION: 903 N. Myrtle
APPLICANT: Luke Lunsford, Brookwood in Georgetown (BIG)
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lawrence Romero
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Moore, Andreina Davila and Madison T.
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Schroeder
COMMENTS
Applicant:
The property was used as a residential structure prior to BIG purchasing it. They have been using it as
an accessory use for their organization, however they are needing to expand their residential structures
to increase housing opportunities for their residents. The cost to retrofit the existing structure to meet
their organization’s housing needs would not be cost effective. They originally requested the demolition
of two existing structures, one at 905 N. Myrtle, however they have worked to setup a relocation of this
medium priority structure. The demolition request is now just for the low priority structure at 903 N.
Myrtle St.
Subcommittee:
What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that
should be made to the structure for re-occupancy?
The structure is currently stable, and occupied for non-residential uses. There would be extensive
changes that would have to be made to make the structure usable as a residential structure for the
organization. From a general use perspective, it is currently in structurally stable condition to be used as
an accessory use for BIG.
Page 7 of 53
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 3
Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to
the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure
to its original design?
The windows, siding, porch, and entire rear portion of the structure are not original to the home.
May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
Yes, it could be used for other uses, but not for residential for the owner.
May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
No, because it is not a pier and beam, there is nothing to support the exterior load bearing walls.
Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style,
architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme?
No
Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones?
N/A
Other comments
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Based on:
Page 8 of 53
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 3 of 3
3/14/2019____
Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date
Page 9 of 53
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: COA-2018-063
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 903 N. Myrtle St.
APPLICANT: Luke Lunsford, Brookwood in Georgetown
Background
This approximately .33 acre property includes a low priority structure identified on the 2016
Historic Resource Survey. It was not included on the 1984 or 2007 historic resource surveys.
The survey identifies as the structure having an irregular plan and no stylistic influences, it
also includes that the “property lacks integrity”. The property was previously a residence, but
is currently owned by Brookwood in Georgetown. They are currently using this structure for
accessory uses for their organization. They would like to increase the housing opportunities
they have for their residents, however the cost to retrofit this structure to meet their needs
would be beyond the value of the home. They have an additional historic residential structure
that is a medium priority home next door that they will be able to relocate.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application
(9 notices mailed), and one (1) sign was posted on-site. To date, staff has not received any public
comments.
Findings
The structure has had the siding replaced and the windows replaced with non-historic materials.
The front porch, both concrete foundation and roofing has been altered and or added on in the
recent past as well as the entire rear half of the structure being an addition. There is wood rot
from water damage and evidence of termite damage. The foundation interior is unknown, but
the outside is perimeter beam concrete, with the lack of visible vents, there is a high chance for
low to no drainage and water retention under the home. In addition, with this type of
foundation, relocation would be extremely challenging and costly. The structure itself lacks a
distinct architectural style and lacks integrity with non-historic materials.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
3/13/2019
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Page 10 of 53
File Number: COA-2018-055
Meeting Date: January 24, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Page 11 of 53
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
County Williamson Local District:
Address:903 N Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126251
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R359216Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 5/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1920
Bungalow
Other
Center Passage
Shotgun
Open2-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 page 2
General Notes:
Explain:Property lacks integrity
Geographic Location
Latitude:30.649127 Longitude -97.675111
Current/Historic Name:None/None
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID Not Recorded
ID Not Recorded
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
ID 126251 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Photo direction: East
Page 12 of 53
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
County Williamson Local District:
Address:903 N Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126251
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Ancillary (not historic-age)
NortheastPhoto Direction
Ancillary (not historic-age)
EastPhoto Direction
Page 13 of 53
Brookwood in Georgetown Expansion – Letter of Intent
To whom it may concern,
In this letter Brookwood in Georgetown would like to submit a formal request for demolition of 903
Myrtle St. structure, based on a combination of factors including loss of significance, unreasonable
economic hardship, and compelling public interest.
Loss of Significance
Though records of 903 Myrtle St. indicate it was constructed over 50 years ago, very little historical
significance has been maintained by its long series of owners, or by any neighboring structures or
residences. In fact, the structure is currently zoned C-3 and the closest medium priority historical
structure is over two blocks away, southwest of the home. Additionally, the structure is in very poor
condition, with exterior deterioration and significant foundation and wall movement in the interior.
These alter the significance of the structure as compared to its original state and value.
Unreasonable Economic Hardship
The structural integrity of this building and the future intended use of the site as a home for adults with
special needs make it neither practical nor viable to utilize in such a way as to maintain perceived
historical value. Any expansion or updates required for future use as a home would further alter the
structure beyond recognition of its original state. Additionally, attempts to extract the original structure
for relocation is also impractical given its lack of structural integrity. A complete demolition of the
structure is the most appropriate approach to this site.
Compelling Public Interest
The proposed use of this site as a group home for special needs adults (designated an “assisted living”
facility within the C-3 zoning designation) will be a critical expansion to serve the needs of the
community into the future. Currently, no such facility exists in Williamson County, despite the thousands
of adults living with special needs, and BiG intends to provide a critical opportunity for purposeful living
and work opportunities for these valuable citizens. It is important to construct a facility unique for these
needs on this site as it allows for close connectivity to their workplace for the many in wheelchairs. BiG
has been very grateful for the City of Georgetown’s support for this program, and trusts that these
priorities will be considered in comparison with any past historical value associated with the existing
structure.
Page 14 of 53
On behalf of Brookwood in Georgetown,
Luke Lunsford
Expansion Project Manager
281-703-4204
Page 15 of 53
PropertyOwnerProperty Address2018 Assessed ValueR040322BROOKWOOD IN GEORGETOWN VOCATIONAL905 MYRTLE ST, GEORGETOWN, TX 78626$163,7782019 GENERAL INFORMATIONProperty StatusActiveProperty TypeLand - TransitionalLegal DescriptionAW0497 AW0497 - Porter, N. Sur., ACRES 0.238NeighborhoodG90QN - East G-town Nom-impAccountR-20-0497-0000-0015Map Number3-0327,(3-0818)2019 OWNER INFORMATIONOwner NameBROOKWOOD IN GEORGETOWN VOCATIONALOwner IDO0533264ExemptionsExempt PropertyPercent Ownership100%Mailing Address905 N CHURCH ST #STE 101 GEORGETOWN, TX 786262018 VALUE INFORMATIONImprovement Homesite Value$0Improvement Non-Homesite Value$75,138Total Improvement Market Value$75,138Land Homesite Value$0Land Non-Homesite Value$88,640Land Agricultural Market Value$0Total Land Market Value$88,640Total Market Value$163,778Agricultural Use$0Total Appraised Value$163,778Homestead Cap Loss-$0Total Assessed Value$163,7782018 ENTITIES & EXEMPTIONSSpecial ExemptionsEX - Exempt PropertyTAXING ENTITYEXEMPTIONSEXEMPTIONS AMOUNTTAXABLE VALUETAX RATE PER 100TAX CEILINGCAD- Williamson CAD$0$000CGT- City of Georgetown$0$00.420GWI- Williamson CO$0$00.4190290RFM- Wmsn CO FM/RD$0$00.040SGT- Georgetown ISD$0$01.4090TOTALS2.288029Print property informationPage 16 of 53
2018 IMPROVEMENTS Expand/Collapse All2018 LAND SEGMENTSLAND SEGMENT TYPESTATE CODEHOMESITEMARKET VALUEAG USE LOSSLAND SIZE1 - ResidentialXV - Other ExemptionsNo$88,640$010,367 Sq. ftTOTALS10,367 Sq. ft / 0.238000 acresImprovement #1State CodeHomesiteTotal Main AreaMarket Value-XV - Other ExemptionsNo1,284 Sq. Ft$75,138RECORDTYPEYEAR BUILTSQ. FTVALUEADD'L INFO1Main Area19301,284$58,535 Details2Carport-320$3,647 Details3Open Porch-576$6,565 Details4Patio-24$21 Details5Patio-133$116 Details6Utility/storage-270$6,154 Details7Out Bldg--$100 DetailsClassH1 (H1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN OLD TOWN)Bedrooms1172Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-FoundationPB (Pier/beam)Adjustment %87%Heat and ACCHCAInt. Finish-Roof StyleGBLFireplaces-Ext. FinishWDClassH1 (H1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN OLD TOWN)Bedrooms-Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-Foundation-Adjustment %87%Heat and AC-Int. Finish-Roof Style-Fireplaces-Ext. Finish-ClassH1 (H1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN OLD TOWN)Bedrooms-Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-Foundation-Adjustment %87%Heat and AC-Int. Finish-Roof Style-Fireplaces-Ext. Finish-Class-Bedrooms-Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-Foundation-Adjustment %87%Heat and AC-Int. Finish-Roof Style-Fireplaces-Ext. Finish-Class-Bedrooms-Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-Foundation-Adjustment %87%Heat and AC-Int. Finish-Roof Style-Fireplaces-Ext. Finish-ClassH1 (H1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN OLD TOWN)Bedrooms-Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-Foundation-Adjustment %87%Heat and AC-Int. Finish-Roof Style-Fireplaces-Ext. Finish-Class-Bedrooms-Flooring-Eff. Year Built2005Baths (Full, ½, ¾)-Foundation-Adjustment %85%Heat and AC-Int. Finish-Roof Style-Fireplaces-Ext. Finish-Page 17 of 53
VALUE HISTORYYEARIMPROVEMENTLANDMARKETAG MARKETAG LOSSAPPRAISEDHS CAP LOSSASSESSED2017$211,103$69,300$280,403$0$0$280,403$0$280,4032016$136,720$40,821$177,541$0$0$177,541$0$177,5412015$145,069$40,821$185,890$0$0$185,890$16,956$168,9342014$113,433$40,143$153,576$0$0$153,576$0$153,5762013$115,216$39,753$154,969$0$0$154,969$0$154,969SALES HISTORYDEED DATESELLERBUYERINSTR #VOLUME/PAGE1/11/2016BRYCE, MICHAELBROOKWOOD IN GEORGETOWN VOCATIONAL20160040311/2/2015CAUDLE, GENA ABRYCE, MICHAEL20140006228/29/2005COLE, PHILIP DUDLEYCAUDLE, GENA A20050737094/24/1997COLE PHILIP DUDLEY &COLE, PHILIP DUDLEY97255556/17/1994BRIZENDINE, WALTERINE EXECCOLE PHILIP DUDLEY &-2554/05503/14/1994BURK, BESSIE LBRIZENDINE, WALTERINE EXEC-286 CAUSE/050 #143569/29/1993BURK, WALTER GBURK, BESSIE L-281/131VETERANS LAND BOARD OF TEXASBURK, WALTER G-387/488Page 18 of 53
Page 19 of 53
Page 20 of 53
Structure Photographs 905 Myrtle St. Page 21 of 53
Page 22 of 53
903 Myrtle St. Page 23 of 53
Page 24 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a A C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for: 1) 13’ 1"
s etbac k enc roachment along the north property line into the required 25’ setback, allowing for a res idential
s tructure 11’ 11" from the property line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.D;
2)street facing patio addition, for the property loc ated at 1601 E. 17th S treet, bearing the legal des cription
of 0.33 ac. Nolan Addition, Bloc k 9, Lot 3-4 (2019-5-C O A). Madison T homas, Downtown Historic
P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 25 of 53
ASH S
T
PINE S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
EL
M
S
T
S MAIN S
T
E 15TH S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 7 TH S T
E 1 3 TH S T
S CO
LLE
G
E S
T
J
A
N
L
N
E 5 TH S T
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
E 6 TH S T
S MY
RTLE
S
T
Q U A IL V A L L E Y D R
FM 1 46 0
P E R KIN S P L
OLIV
E
ST
A
S
H
B
E
R
R
Y
T
R
L
WALNUT
ST
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
W A I Z E L W A Y
K
A
T
Y
L
N
H
O
W
R
Y
D
R
E 21ST ST
E 1 9 T H S T
E 10TH S T
E 11 TH S T
E 1 8 T H S T
C A P R O C K P L
UNIVERSITYPAR K D R
SOUT H W ESTERNBLVD
E 1 6 TH S T
VINE ST
E 14TH ST
FINCH LN
S
U
M
M
ERCRES
T
B
L
V
D
M
O
T
T
E
Y
S
T
E 8 T H S T
L
O
U
I
S
E
S
T
LAURE
L ST
H
A
V
E
N
L
N
H
O
G
G
S
T
R
I
F
L
E
B
E
N
D
D
R
M
C
C
O
M
B
S
S
T
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
C A N D L E R I D G E T R L
W
I
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
PAIGE ST
B
A
R
C
U
S
D
R
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
N
D
R
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
E 20TH ST
B R O O K H O L L O W T E R
C
R
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
L
N
P I R A T E D R
R A I N T R E E D R
P
E
C
A
N
S
T
B
RIA
R HIL
L D
RSOULE DR
S
M
I
T
H
B
R
A
N
C
H
B
L
V
D
T
R
AILSENDDR
VIVION LN
M
C
C
O
O
K
D
R
M
I
M
O
S
A
S
T
E 2 2 N D S T
S E R VI C E R D
C A N T E R B U R Y T R L
A
L
L
E
Y
B O U L D E R R U N
S
M
I
T
H
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
P
I
R
A
T
E
C
V
W
A
T
E
R
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
JA
ME
S
ST
E 17TH ST
B E R G I N C T
R O C K L E D G E D R
E R U TERSVIL
L
E
D
R
K
A
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
C
T
E 9 T H S T
E 1 9 T H 1 /2 S T
M C C O Y P L
C
A
ROLCT
A
N
N
I
E
P
URLDV
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
M C K E N Z I E D R
GEORGE ST
S
H
O
R
T S
T
Q
U
A
I
L
MEADOWDR
E 9TH 1/2 ST
C
O
F
F
E
E
S
T
O L I N C V
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E 1 7 T H S TWALNUT
ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
PINE ST
E 9 TH S T
H
O
LLY
ST
E 1 3 T H S T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 11TH ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
E 2 0 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 10TH ST
E 9 T H S T
E 1 9 T H S T
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
E 1 6 T H S T
V
I
N
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
ST
E 1 4 TH S T
E 1 7 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 1 8 T H S T
E 16TH STE 16TH ST
E 2 1 S T S T
2019-5-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 26 of 53
Page 27 of 53
SITE LOCATION
N
17th STREET
LOUISE STREET
Project Perspective View
scale: none
C1.0
1
Vicinity Map
scale: none
C1.0
2
EXTENT OF WORK:
SOME INTERIOR DEMOLITION;
REMODEL KITCHEN, MASTER BATH,
MASTER CLOSET, AND LAUNDRY.
NEW PLUMBING REQUIRED
THROUGHOUT. EXTEND GAS TO NEW
RANGE LOCATION AND NEW AIR
HANDLER. NEW MACHANICAL CLOSET
IN EXISTING GARAGE. RAISE CEILING
IN LIVINGROOM AND KITCHEN BY
FORTIFYING TRUSS SYSTEMS AND
VAULTING; INSULATE WITH SPRAY
FOAM. NEW BATHROOM WITH SHOWER
IN EXISTING GARAGE. NEW CANNED
LIGHTS AND PENDANT LIGHTS WHERE
ELECTRICAL PLAN SHOWS. NEW
EXTERIOR SCREEN FENCE AT PATIO.
CLOSE IN GARAGE WITH WINDOWS
AND DOOR, TO MAKE GAME ROOM;
CONDITIONED SPACE. NEW KITCHEN
SINK WITH DISPOSAL, REFRIGERATOR,
DISHWASHER, GAS RANGE AND HOOD.
NEW CARPORT WITH CLOSET. NEW
DECK AT FRONT PORCH. CHANGE
MASTER DOOR FROM POCKET TO
HINGE.
C1.0COVER PAGE
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 28 of 53
NOTE:
1.) BASE MAP PROVIDED BY
TEXAS LAND SURVEY, INC.
DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2018.
2.) EXTERIOR MEASUREMENTS ARE ESTIMATED.
N
HOUSE
CONCRETE WALK
CONDENSOR UNIT
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED
CARPORT
PROPERTY AREA: 15,622 SQFT
EXISTING COVER: 4,582 SQFT
PROPOSED COVER: 4,686 SQFT
INCREASE % COVER: 2.3%
PROPERTY % COVER: 30%
CARPORT FOOTPRINT:
529 SQFT
EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT:
2,772 SQFT
209 SQFT;
CONCRETE
160 SQFT;
CONCRETE
25' SET-BACK LOCATION
227 SQFT;
CONCRETE
12'-1/4"
11'-11 1/2"
11'-11 1/4"
Site Plan
scale: 1" = 20 Feet
S1.1
1
Perspective
scale: none
S1.1
2
Perspective
scale: none
S1.1
3
CALCULATIONS:
S1.1SITE PLAN
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 29 of 53
F.F.@0'-0"
SECTION
CUT
@72"
N
CARPORT
EXISTING
HOUSE
23'-0"
18"X18" MASONRY BRICK APRON
TO MATCH HOUSE,
6X6 WOOD POST, TYP.
10'-10"
10'-10"
21'-8"
23'-0"
Floor Plan (@72")
scale: 1/8" = 1 Foot
A1.3
1
Perspective
scale: none
A1.3
2
A1.3CARPORT FLOOR PLAN
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 30 of 53
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
N
PROPOSED CARPORT;
HIP ROOF
EXISTING HIP ROOF
NOTE:
1.) BASE MAP PROVIDED BY
TEXAS LAND SURVEY, INC.
DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2018.
25' SET-BACK LOCATION
29'-8 3/4"
48'-10 3/4"
27'-0"
27'-0"
Roof Plan
scale: 1/8" = 1 Foot
A1.11
1
A1.11ROOF PLAN
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 31 of 53
ELEVATION 0"
ELEVATION 0"
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
124
12
BALCONY
18"X18" MASONRY BRICK APRON
TO MATCH HOUSE,
6X6 WOOD POST
12'-1/2"
13'-6"
12'-11 1/4"
13'-6"
7'-1 1/2"
7'-1 3/4"
9'-0"
6'-2"
6'-0"5'-0"
2'-0"
2'-6"
2'-6"2'-6"
Elevation: South
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A4.1
2
Elevation: West
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A4.1
1
A4.1ELEVATIONS
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 32 of 53
ELEVATION 0"
ELEVATION 0"
4
12
4
12
4
124
12
4
12
BALCONY
BOARD AND BATTEN
WINDOW
12'-1/2"
13'-6"
12'-11 1/4"
13'-6"
12'-8 1/2"
6'-0"6'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"1'-9"1'-7"
1'-8 1/4"
3'-0"
2'-8"
4'-5 1/4"
2'-0"
2'-6"2'-6"
2'-6"2'-0"2'-6"
Elevation: East
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A4.2
1
Elevation: North
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A4.2
2
A4.2ELEVATIONS
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 33 of 53
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
4
12
N
PROPOSED CARPORT;
HIP ROOF
EXISTING HIP ROOF
NOTE:
1.) BASE MAP PROVIDED BY
TEXAS LAND SURVEY, INC.
DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2018.
29'-8 3/4"
58'-7 1/2"
30'-11"27'-7 1/2"20'-1 3/4"
32'-2 3/4"
3'-4 1/2"
7'-8"
48'-10 3/4"
15'-4 1/4"
27'-0"
Roof Plan
scale: 1/8" = 1 Foot
A1.8
1
A1.8ROOF PLAN
Rev.:03/13/2019
REMODEL
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 11"x17"
CLIENT:Melissa Johnson
(469) 223.8100
melissahellerjohnson@gmail.com
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
1601 E. 17th Street
Georgetown, Texas
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/MelissaJohnson/JOHNSON17THSTREET_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR:
Date:11/25/2018
Page 34 of 53
Example of home with similar shorter setback same block
Page 35 of 53
Page 36 of 53
PlyGem 310 Series Single Hung Aluminum Window -Bronze
Page 37 of 53
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1601 E 17th St 2016 Survey ID:124368
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address SARKORNRAT, VORASAK, 1601 E 17TH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-7253
Latitude:30.63046 Longitude -97.661958
Addition/Subdivision:S4201 - Nolen Addition
WCAD ID:R043501Legal Description (Lot/Block):NOLEN ADDITION, BLOCK 9, LOT 3-4, ACRES 0.330
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 4/21/2016Recorded 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:1970
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: North
Page 38 of 53
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1601 E 17th St 2016 Survey ID:124368
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, brick, ranch style house with a T-plan, cross-hipped roof with wide eaves, attached carport at the rear, and
an inset entry stoop with a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
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
Masonry planter encloses the
entry stoop
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Hipped
Metal, Shutters
Metal Posts
Masonry
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 39 of 53
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1601 E 17th St 2016 Survey ID:124368
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of
integrity; property is significant and
contributes to neighborhood character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:399
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 40 of 53
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1601 E 17th St 2016 Survey ID:124368
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 41 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 1 of 8
Meeting Date: 3/28/2019
File Number: 2019-5-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) 13’ 1" setback
encroachment along the north property line into the required 25’ setback, allowing for a residential
structure 11’ 11" from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D;
and 2) street facing patio addition, for the property located at 1601 E. 17th Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.33 ac. Nolen Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4 (2019-5-COA). Madison Thomas, Downtown
Historic Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Residential Remodel
Applicant: JMJ Future Investment Trust
Property Owner: Jeff and Melissa Johnson
Property Address: 1601 E. 17th St., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: Nolan Addition, Block 9, Lot 3-4
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1970
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A
2007 - Medium
2016 - Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
There is an existing historic home on the lot with a concrete front patio. The applicant is
requesting to expand the existing patio for a total of 120 sq. ft. concrete patio.
The application is also proposing to add a 520 sq. ft. carport to accommodate two cars. The
required height at the setback is a max. of 15’ and the applicant is proposing a height of 12’, which is
lower than the roof of the existing house. The proposed carport will be in the rear yard of the home
adjacent to Louise St., where a paved driveway currently exists. The applicant is requesting a setback
encroachment to allow the carport to be placed where the existing driveway is and parallel to the existing
house, which is set back 11’ 11.25” from the street side lot line. The Unified Development Code Sec.
6.02.050 requires a street facing garage to be set back a minimum of 25’. The applicant is requesting to
Page 42 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 2 of 8
place the garage 11’ 11.25” from the property line. The purpose of the setback request is to allow the
plane of the proposed carport line up with the plane of the existing façade of the home, to keep a
consistent setback line along Louise St. for this lot, and to reduce conflicts of locating the proposed
carport almost centered behind the existing house.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting to enlarge by approximately 160 sq.ft. the existing concrete patio
that is located on the front façade of the home. The size proposed is appropriate in comparison to the
existing structure and the size of typical front patios. The current patio does not exhibit any
architectural style or characteristics, which is common for the front patio space of Ranch style homes.
Typical Ranch homes focused on elongating the front façade, even including a garage to extend
that length. The structure being discussed currently has a garage that is attached to the house; however,
the applicant is requesting to enclose the garage for additional living space, and build a new two-car
carport. The HPO is required to review the proposed structure for compatibility, and HARC will be
reviewing the setback request.
When a setback encroachment is being requested, HARC should consider the following criteria:
D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Exception.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness,
per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base
zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District.
2. HARC may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate
of Appropriateness for a setback exception:
Approval Criteria Staff Findings
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a
matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The current structure is located at the
south west portion of the lot with an
existing garage attached to the
structure. The request to enclose the
existing garage and build a new
carport behind the location of the
existing garage will need a setback
encroachment for the side lot line.
The proposed location of the carport
will meet the rear setback
Page 43 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 3 of 8
requirements, but to allow the
proposed structure be in line with
the façade of the existing home an
encroachment will need to be
granted. The existing backyard of the
home is already small due to the
location of the home on the lot giving
it a larger side yard on its east.
Placing the structure 25’ from the
property line would place the
proposed carport in the middle of
the backyard, approximately 81 feet
from the opposite side lot line. They
could push the structure towards the
north east corner of the lot. With this
scenario, they would either place the
carport directly behind the existing
structure, or they could place it past
the existing structure to the very
north east corner of the lot. With
both options, they would be required
to run a driveway through the rear
portion of their lot. With the second
option, two new street facing facades
would be created, one along Louise
St. and the other along 17th St.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into
the setback;
Does not Comply
Pushing the carport towards the
center of the lot would reduce the
backyard size and position the
carport almost centered behind the
house. There is additional room on
the north east corner of the lot to
position the carport in compliance
with the minimum setback
requirements. Depending on how far
back the carport is set from the street
side property line, a new street-
facing façade from 17th Street may be
created.
Page 44 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 4 of 8
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property is
located;
Partially Complies
The block was defined as the
properties adjacent to Louise St., E.
16th St., Katherine Ct., E. 15th St.,
Hutto Road and E. 17th St. This block
has a mix of historic homes with
older accessory structures, new
accessory structures, and new
homes. There is also a mix of lot sizes
and configurations. There is one
home on the block with a similar lot
configuration, and a street facing
garage. This property seems to have
a similar garage setback to what is
currently proposed. The other
historic structures along the block,
which are also corner lots have
similar side setbacks. The property
directly behind this property takes
its front setback from Louise Street,
and is further back from the property
line then the side setback of the
property being discussed. The new
carport would maintain the existing
building line of the structure on the
lot.
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 is compatible
with the existing structure on the lot
as well as the side street setback for
other historic properties along the
block that are corner lots.
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
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;
N/A
Page 45 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 5 of 8
i. Reserved.
j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
There are multiple other properties
along the block that have a two-car
carport or garage of similar size and
scale.
k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting
their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed location of this
structure will not negatively impact
the adjoining property. The setback
distance for the adjacent property is
being met.
l. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent
structures; and/or
Complies
The setback from the property line is
over 11’. This is the same distance as
the existing house is from the street.
There is adequate maintenance
space.
m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
N/A
Meeting the required setback would
not impact existing trees on the lot.
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:
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING
ELEMENTS
Staff Comments
6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing.
• Do not remove original details from a porch. These
include the columns, balustrade, and any decorative
brackets that may exist.
• Maintain the existing location, shape, details, and columns
of the porch.
• Missing or deteriorated decorative elements should be
replaced with new wood, milled to match existing elements.
Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters
when replacing missing ones.
• Unless used historically, wrought iron porch posts and
columns are inappropriate.
Complies
The existing patio is a low concrete
patio with no cover. The proposed
changes will only expand the patio
coverage and use the same material.
Page 46 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 6 of 8
• Where an historic porch does not meet current code
requirements and alterations are needed or required, then
retrofit it to meet the code, while also preserving original
features. Do not replace a porch that can otherwise be
modified to meet code requirements.
• A missing porch and its steps should be reconstructed,
using photographic documentation and historical research,
to be compatible in design and detail with the period and
style of the building.
• Most precast concrete steps are not acceptable alternatives
for primary façade porches.
• Construction of a new non-original porch is usually
inappropriate.
• The construction of a non-original second or third level
porch, balcony, deck, or sun porch on the roof of an existing
front porch is inappropriate.
6.26 Avoid enclosing an historic front porch with opaque
materials.
• Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the
openness and transparency of the porch is inappropriate.
• If historic porches that have been enclosed in the past are
proposed to be remodeled or altered, they should be
restored to their appearance during the period of
significance, unless the enclosure, by nature of its age,
architectural significance, or other special circumstance, has
achieved historic significance of its own.
• When a porch is enclosed or screened, it shall be done
with a clear transparent material. This material should be
placed behind porch columns.
Complies
The current patio is unenclosed, it
will remain but be expanded.
6.27 The detailing of decks and exterior stairs should be
compatible with the style and period of the structure.
• The color and material of decks and stairs should
complement the main structure.
• New decks should be minimally visible from the street
and should have no major impact on the original building.
Complies
The same concrete material for the
current porch will be used for the
expansion. The expansion is minor
and will not visually impact the
originally building.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
Page 47 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 7 of 8
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
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Partially
Complies
The applicant is
seeking an
exception to the
minimum setback
requirement for a
garage/carport.
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/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval and finds that the proposed patio addition is appropriate to the design and
style of the original patio and house. Staff also finds that the proposed setback of the carport is
appropriate and compatible and within context with the setbacks for the existing structure and other
historic structures within the neighborhood.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 48 of 53
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-5-COA – 1601 E 17th St Page 8 of 8
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Page 49 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible ac tion regarding the potential His toric al and Architec tural R eview C ommittee
meeting and training sc hedule for the 2019-2020 calendar year.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
na
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Discus s ion and possible action regarding the potential Historical
and Architectural Review Committee meeting and training schedule
for the 2019-2020 calendar year.
Cover Memo
Page 50 of 53
Month Training Overview Speaker Outcome
March (new Commissioners) Robert's Rules & Meeting Procedures Provide handouts, give copy of Design Guidelines, provide
future educational opportunities.
Madison Knowledge of how to conduct a meeting, how to make a
motion, general meeting procedures
1st Quarter UDC HARC Approval Criteria
How to make a motion, make findings, reference approval
criteria (regular, height, setback, demolition)
Madison
Knowledge of how to use the HARC approval criteria to make
a motion. Use criteria and guidelines to support or deny
1st Quarter Design Guidelines
Basic overview of chapters and how it is used, project
review , practice reviewing a project
Madison Understanding the purpose of the guidelines, reviewing the
different chapters, knowing which chapters to use and
when.
1st Quarter COA Process & Procedures
Overview of the process and the procedures that the
applicants go through prior to appearing at HARC.
Presentation from last year. Include process after HARC
(site plan & staff's role)
Madison Understand the COA process from an applicant's perspective
and the review process the proposed project goes through
prior to going to HARC, also understanding the continuation
of that process after HARC approval, i.e.. Site plan and staff's
role.
2nd Quarter Lessons Learned: Previous COA Case Review
Site visit of properties and previous projects. Could bring
back previous commissioners to help?
Visualizing how the guidelines can be interpreted based on
context of the area. How to read paper drawings and
visualize the built structure and its future impact on the
area.
2nd Quarter Downtown Visit properties in the Downtown that have been through
the HARC process. Discuss how the changes impacted the
priority level, discuss the design guidelines used and do
exercise on how to implement the guidelines based on
before & after. (size, massing, scale)
Downtown project discussions tend to focus on size,
massing and scale, focus on understanding these words and
how they relate. Seeing how drawings translate to the built
form.
2nd Quarter Old Town Visit properties in the Old Town that have been through
the HARC process. Discuss how the changes impacted the
priority level, discuss the design guidelines used and do
exercise on how to implement the guidelines based on
before & after. (style, additions) Same as above but focus on additions and style that tend to
be topics of discussion for projects in Old Town.
3rd Quarter Demolition Process & Procedures Review application process for demolition, CLG
requirements, Demo. Subcommittee responsibility, and
HARC findings.
Understand how to review the Demolition criteria for HARC,
how to make those findings to either support or oppose the
request.
3rd Quarter Archival Record: 1111 E. 7th Street Have Britin come and speak on the archival process,
salvage process and share what they were able to
discover about the history of this house during this
process.
Britin Bostick
Understand the archival record process and reasearch that is
required. See the benefits of what can be discovered from it.
3rd Quarter Rehabilitation Process Projects that are located in the overlay districts are
required to maintain their homes. Review this policy and
process. See the before and after for the Austin Ave.
property. Understand the policy and process.
4th Quarter CLG Overview To provide overview of what it means to be a CLG and
what resources it provides.
Texas Historical Commission
Rep.
To provide overview of what it means to be a CLG and what
resources it provides.
4th Quarter Main Street Training Bring in a representive from Main Street to share the
benefits that a historic preservation has on economic
development.
2019 HARC Training
Page 51 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Updates, C ommissioner ques tions and c omments . S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor
IT E M S UMMARY:
Update on UDC amendments
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nathaniel Waggoner
Page 52 of 53
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
March 28, 2019
S UB J E C T:
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
na
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Page 53 of 53