HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.22.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
April 22, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at Virtual
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me eti ng wil l conve ne at 6:00pm on April 22, 2021 via
te le confe r e nce . To par tic ipate , pl e ase c opy and paste the webli nk into your
browse r :
Weblink: http://bit.l y/3r V 2 S zO
Webinar I D : 939-2893-0827
P asswor d: 109860
To partic ipate by phone :
C all in number s: (346)248-7799 or Tol l-F r ee : 833-548-0282
P asswor d: 109860
C itizen c omments ar e ac ce pte d in thr ee di ffer ent for mats:
1. Submi t wr itte n c omments to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the R e c or di ng Se cr etar y wil l r e ad your comme nts
into the r e c or di ng dur ing the i te m that i s being discusse d.
2. L og onto the me eti ng at the li nk above and "raise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home/mobile phone to cal l the toll-fre e number To join a Zoom
mee ting, c li c k on the link provi de d and joi n as an atte nde e. You will be aske d
to e nte r your name and e mail addr e ss (thi s is so we c an i de nti fy you when
you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c lick on the "R ai se your H and"
option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e that i tem has
opened. Whe n you ar e c alled upon by the R e cor ding S e c re tary, your de vic e
will be r e mote ly un-mute d by the A dministrator and you may spe ak for thr e e
minute s. P le ase state your name c l ear ly, and when your ti me is ove r, your
devic e wi ll be muted again.
U se of pr ofani ty, thre atening l anguage, slande rous r e mar ks or thre ats of
harm ar e not all owe d and will r e sult i n you be ing imme diate ly r emove d from
Page 1 of 46
the mee ti ng.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c o nvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purp o s e
authorized b y the O pen Meetings Ac t, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.)
A D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
B T he His to ric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n, appointed b y the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertificates of Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity C o uncil ad o p ted Downto wn Design G uid elines and Unified Develo p ment C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P rocedures:
· S taff P res entation
· Applic ant P resentatio n (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the C o mmis s io n.)
· Q ues tions from C o mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
· C o mments from C itizens *
· Applic ant R espons e
· C o mmis s io n Delib erative P roc es s
· C o mmis s io n Ac tion
* O nc e staff and the applic ant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns fro m the C o mmis s ioners , the C hair of the
C ommissio n will o p en the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will as k if anyone would like to speak. To s p eak, c lic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zo om meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and yo u may speak for three minutes . P leas e state your name and ad d res s c learly. A
speaker may allo t their time to another speaker fo r a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er o f the
pub lic wis hes to allo t their time to another speaker, they may d o s o when their name is c alled by the C hair.
P lease rememb er that all c omments and ques tio ns mus t b e addressed to the C ommission, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers during the pub lic hearing p o rtio n. W hen your time is over, yo ur
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s peak has s p o ken, the C hair will c lo s e the pub lic hearing and provid e a
few minutes o f rebuttal time to the ap p lic ant if they s o c hoose.
C Nominatio n and s electio n o f Vice-c hair and S ec retary for the 2021-22 year.
D Disc ussio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve meeting time, date and plac e fo r 2021-22 year.
E C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app o int a new member to the Historic and Architec tural R eview
Demolition S ub committee.
F C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to c onfirm the bylaws for the Historic and Architec tural R eview
C ommissio n -- S ofia Nels o n, C NU-A, P lanning Direc tor
P ublic Wishing to Address the Board
O n a s ubjec t that is p o s ted o n this agenda: P leas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Board meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which you wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
Page 2 of 46
S taff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. Yo u will b e c alled fo rward to s p eak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
O n a s ubjec t no t p o s ted o n the agenda: P ers ons may add an item to a future Board agend a by filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than o ne week prior to the Bo ard meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . F o r Board Liais o n contac t information, p leas e logo n to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
G At the time of p o s ting, no persons had signed up to address the Bo ard.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
H C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the April 8, 2021 regular meeting of the
Histo ric and Architec tural R eview C o mmis s ion. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
I P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r
new s ignage that is inc o nsistent with an ap p ro ved Master S ign P lan o r ap p lic able guid elines at the
property loc ated at 701 E. Univers ity Avenue, b earing the legal d es cription 0.31 acres, being the southwes t
part of Blo c k 2, S nyd er Ad d ition. – Britin Bos tick, Do wntown & His to ric P lanner
J Updates , C ommis s ioner ques tions , and c o mments . - S ofia Nels o n, P lanning Direc tor
K P resentation and dis c ussion of the Downtown and O ld Town Des ign G uid elines Up d ate with a preview
of the pro p o s ed c hanges and p res entatio n o f next s tep s and timeline for the projec t.
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 3 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 22, 2021
S UB J E C T:
No minatio n and s elec tion of Vic e-chair and S ec retary fo r the 2021-22 year.
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ommiss io n will s elect a Vic e-chair and S ec retary fo r the 2021/22 year.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia. Management Analyst
Page 4 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 22, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s io n and pos s ible actio n to ap p ro ve meeting time, d ate and p lace for 2021-22 year.
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ommiss io n will d is cus s and possibly ap p ro ve a new meeting time, date and p lace fo r the 2021-22
year.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia. Management Analyst
Page 5 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 22, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to confirm the bylaws fo r the His toric and Arc hitectural R eview
C o mmis s io n -- S o fia Nelson, C NU-A, P lanning Directo r
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
HARC Bylaws Backup Material
Page 6 of 46
Page 7 of 46
Section 1.3. Delegation of a Demolition Subcommittee.
a.The HARC shall appoint a Demolition Subcommittee to review and provide a
recommendation to the HARC on requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or structure designated as
a Historic Landmark or a contributing historic structure, in accordance with the
process established in the Unified Development Code.
1.The Demolition Subcommittee shall be composed of at least three members.
2.The members of the Demolition Subcommittee shall consist of two HARC
members and the Building Official.
3.Whenever possible, one of the HARC members to be appointed to the
Demolition Subcommittee shall meet one or more of the following categories:
1.Licensed Architect, or
2.Structural Engineer, or
3.Historic Preservationist.
b.The Demolition Subcommittee may consult with a licensed architect, structural
engineer or historic preservationist to review the request, and make a
preliminary report to the subcommittee. In this event, the report shall be made
part of the subcommittee's recommendation to the HARC.
ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP
Section 2.1. Number of Members. The Commission will be composed of not less than
seven (7) Members.
Section 2.2. Eligibility.
a.At least two Commission Members shall be property owners in the historic
Downtown Overlay District. All Commission Members shall be either registered
voters of the City or owners of real property that is designated as historic, either in
the City's historic survey or with a state or federal historic designation, and located
within the Downtown or Old Town Overlay Districts. Commission Members who
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 2 of8
Page 8 of 46
are registered voters must have resided within the City for one year preceding their
appointment.
b.Whenever possible, the Commission shall include a minimum of two Members who
are property owners in the Downtown Overlay District and a maximum of two
Members from each of the following categories having a demonstrated interest in
the downtown area or skills in design review. Members of the Commission may
meet one or more of the categories:
1.licensed architect;
2.landscape architect, professional planner or urban designer;
3.historian or person with expertise in historic preservation;
4.developer, contractor or realtor; and·
5.property owner or non-owner tenant within the Downtown Overlay
District.
Citizens-at-large with an interest in historic preservation or urban design shall be
appointed to the Commission to fill remaining appointments.
Section 2.3. Appointment of Commission Members and Commissioners-in
Training.
a.Members of the Commission shall be appointed pursuant to and in accordance with
the City Charter.
b.The City Council shall also appoint two persons, who would be qualified to serve on
HARC as Alternate Members. Alternate Members shall serve as alternates with
voting privileges for any absent Commissioner. Each individual appointed as an
Alternate Member shall be appointed as either Alternate Commissioner serving as a
Commissioner when needed. Alternate Members shall be eligible to be appointed to
the position of Commissioner upon the expiration of the term of a regular
Commissioner upon the creation of a vacancy on the Commission
Section 2.4. Terms of Office. Generally, terms of office for each Member shall be two
(2)years. Generally, a Member may serve two (2) consecutive terms. Refer to Ordinance
Section 2.36.030A for additional provisions regarding terms of office.
Section 2.5. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur during a term shall be filled as soon as
reasonably possible and in the same manner as an appointment in accordance with the
City Charter. If possible, the Member shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled.
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws Revised April 2019
Page 3 of8
Page 9 of 46
Page 10 of 46
Page 11 of 46
Page 12 of 46
Page 13 of 46
Page 14 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 22, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the April 8, 2021 regular meeting o f the
His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommiss io n. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 15 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: April 8, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
April 8, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: http://bit.ly/3tep48p
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on April 8, 2021 via teleconference at:
http://bit.ly/3tep48p. Webinar ID: 968-4916-1103. To participate by phone: Call in number: (346)
248-7799 or Toll-Free: 833-548-0282. Password: 674377. Public Comment was allowed via the
conference call number or the “ask a question” function on the video conference option; no in-
person input was allowed.
Members Present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Terri Hyde; Steve Johnston; Faustine Curry; Catherine
Morales; Pam Mitchell; Robert McCabe; Michael Walton
Members Absent: Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sofia
Nelson, Planning Director
Meeting called to order by Chair Parr at 6:02 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commis sioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide
comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, please identify yourself by either entering your name, address and item
number on the Q/A chat on your screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3
Page 16 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: April 8, 2021
minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a
member of the public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their
name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be addressed
to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers during th e public hearing
portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing
and provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing
a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The
request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with su fficient
information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 25, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion by to approve by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Approved (4-0) with Chair Parr and Commissioner Hyde abstained.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade at the property
located at 1601 E. 17th Street, bearing the legal description Lots 3 and 4, Block 9, Nolen
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick:
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of a prefabricated utility shed to
the northeast corner of the property, situated to the rear of and detached from the main
structure but visible from both street facades. Staff has reviewed the request in accordance with
the Unified Development Code (UDC) and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the
proposed request meets 7 of the 8 criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030 for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, as outlined in the attached Staff Report.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion by to approve by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved
(6-0).
Page 17 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: April 8, 2021
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for:
an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade to change a portion of
the front façade to a screened porch; the addition of a porch, patio or deck for the addition of a
new front porch; a 1.6’ setback encroachment into the required 15’-0” side street setback for the
addition of a porch 13.4’ from the side street (west) property line; an addition that creates a
new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade for a two-story garage addition; an 18'-5"
setback encroachment into the required 25'-0" street-facing garage setback, for the garage to be
constructed 6'-7" from the side street (west) property line; a 2'-6" building height modification to
the required 15'-0" maximum building height at the side street setback, to allow the dormer to
be 17'-6" at the setback; a 3'-0" building height modification to the required 15'-0" maximum
building height at the required 10' rear (south) setback, to allow the garage addition to be 18'-0"
tall at a distance 11'-7" from the rear (south) property line; the addition of a porch, patio or deck
for the addition of a new second-floor deck between the proposed new two-story garage
addition and the existing two-story accessory structure; a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the
required 10’-0” rear (south) setback, for the construction of a second-floor deck 5’-6” from the
rear (south) property line; replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic
architectural feature for the replacement of the 32” front door with a 36” front door; replacing a
historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature for the replacement of a
second-floor window on the accessory structure with a door for access to the proposed second-
floor deck; replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature for
the replacement of three historic windows on the west façade of the historic main structure with
a new French door and three windows that are proposed to be relocated from the north and east
facades for the creation of the screened porch; and a 0.08 floor-to-area ratio (FAR) modification
to the 0.45 floor-to-area ratio for the Old Town Overlay District, to allow a floor-to-area ratio of
0.53 at the property located at 1202 E. 13th Street, bearing the legal description Lot 1, Block 1,
Coffee Heights Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick:
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for several changes to the property, which include
enlarging the current front porch, changing the room at the front left corner of the house from an
enclosed room to a screened porch with new windows on the E. 13th Street façade, and replacing
the existing 32” wide front door with a new 36” wide front door. The applicant is also requesting
to construct a two-story garage addition attached to the existing one-story historic home with an
18’-5” setback modification for the distance from the garage to the Laurel Street (west) property
line and two building height modifications as building height in the Old Town Overlay District
is limited to 15’ at the setbacks, and the proposed height of the structure exceeds that limit on the
west side of the garage addition by 2’-6” and on the south side of the garage addition by 3’-0”.
The property has an existing historic accessory structure in the southeast corner of the lot, which
is two stories in height. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a second-floor deck
between the new garage addition and the existing historic accessory structure. Although part of
Page 18 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: April 8, 2021
the deck is proposed to be between the structures and not visible from the street, part of the
proposed deck would be viewed as part of the Laurel Street façade and would require a 4’-6”
setback modification as it is proposed to be constructed up to the rear (south) property line. The
applicant is requesting HARC approval to remove one of the windows on the second floor of the
historic accessory structure and replace it with a door to facilitate access to the proposed second
floor deck between the structures. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval to remove
three of the historic windows on the west façade of the house, which faces Laurel Street, with a
French door and with three windows that are proposed to be removed and replaced as part of
the creation of the front screened porch. Staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the
Unified Development Code (UDC) and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the
proposed request meets 1 of the 8 criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030 for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, as outlined in the attached Staff Report.
Staff recommends: Approval of the request for the front porch addition and 1.6’ setback
encroachment, replacement of the front door, change of the facade to the screened front porch,
and replacement of windows with new door and relocated windows on the west façade of the
historic main structure. Approval of the garage addition and 18’-5” setback encroachment, with
the condition that the garage be one story in height.
Denial of the 2’-6” building height modification, 3’-0” building height modification, addition of
the deck, replacement of the window with a door in the historic accessory structure, and 4’-6”
setback encroachment, and 0.08 floor-to-area (FAR) modification.
The applicant, Julie Craig, addressed the Commission with comments about the door
enlargement, wood windows, use of the stone house and letters of support/contest.
Commissioner Hyde asked if it connects to the stone house and why a screened-in porch? Craig
answered it connects to the apartment unit, and that is it small for a bedroom and they like the
idea of a screened-in porch.
Commissioner Hyde, Morales, and Chair Parr commented that the french door is out of style.
Commissioner Walton asked if the applicant could clarify the window design for the garage and
awning over the double doors along Laurel Street. Craig explained that the awning along Laurel
Street will be a dormer to match, not a metal awning.
Commissioner Walton asked Bostick to clarify if the Commission is to approve what is being
presented or what changes can be made by the applicant. Bostick affirmed that the Commission
can approve changes to the application at the meeting as long as the motion language is clear.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Chair Parr commented on her concerns for UDC standards as well as mass/scale of the
additions. The windows do not fit into the original style of the home. The large addition is not
Page 19 of 46
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: April 8, 2021
in keeping with the character of the surrounding properties. Parr also commented there is a
need to clarify the awning, windows and door changes as described by the applicant.
Commissioner Hyde asked if the applicant considered adding a modern garage and using the
existing 2 story as an office space rather than building a 2 story.
Chair Parr asked Bostick to clarify if the Commission could approve a single-story garage?
Bostick clarified the need for side and rear setbacks if even if 1 story garage and that the
Commission could consider postponing a decision until further information provided by the
applicant or approve with conditions or deny the applicant.
Commissioner Walton commented that of the 13 items for review, 9 items are partially complies,
the remaining are administrative. 2 big items (FAR is a UDC item) and addition is larger than
either structure. A single story garage would make more sense, and he agrees with the front door,
porches and moving existing windows.
Commissioner Curry supports the changes to the main house, but is not inclined to approve the
garage addition due to UDC requirements. Curry prefers to see the applicant return with a new
design that provides more clarity/specificity.
Chair Parr commented that this is too large of a project to approve with conditions. Parr
recommends postponement with a redesign that clarifies the questions around door, window and
awnings. Supports the re-use of windows.
Commissioner Johnston suggested staff consider a concept of a workshop before items this
complicated are presented.
Motion to postpone action on Item F (2020-59-COA) to THE 5/13/21 meeting by
Commissioner Curry . Second by Commissioner Walton. Motion passes (6-0).
G. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved (6-0).
Meeting adjourned at 7:20pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 20 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 22, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r
new signage that is incons is tent with an ap proved Mas ter S ign P lan or ap plic ab le guidelines at the p ro p erty
lo cated at 701 E. Univers ity Avenue, bearing the legal d es criptio n 0.31 ac res , being the southwest part of
Bloc k 2, S nyd er Ad d ition. – Britin Bo s tic k, Do wntown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he Ap p licant is reques ting HAR C approval for an internally illuminated mo nument sign fo r the new vet
clinic. T he s ign is loc ated in the front yard o f the med ium p riority his to ric s tructure, along Univers ity
Avenue. T he s ign is c o nstruc ted with a c o nc rete bas e, a 5’ x 5’ illuminated , doub le-s id ed s ign panel and an
aluminum c ab inet. P er S ec tion 10.06.010 o f the Unified Develo p ment C o d e monument s igns are limited to
5’ in height and 48 s q. ft. p er side and must b e s et bac k 5’ fro m the p ro p erty line.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the reques t in acc o rd anc e with the Unified Develo p ment C o d e (UDC ) and o ther
ap p licable cod es . S taff has d etermined that the propos ed req uest meets 3 of th e 8 criteria estab lis hed in
UDC S ec tion 3 .13.0 3 0 for a C ertifica te of Ap p ropriaten ess, as outlined in the attac hed S taff R ep o rt.
Public Comments:
As required b y the Unified Develo p ment C o d e (UDC ), two (2) s igns were p o s ted o n-site. As o f the
p ublic ation date o f this rep o rt, staff has rec eived 0 written comments in favo r and 0 in oppositio n o f the
req uest.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne. T he applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 21 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-12-COA – 701 E. University Avenue Page 1 of 5
Report Date: April 16, 2021
File Number: 2021-12-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property
located at 701 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description 0.31 acres, being the southwest part of
Block 2, Snyder Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Sign for Vet Hospital
Applicant: Lee McIntosh (McIntosh Holdings)
Property Owner: 605 Academia Avenue LP
Property Address: 701 E. University Avenue
Legal Description: 0.31 acres, being the southwest part of Block 2, Snyder Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: HARC approved façade changes for the current tenant via 2019-44-COA
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1960 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New signage that is inconsistent with applicable guidelines
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for an internally illuminated monument sign for the new
vet clinic. The sign is located in the front yard of the medium priority historic structure, along University
Avenue. The sign is constructed with a concrete base, a 5’ x 5’ illuminated, double-sided sign panel and
an aluminum cabinet. Per Section 10.06.010 of the Unified Development Code monument signs are
limited to 5’ in height and 48 sq. ft. per side and must be set back 5’ from the property line. The subject
property is the site of a Medium Priority structure on the Historic Resource Survey that once housed a
medical clinic associated with the Georgetown Hospital. The building style had and has Modern
architectural style elements, popular in the mid-20th century. During that period of style preferences both
buildings and sites were designed to accommodate the automobile, and signage was auto-oriented rather
Page 22 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-12-COA – 701 E. University Avenue Page 2 of 5
than pedestrian oriented. Monument signs in front yards, large scale signs attached the buildings and
other, attention-getting signs easily viewed from vehicles gained in popularity during that period.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall
building composition.
A sign should appear to be in scale with the facade.
Locate a sign on a building such that it will
emphasize design elements of the facade itself.
Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural
features. Use the shape of the sign to help reinforce
the horizontal lines of moldings and transoms seen
along the street.
Complies
The sign is 25 sq. ft. in size and the
building façade width on the property
is approximately 100’. The sign is in
scale with the façade and is located in
the front yard setback rather than on
the building, consistent with the
building style and period of
significance.
9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or
business offered within.
To avoid driver confusion, the information on
the primary sign should be in a large enough
font or design that it is easily viewable from a
vehicle.
The sign should contain only enough
information to alert the viewer in a vehicle to
the location of the business or entity at the
building.
Whenever possible, other signs should be
utilized for information geared towards
pedestrian or other viewers.
The primary sign should be easily viewable
from a vehicle with as little visual clutter as
possible.
Complies
The sign is a primary sign for the
business and is easily viewed from
passing vehicles with little visual
clutter.
9.5 Freestanding or pole mounted signs may be
considered.
A freestanding sign may be used in the front
yard of a former residence with a commercial
use.
A freestanding sign may also be used in areas
where the primary use is set back from the
street edge.
Complies
The monument (freestanding) sign is
located in the front yard as the building
is set back from both the street edge and
front property line.
Page 23 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-12-COA – 701 E. University Avenue Page 3 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
9.15 A sign should not in any way obscure or compete
with architectural details of an historic building
facade.
This is especially important for a building with
historic significance.
A sign should be designed to integrate with the
architectural features of a building not distract
attention from them.
Complies
The sign does not compete with or
obscure the building façade.
9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with
that of the building facade.
A simple, easy-to-read sign design is
preferred.
Typefaces that are in keeping with those
seen in the area traditionally are
encouraged.
Select letter styles and sizes that will be
compatible with the building front.
Generally, these are typefaces with serifs.
Avoid hard-to-read or overly intricate
typeface styles.
Painted wood and metal are appropriate
materials for signs. Their use is
encouraged. Unfinished materials,
including untreated wood, are discouraged
because they are out of character with the
context of the Overlay Districts.
• Plastic is not permitted, except for flush,
adhesive, professionally installed lettering.
Highly reflective materials that will be
difficult to read are inappropriate.
Painted signs on blank walls were common
historically and may be considered.
Partially Complies
The sign has an aluminum cabinet, the
part of the sign that creates the sides
around the illuminated panels, but the
sign faces are acrylic, which is a type of
plastic. There are signs with similar
materials and the illuminated panel
style along E. University Avenue within
the Old Town Overlay District, and the
sign is consistent with the period of
significance of the historic structure on
the subject property in that it is an auto-
oriented front yard sign using
illumination of the panel similar to
other illuminated panel sign designs
that can still be seen in this small-scale
commercial node of Old Town, which
developed in that time period.
However, the Design Guidelines
recommend sign styles and materials
that are externally illuminated or that
illuminate the only the letters from
within.
9.21 If internal illumination is used, it should be
designed to be subordinate to the overall building
composition.
• Internal illumination of an entire sign panel is
discouraged. If internal illumination is used, a
system that backlights only the sign text is
preferred.
Does Not Comply
The entire 5’ x 5’ sign panel is
illuminated with this monument sign,
which is not consistent with the
applicable portion of this Guideline.
Neon and awning illumination are not
proposed for this signage.
Page 24 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-12-COA – 701 E. University Avenue Page 4 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
Neon and other tubular illumination may be
considered. However, use neon in limited
amounts so it does not become visually
obtrusive.
Internal illumination of an awning is
inappropriate.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient
enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with any design
standards of this Code;
Does Not Comply
The sign height exceeds the 5’ height limit for
monument signs with the combination of the 5’ tall
sign cabinet and concrete base, which extends
above grade, and the location relative to the setback
was not demonstrated to be a minimum of 5’.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most
extent practicable;
Complies
Complies with applicable SOI standards. For the
rehabilitation of historic structures, the SOI
standards recommend retaining the historic
relationship between buildings and landscape
features in the setting. For example, preserving the
relationship between a town common or urban
plaza and the adjacent houses, municipal buildings,
roads, and landscape and streetscape features. The
sign location is similar to those seen historically and
the style is similar to those pre-existing the
establishment of the historic overlay districts.
4. Compliance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from
Partially Complies
The monument sign has a fully illuminated, acrylic
sign panel that does not comply with the applicable
portion of Design Guideline 9.21. The sign complies
Page 25 of 46
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-12-COA – 701 E. University Avenue Page 5 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
time to time, specific to the applicable
Historic Overlay District;
or partially complies with the other applicable
Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and
architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
Complies
The sign does not attach to the building and does
not diminish the architectural character of the
building or site. A monument or freestanding sign
is appropriate for commercial structures in Old
Town with front setbacks.
6. New buildings or additions are
designed to be compatible with
surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No new buildings or additions are proposed as part
of this project.
7. The overall character of the applicable
historic overlay district is protected;
and
Partially Complies
Other illuminated panel signs as well as monument
signs existing in the Old Town Overlay District,
however the sign style is discouraged in the Design
Guidelines.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping
with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay
district.
Partially Complies
The sign complies with the applicable Design
Guidelines excepting 9.21 “Internal illumination of
an entire sign panel is discouraged. If internal
illumination is used, a system that backlights only
the sign text is preferred.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends DENIAL of the request.
As of the publication date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in
opposition of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 26 of 46
Location
2021-12-COA
Exhibit #1
SOULE
DR
E 13TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
PI
N
E
S
T
E 10TH
ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 11TH
ST
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
A
S
H
S
T
E 11TH ST
MA
P
L
E
S
T
E 10TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 27 of 46
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Britin Bostick
Development Services
City of Georgetown
406 West 8th Street
Georgetown Texas78626
Re: Letter of Intent
C OF A 701 East University sign
Dear Madison
Attached please find the information you requested. The other items
required were submitted last November and are in the system. The sign
is a 5 x 5 monument sign similar in design and lighting to the signs
across the street. This size is permitted given the building and site
criteria. This type and style of sign is permitted under the design
guideline and is also appropriate to our building.
Unlike the rest of the neighborhood, our building is a mid-century
modern design which we have spent considerable time and money saving
its unique design elements. The simple square lines mimic the buildings
architectural elements and enhance the design of the building by
reproducing the minimalist elements in the signage.
It is the most appropriate sign design given our buildings architectural
features. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lee H. McIntosh
McIntosh Holdings
Page 28 of 46
Page 29 of 46
Page 30 of 46
Page 31 of 46
Sign for Vet Hospital
2021-12-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
April 22, 2021
1Page 32 of 46
Item Under Consideration
2021-12-COA –Vet Hospital Sign
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable
guidelines at the property located at 701 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description
0.31 acres, being the southwest part of Block 2, Snyder Addition.
2Page 33 of 46
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New signage that is inconsistent with applicable guidelines
3Page 34 of 46
Item Under Consideration
4Page 35 of 46
Hammerlun
Center
5Page 36 of 46
Current Context
6Page 37 of 46
Sign Drawings & Photos
7Page 38 of 46
2011 Street View
8Page 39 of 46
Current Context
9Page 40 of 46
Current Context –Illuminated Panel Signs
10Page 41 of 46
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;Does Not
Comply
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;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially
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.
Partially
Complies 11Page 42 of 46
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•0 written comments in favor and 0 opposed
12Page 43 of 46
Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of the request.
13Page 44 of 46
HARC Motion –2021-12-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
14Page 45 of 46
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 22, 2021
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and d is cus s io n o f the Do wntown and O ld To wn Design G uidelines Update with a p review o f
the proposed c hanges and p res entation of next s tep s and timeline fo r the projec t.
IT E M S UMMARY:
O n Wed nesday, Ap ril 28, 2021 from 3-4 pm, the P lanning Department will host a virtual o p en hous e for
the Downto wn & O ld Town Des ign G uidelines Up d ate. T he virtual o p en ho us e will inc lude an o verview of
the p ro p o s ed changes to the G uid elines as well as informatio n on ho w the c o mmunity can review the draft
and p ro vide c o mment.
At this meeting, the P lanning staff will provid e the His toric & Arc hitectural R eview C ommis s io n a p review
o f the propos ed revisions invo lving changes to the format, content and requirements o f the G uid elines .
T ho s e c hanges inc lud e:
R ed uc ing to the number o f c hapters to s treamline and simplify the doc ument.
New pho tos and images s p ecific to G eorgetown's histo ric d is tric ts.
Des crip tions and illus tratio ns o f key his toric arc hitectural s tyles in G eorgetown.
Ad d itio nal guid anc e for b o th c o mmerc ial and residential infill cons truc tion.
Ad d itio nal guid anc e for commerc ial signage.
S taff will also provid e the C ommission an o verview of the s teps and timeline remaining in the Update
p ro cess inc lud ing the C o mmis s io n’s review and recommend ation to the C ity C o uncil.
T he virtual open ho use will b e held o n Zo o m and streamed live on the C ity of G eorgetown F aceboo k
p age. F or mo re informatio n and the meeting link and c all-in numb er please vis it
www.his toric .georgetown.o rg.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
Page 46 of 46