HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.23.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
April 23, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Video Conference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me eting will c onvene at 6:00pm on April 23, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , please c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r: https://bit.ly/34967st
If you're attending the live e ve nt on the we b, use a me dia-sourc e e xtension
(M S E ) - enabled we b browse r like Chrome, F ire fox, or E dge. Safari is not
c ur re ntly supporte d.
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r: 512-672-8405
Confe re nc e I D: 684 743 473#
P ublic comme nt will be allowed via the above c onfer ence call numbe r or the
“ask a que stion” function on the vide o confe re nc e option; no in-per son input
will be allowed.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A (Instructions for joining meeting attached)
Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n, ap p o inted b y the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertificates of Appropriateness
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P roc edures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens *
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
Page 1 of 93
* O nce staff and the applic ant have addressed ques tions from the C ommis s ioners, the C hair of the
C ommission will open the public hearing. If a member o f the public would like to provid e comments on
the agenda item under dis cus s ion, the chair will as k if anyone would like to s peak. To speak, unmute
yourself by pres s ing *6 on your phone and s tate your name and addres s . O nce the C hair has the names of
everyone who would like to s peak, the C hair will c all the names in order, and when your name is called
you will have up to 3 minutes . A speaker may allot their time to another speaker fo r a maximum o f 6
minutes . If a member of the public wis hed to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their
name is called by the C hair. P lease rememb er that all c omments and ques tions mus t b e addres s ed to the
C ommission, and pleas e be patient while we organize the speakers during the public hearing portion.
• T he public also has the opportunity to provide c omments through the Q &A s ection of the Live Meeting,
loc ated on the right-hand s ide of your c omputer sc reen. P leas e provid e your full name and address for the
rec ord, and your c omment will be read by S taff.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s peak has s poken, the C hair will close the public hearing and provid e a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 9, 2020 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
D P ublic Hearing and possible ac tion o n a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
replac ing a historic arc hitectural feature with a non-historic arc hitectural feature and the addition of an
awning o r cano p y fo r the property loc ated at 224 W. 8th S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.2983
ac res out o f part of Lo ts 6 and 7 of Bloc k 50 of the C ity o f G eo rgeto wn. – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn &
Historic P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a
6' setback encroac hment into the required 6' s ide (wes t) s etbac k to allow the expansion of a residential
ac cessory struc ture 0' from the side (west) property line at the property located at 1202 E 15th S t.,
bearing the legal desc ription of 0.517 acres out of Bloc k 9 of O utlot Division B -- Britin Bostick,
Downtown & Historic P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 23, 2020
S UB J E C T:
(Instructions for joining m eeting attached)
D iscussion on how the Historic and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted, to
include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson, C N U-
A, P lanning Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
Attached is a set of meeting instruc tions and proc edures to as s is t in joining and partic ipating in the meeting.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Ins tructions on How to Participate Cover Memo
Page 3 of 93
Participating in a Public Meeting
Commissioners and Public
4.2.2020 Draft (we will continuing update to improve- if you have suggestions for improvement after use
please email sofia.nelson@georgetown.org so the sheet can be updated)
Each agenda will have the following link to access the meeting. Agenda links can be found at
www.agendas.georgetown.org :
• WEBSITE
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated link will be posted with each agenda
• CALL IN NUMBER
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated phone number and conference id will be
posted with each agenda
EXAMPLE:
FAQs for Participating in a Meeting.
• If I log into the meeting on my computer can you see me? NO. Logging into the meeting via the
computer is the equivalent of watching the meeting on your TV. We cannot see you and we
cannot hear you. If you want to participate in public comment or as a commissioner in voting
and discussion you need to follow both the phone and /or web instructions below.
• If I do not have a computer to log into the meeting can I still participate via phone? YES. Please
use the dial in number and listen along to the meeting and speak as directed by the Chair of the
commission.
• If I would like to sign up to speak during public comment- how do I do that on this platform?
Please join the meeting (via below instructions15 minutes in advance of the start of the meeting
and announce your name and the agenda item you would like to speak on. The chair will
announce the public hearing for that item at the appropriate time. You will need to share your
name and address and the time limits associated with a physical meeting still apply.
see instructions below
Commission name
Date and Time of Meeting
Website to
access
meeting
Call In # &
Conference
ID #
Please MUTE when
NOT speaking!
Page 4 of 93
Steps for joining the meeting
• Step 1- Join by copying and pasting the weblink into your browser.
If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-enabled web
browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• Step 2: The below screen will come up:
Click watch on the web instead (circled in red below)
• Step 3: You will enter the meeting and see this screen. Wait here until the event starts. If you
intend on participating in the meeting (public comment/ commissioner deliberations), please
take this time to also call in via the dial in number above.
Turn down your volume on your computer and listen via phone. There will be a 20-40 second lag-
we are working on it.
Page 5 of 93
• Step 4: Prepping for the Meeting - mute your mic until you need to speak. To unmute yourself
when you are on the phone, press the unmute button on your screen & PRESS *6 in your
key pad.
To mute your device-
To unmute- press the screen unmute button AND then *6 ( WE WILL NOT HEAR
YOU IF YOU DO NOT PRESS *6) you should keep your keypad on your phone
up/open and be ready to respond on the phone. Then mute when you are done talking, to
avoid external noises coming into the meeting
• Step 5 Meeting Starts. Orientation to meeting screen
This is the meeting screen.
Meeting title
Ask a question Function--IF you attend late please announce yourself
using this function.
If you would like to submit written comments during public hearing for
the commission please alert the recording secretary using this box
Q&A selection
button
Page 6 of 93
Quick Tips
You do NOT need to download Microsoft Teams-
• If you are watching the meeting in the web browser on your computer, any click on your
screen may make the meeting pause momentarily. The video will then be a few seconds
behind. If this happens, click “LIVE” at the bottom right of the screen to jump to the live
recording.
• If you already have TEAMS, please sign out completely from the Microsoft suite &join
anonymously on the web.
• If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-
enabled web browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• If participating by web browser and phone, be sure to turn down the volume of your
computer to avoid an echo.
Page 7 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 23, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the April 9, 2020 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 8 of 93
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: April 9, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
April 9, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference meeting: https://bit.ly/2wMzvbY
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on April 9, 2020 via teleconference
at: https://bit.ly/2wMzvbY
To participate by phone: Call in number: +1 512-672-8405 Conference ID#: 939481030#.
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; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Faustine Curry; Pam
Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Karalei Nunn
Member absent: Robert McCabe
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst;
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:05 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. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). 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, CNU-A, Planning
Director
Nelson instructed Commissioner and members of the public on how the virtual conference will
be conducted, and explained how public comments will be addressed.
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
Page 9 of 93
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: April 9, 2020
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide comments
on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, unmute yourself by pressing *6 on your phone and state your name and address. Once the
Chair has the names of everyone who would like to speak, the Chair will call the names in order, and
when your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another
speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the public wished to allot their time to another
speaker, they may do so when their name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments
and questions must be addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the
speakers during the public hearing portion.
• The public also has the opportunity to provide comments through the Q&A section of the Live
Meeting, located on the right-hand side of your computer screen. Please provide your full name and
address for the record, and your comment will be read by Staff.
•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.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 26, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Mitchell. Second by
Commissioner Curry. Approved (6-0).
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an
addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade at the property located at
701 University Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.31 acres out of the southwest portion
of Block 2, Snyder Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. In June of 2016, HARC approved a second-floor addition to
the existing historic structure, which would have also increased the height of the first floor.
Additional approved alterations included the addition of windows and doors on the first floor,
and an exterior stair for egress from the second floor. The second-floor addition was not
completed, and the owner is now requesting HARC approval of a revised design that would
retain the structure as a single story, with an increase in the height of the roof to allow for the
installation of higher ceilings and HVAC ductwork and equipment, the addition of new
windows and doors and the retention of the original brick siding and mid-century concrete
entrance canopy.
In the revised design, the applicant is proposing to add 5’-0” to the height of the existing brick
building, which will retain the flat roof construction of the original structure and allow for the
installation of modern HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) equipment above the
Page 10 of 93
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: April 9, 2020
ceiling, as well as to raise the ceiling in the interior spaces. Per the applicant’s Letter of Inte nt
dated February 18, 2020, the original height of the brick building was 9’-10” and the proposed
new height with the addition of stucco-clad wall sections above the existing brick walls is 14’-
10”. As this height includes a 1’-0” roof parapet, the proposed building height is 13’-10” per the
UDC definition, which is within the height requirements for the Old Town Historic Overlay
District. Also included in the revised design are a new configuration of the windows in the
covered main entrance (a change from the original large pane windows to multi-pane storefront
windows with the entrance door moved to the far left or westmost window section); the
installation of new windows in the original brick walls on the front (south) and side (east)
facades; and the removal of the rear “ribbon windows” and replacement with brick and fewer
windows to match the new windows on the front (south) façade. Lastly, the proposed exterior
alterations include removal and addition of doors to accommodate the reconfiguration of the
interior, as well as the addition of small metal awnings over the doors.
The applicant, Lee McIntosh, addressed the Commission and commented on speaking with
members of the community to identify any concerns.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
John Graves is concerned with the level of noise and also the materials used which affect the
feel of the neighborhood.
McIntosh explained that there will be no overnight stays, and the areas with kennels will be
sound proofed to ensure no sound gets out.
Bostick explained the use of stucco was reviewed by staff. Although it is different than the
original materials used, when compared to other options, this is appropriate.
Pam Mitchell expressed concern with the footprint of the proposed structure and concern with
compliance. She also inquired about the hours of operation.
Bostick explained that the addition to the building is to give it more height for higher ceilings
which will help rebuild the roof with a better slope.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item D (2019-44-COA) as presented by Commissioner Nunn. Second by
Commissioner Curry. Approved (6-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 1 9.3’
setback encroachment into the 25’ required garage (west) setback, a 6’ setback encroachment
into the required 6’ side (north) setback, and a 3’ building height increase from the required 15’
maximum building height at the side (north) setback line allowing for a building height of 18’ at
the side setback at the property located at 403 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.472
acres out of Block 24, OUTLOT DIVISION C. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. In May 2017, HARC approved an addition to the high priority
main structure, a 6’ high fence in the side street yard and an alteration to the detached garage
structure that would have altered the roof of the garage structure to a low-pitched gable roof
Page 11 of 93
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: April 9, 2020
facing Elm Street. The approved design also included a wood pergola attached to the garage
structure. Now that the alteration to the main structure is complete, the property owner would
like to request approval of a new design for the garage structure, which would increase the
height over the previously-approved design to add attic storage space above the garage, change
the roof to a pitch more similar to the main structure, alter the gable ends to face north and
south, and add a covered patio to the south side of the garage.
The existing detached garage is not listed on the Historic Resource Survey and is not a
contributing structure to the Old Town Historic Overlay District. The existing carport attached
to the garage is also non-contributing. Both structures are situated within setbacks, which
makes them non-conforming structures. Per UDC Table. 3.13.010, the removal, demolition or
relocation of a non-contributing attached porch, patio or deck does not require approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Per that same table in the UDC, an addition that creates a
new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade for a non-contributing structure is reviewed by
the HPO. Setback and building height modifications are reviewed by HARC. The proposed
change of the approved pergola structure to a structure with a roof adds square footage to the
detached garage, which is limited by the UDC to a total of 600 sq. ft. In this case, the HPO and
HARC do not have the authority to approve the addition to the non-contributing building.
However, if the roofed pergola structure were separated from the garage structure and were
constructed as a stand-alone structure, it could be reviewed by HARC as an addition to the
street-facing façade of the main high priority structure. Staff is therefore presenting the change
of the pergola to a roofed structure to HARC for review.
The proposed project involves the existing non-contributing garage structure, which is
approximately 600 sq. ft., and modify the roof and the exterior to:
• Change the roof from a flat roof to a 12/12 pitched gable roof, with the gable ends facing north
and south (orientation to address concerns about rainwater runoff), with a height to
accommodate attic storage over the garage space. The attic will be accessed via interior stairs,
and there is storage space at the rear of the garage.
• Add two overhead garage doors to the street-facing façade (Elm Street), two doors on the
south side of the garage for access to the garage and storage room from the yard and a pass-
thru window with shutters in the south façade.
• Use board and batten siding and metal roof to match the main structure.
• Add a 224 sq. ft. covered patio or roofed pergola structure to the south façade of the garage
with a slightly sloped roof of the same metal as the garage roof.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Pam Mitchell is concerned with the modification to garage height and maintaining compliance.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Bostick explained that the applicant asked for height modification for a higher pitched roof
while maintaining compliance.
Page 12 of 93
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: April 9, 2020
Motion to approve Item E (2019-75-COA) as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by
Commissioner Nunn. Approved (6-0).
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for New
Construction (Infill Development) of a Single-Family Residence and a 4’-6” building height
increase from the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (south) setback line
allowing for a building height of 19’-6” at the side setback at the property located at 1205
Walnut, bearing the legal description of 0.15 acres out of the west portion of Block 1 of the
Snyder Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is requesting to construct a 1,432 sq. ft. single-
family structure on the vacant lot at 1205 Walnut St., between the approved new residential
structure at 1207 Walnut St. and Gus’s Drug. The proposed structure is to have three bedrooms,
three baths, a 150 sq. ft. attached carport and a front porch. The design includes a standing seam
metal roof, board and batten siding, a steep 12/12 roof slope with a street facing dormer, and
both single hung and fixed vinyl windows. The roof ridge height is proposed to be
approximately 26’, while the building height as defined by the UDC (measured as the average
of the eave and ridge height of a gable roof) is approximately 19’- 6”, within the 30’ height limit
for the Old Town Overlay District. Per the proposed site plan, the requirements for setbacks,
impervious cover, and floor area ratio are met. The proposed building height at the side setback
along the south property line, or right side of the proposed structure as viewed from Walnut St.,
exceeds that height limitation as the building height (average of eave and ridge height) at the 6’
side setback is over the 15’ maximum. Therefore, a building height exception of 4’- 6” at the side
setback for the south property line is requested. Per the approved project drawings for the
residential structure at 1207 Walnut St., directly to the south, that structure is located along the
6’ side setback, with a building height of approximately 19’ (gable roof with the gable facing
Walnut St.) and a roof ridge height of approximately 26’.
The applicant, Chance Leigh addressed the Commission and explained they are trying to
maintain similar square footage to homes in the neighborhood.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-7-COA) as presented by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde.
Second by Commissioner Browner. Approved (6-0).
G. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
No updates at this time.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 13 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 23, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible ac tio n on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
replacing a historic architec tural feature with a no n-his toric architec tural feature and the addition o f an
awning or c anopy for the p ro p erty lo cated at 224 W. 8th S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.2983
acres o ut of part of Lots 6 and 7 of Bloc k 50 o f the C ity o f G eo rgeto wn. – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn &
His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p licant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val to alter the s torefront entranc e in the wes tern-mos t lease s pace
of the build ing ad d res s ed at 224 W. 8th S treet and to remove the exis ting doub le entrance doors and
replace them with a rec es s ed s ingle-d o o r sto refro nt s ectio n with sidelights , whic h would retain the exis ting
historic bric k below the c urrent s to refro nt windows , and frame out a new, wood, recessed entrance with
wood kic k plates , wind o ws in the sides o f the recessed entranc e and a single entranc e door with windows
on either side of the wood door. T he applic ant has pointed out that rec es s ing the entranc e could as s is t with
weather-related water infiltration is s ues, which c an b e common to north-fac ing entrances that are not
covered in Downto wn G eo rgeto wn, es p ecially when the entranc e has wo o d doors that d o no t have the
s ame weather seal as a new s torefront d o o r may. T he ap p lic ant is als o reques ting HAR C approval for the
addition o f a 6’ deep wood and metal flat cano p y over the entire sec tion o f s torefront in the leas e spac e.
T he new c anopy wo uld be installed between the existing sto refro nt windows and transom wind o ws, with
metal tie rods for s upport.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 14 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -11-COA – 224 W. 8th Street Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
File Number: 2020-11-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for replacing
a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature and the addition of an awning or
canopy for the property located at 224 W. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.2983 acres out of
part of Lots 6 and 7 of Block 50 of the City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Tea Room
Applicant: Davin Hoyt (Davin Consulting)
Property Owner: John & Susan Hoyt
Property Address: 224 W. 8th Street
Legal Description: 0.2983 acres out of part of Lots 6 and 7 of Block 50 of the City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Historic Overlay District
Case History: 2019-77 -COA approved by HPO for paint color change
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1920 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: Not Individually Listed, Included in Williamson County
Courthouse National Register Historic District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature (entrance)
The addition of an awning or canopy
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant’s request is to modify one of five identical entrance sections in a historic multi-tenant
commercial building that faces W. 8th Street. The Historic Resource Survey estimates the construction of
the subject property around 1920, and the architectural style of the building fits that time period. The
1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows three small wooden structures on the site, including a
secondhand furniture store along W. 8th Street. Arial photos of Downtown Georgetown taken around
1934 show the brick building with a canopy across the front, and the 1984 Historic Resource Survey
photos show the same canopy attached between the storefront and transom windows, with five identical
flush storefront entrances along the W. 8th Street façade. Although the building lacks ornamentation and
Page 15 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -11-COA – 224 W. 8th Street Page 2 of 6
the canopy has been removed from the façade, the building is identified as a High Priority structure on
the 1984, 2007 and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys. The 1984 HRS inventory form describes a canopy,
but does not provide the material, which was likely wood and appears to be wood in the 1984 photos.
The applicant is requesting HARC approval to alter the storefront entrance in the western-most lease
space of the building addressed at 224 W. 8th Street and to remove the existing double entrance doors
and replace them with a recessed single-door storefront section with sidelights, which would retain the
existing historic brick below the current storefront windows, and frame out a new, wood , recessed
entrance with wood kick plates, windows in the sides of the recessed entrance and a single entrance door
with windows on either side of the wood door. The applicant has pointed out that recessing the entrance
could assist with weather-related water infiltration issues, which can be common to north-facing
entrances that are not covered in Downtown Georgetown, especially when the entrance has wood doors
that do not have the same weather seal as a new storefront door may. The applicant is also requesting
HARC approval for the addition of a 6’ deep wood and metal flat canopy over the entire section of
storefront in the lease space. The new canopy would be installed between the existing storefront
windows and transom windows, with metal tie rods for support.
Part of the applicant’s proposed exterior changes include the replacement of the metal double door on
the west façade of the structure with a double door with divided light window openings. Other proposed
changes include the replacement of the rear overhead door with a new paneled door and transom
window, paint color changes to the existing rear windows and the addition of a flat canopy above the
new paneled door. These changes are either to architectural features that are not historic due to their not
being the original material or design, or they are not changes made to a street-facing façade, and therefore
do not require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The openings in the masonry walls are not
proposed to be changed with these alterations.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and
arrangement of historic windows and doors in a
building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key
character-defining facade is inappropriate, as
is adding a new opening.
Do not close down an original opening to
accommodate a smaller window. Restoring
Complies
Removing the double metal commercial
doors on the western façade and replacing
them with double wooden doors maintains
the same number of openings in the same
size and configuration.
Page 16 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -11-COA – 224 W. 8th Street Page 3 of 6
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
original openings which have been altered
over time is encouraged.
Historically, windows had a vertical
emphasis. The proportions of these windows
contribute to the character of each residence
and commercial storefront.
6.19 Where entries were not recessed historically,
maintain them in their original position.
• However, one may need to comply with other
code requirements, including door width,
direction of swing, and construction.
• In some cases, entries must comply with
accessibility requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Note, however, that
some flexibility in application of these other
regulations is provided for historic properties.
• See also Preservation Briefs #32: Making Historic
Properties Accessible, published by the National
Park Service.
Does Not Comply
Recessing the entrance to this lease space
does not maintain the entrance in its
original position, nor would this proposed
recessed entrance be consistent with the
four other building entrances along W. 8 th
Street. There are no accessibility or other
code requirements that create the need to
recess the entrance in this case.
Additionally, the Design Guidelines
recommend, “Commercial buildings
should, for the most part, all relate to the
street and to pedestrians in the same
manner: with a clearly defined primary
entrance and large windows that display
goods and services offered inside. The
repetition of these standard elements
creates a visual unity on the street that
should be preserved.”
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE , ADDITIONS, & ALTERATIONS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
• Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier time
period than that of the building are
inappropriate.
Partially Complies
Recessing the entrance of this lease space
when the original building was designed
with five entrances flush with the face of the
buildin g would alter the perception of the
design character; however, the addition of a
flat canopy is consistent with the original
building design.
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or
Medium Priority Historic Structure should be
preserved and their historic character retained.
Does Not Comply
Recessing the entrance to this lease space
does not preserve or retain the historic
character of the building as a whole as it
Page 17 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -11-COA – 224 W. 8th Street Page 4 of 6
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
• Due to special circumstances, a structure’s
historic priority may change over time
(because a reduced number of similar style
structures in stable condition still exist within
the district or city, or if unknown historic
information becomes available that adds
significance).
alters one of the five identical primary
entrance features.
CHAPTER 10 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS & CANOPIES
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-
mounted brackets, chains, and posts.
Consider using a contemporary interpretation
of those canopies seen historically.
Complies
The proposed wood and metal canopy is
consistent with the historic style of the
building.
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate
character-defining features.
It should be mounted to highlight moldings
that may be found above the storefront and
should not hide character-defining features.
Its mounting should not damage significant
features and historic details.
Complies
The new canopy is proposed to be mounted
between the storefront and transom
windows and to extend the width of the
storefront section, which is consistent with
the design of the building façade and does
not obscure any features or details.
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;
Complies
Complies with applicable UDC
requirements.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
Page 18 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -11-COA – 224 W. 8th Street Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.” The
proposed alteration of the entrance is not
consistent with this standard, but the
proposed installation of the flat canopy is.
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
• Complies with Design Guidelines 10.2
“A fixed metal canopy may be
considered.” and 10.4 “Mount an
awning or canopy to accentuate
character-defining features.”
• Partially Complies with Design
Guideline 7.1 “Avoid alterations that
would damage historic features.”
• Does Not Comply with Design
Guideline 6.19 “Where entries were not
recessed historically, maintain them in
their original position.” or with 7.2
“Properties designated by the City as a
High or Medium Priority Historic
Structure should be preserved and their
historic character retained.”
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed alteration of the entrance for
this lease space changes the relationship of
the four storefront sections of the building
and the flat canopy, although appropriate
for the building, does not span the full
width of the building façade as it
historically did.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The canopy addition is compatible with
surrounding properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
This Downtown Historic Overlay District
includes both flush and recessed entrances,
as well as flat canopies above storefronts
with transom windows above the canopy.
Page 19 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -11-COA – 224 W. 8th Street Page 6 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
The proposed alterations to not diminish
the character of the Downtown District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the addition of the
canopy, and DENIAL of the request for the recessed entrance, for the reasons stated above,
recommending that the entrance be maintained in its current flush position and configuration identical
to the other storefront entrance sections in the building facade. The request to recess the single entrance
would create an entrance inconsistent with the other building entrances and alter the character of the
façade. While the addition of the canopy over one of the four building entrances does not contribute to a
consistent building façade, the proposed canopy is consistent with both the style of the building and with
historic photos, which show a flat wooden canopy across the facade of the building, separating the
storefront from the transom windows . In the cu rrent context of the building use, which is the occupancy
of the eastern part of the building by The Georgetown Palace (Theater) Education Department and the
western lease space with a new Tea Shop, Staff can acknowledge that some alterations to the Tea Shop
entrance, which include the approved paint color change, can successfully signal a transition or a point
of interest.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans & Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 20 of 93
Location
2020-11-COA
Exhibit #1
E 9TH ST
E 8TH ST
E 7TH ST
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
RO
C
K
S
T
SAUSTINAVE
SMAINSTW 8TH ST
W 9TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
FORESTST
W 10TH ST
W7THST
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 10TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 21 of 93
Letter of Intent
scale: none
C1.2
1
C1.2
LETTER
OF INTENT
Rev.:03/09/2020
TEA ROOM
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Davin Hoyt
(737) 402.9843
davinhoyt@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
224 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HoytEdwards/HOYT_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:10/25/2018
G
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
scale: 1"=1'-0"
scale: 1/2"=1'-0"
scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
scale: 1/8"=1'-0"
1'
0 0 0 0
2'4'8'
2'4'8'
16'
3'6'
12'
24'
4'
8'
16'
32'
1'
3'
5'
7'
2'
6'
10'
14'
4'
12'
20'
28'
Page 22 of 93
Proposed North Entry
scale: none
A8.1
3
Elevation: Existing North Elevation
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.1
4
Proposed North Elevation
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.1
1
Section: Entire Space
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.1
2
Plan: Proposed Entry
scale: 1/2" = 1 Foot
A8.1
5
F.F.@0"
THIS PROJECT
THIS PROJECT
TEA ROOM
(THIS PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
THIS PROJECT-
PROPOSED WOOD AWNING,
6 FEET DEEP
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT -
EXISTING SINGLE PANE WINDOW TYP.
TIN BARN ALLEY
ROCK STREET
EXISTING DOUBLE DOOR ENTRY;
COLORS NOT ACCURATE
THIS PROJECT-
INSET SINGLE HINGE
WOODEN DOOR
EXPOSED STRUCTURE,
COULD CHANGE
7'-0"
6'-0"
6'-0"
3'-0"
5'-6"
1'-0"6"6"
6'-0"
A8.1
DETAILS:
PROPOSED
ENTRY
Rev.:03/09/2020
TEA ROOM
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Davin Hoyt
(737) 402.9843
davinhoyt@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
224 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HoytEdwards/HOYT_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:10/25/2018
G
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
scale: 1"=1'-0"
scale: 1/2"=1'-0"
scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
scale: 1/8"=1'-0"
1'
0 0 0 0
2'4'8'
2'4'8'
16'
3'6'
12'
24'
4'
8'
16'
32'
1'
3'
5'
7'
2'
6'
10'
14'
4'
12'
20'
28'
Page 23 of 93
Proposed South Door Arrangement
scale: none
A8.2
3
Proposed South Elevation
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.2
1
Elevation: Existing South Elevation
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.2
4
Section: Entire Space
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.2
2
Plan: Proposed South Door Arrangement
scale: 1/2" = 1 Foot
A8.2
5
F.F.@0"
THIS PROJECT
THIS PROJECT
TEA ROOM
(THIS PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
THIS PROJECT -
6 FEET DEEP WOOD AWNING
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
(NOT ACCURATE/NOT IN PROJECT)
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT - GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE
THIS PROJECT -
WOOD ACCORDION DOOR,
SINGLED HINGED DOOR,
CLERESTORY WINDOW ABOVE
EXISITNG WOOD
DOUBLE-HUNG
WINDOW
EXISTING ELECTRICAL BOX
ROCK STREET
TIN BARN ALLEY
EXISTING METAL GARAGE
ROLL UP DOOR;
COLORS AND MATERIALS
NOT ACCURATE8'-11 1/4"
21'-8"
6'-0"
8'-11 1/2"
9'-11 3/4"
16'-1/2"
A8.2
DETAILS:
PROPOSED
SOUTH
ENTRANCE
Rev.:03/09/2020
TEA ROOM
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Davin Hoyt
(737) 402.9843
davinhoyt@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
224 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HoytEdwards/HOYT_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:10/25/2018
G
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
scale: 1"=1'-0"
scale: 1/2"=1'-0"
scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
scale: 1/8"=1'-0"
1'
0 0 0 0
2'4'8'
2'4'8'
16'
3'6'
12'
24'
4'
8'
16'
32'
1'
3'
5'
7'
2'
6'
10'
14'
4'
12'
20'
28'
Page 24 of 93
Proposed West Entry
scale: none
A8.3
3
Elevation: Existing West Elevation
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.3
4
Section: Entire Space
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.3
2
Proposed West Elevation
scale: 1/4" = 1 Foot
A8.3
1
THIS PROJECT
F.F.@0"
THIS PROJECT
TEA ROOM
(THIS PROJECT)
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT -
GEORGETOWN PALACE THEATRE BEYOND
ELECTRIC METER
WOOD AWNING
NOT IN SCOPE OF PROJECT -
WOOD AWNING
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK RAMP ON CITY PROPERTY
EXISTING BRICK SIDEWALK
EXISTING BRICK PARAPET
W. 8TH STREET
EXISTING
METAL COMMERCIAL DOUBLE DOORS;
COLORS NOT ACCURATE
THIS PROJECT -
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL GLASS PANEL WOODEN DOORS
6'-1 1/2"
6'-9"
A8.3
DETAILS:
PROPOSED
WEST
ENTRANCE
Rev.:03/09/2020
TEA ROOM
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Davin Hoyt
(737) 402.9843
davinhoyt@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
224 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HoytEdwards/HOYT_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:10/25/2018
G
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
scale: 1"=1'-0"
scale: 1/2"=1'-0"
scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
scale: 1/8"=1'-0"
1'
0 0 0 0
2'4'8'
2'4'8'
16'
3'6'
12'
24'
4'
8'
16'
32'
1'
3'
5'
7'
2'
6'
10'
14'
4'
12'
20'
28'
Page 25 of 93
Sample: Typical Wooden Awning
scale: none
A8.4
2
Sample: Glass Panel Wooden French Door
scale: none
A8.4
3
Sample: Exterior Foyer at Facade
scale: none
A8.4
4
Sample: Glass Pane Wooden Accordion Door
scale: none
A8.4
1
LOW PROFILE
TURN-BUCKLE
AND THREADED ROD
TO PREVENT UP-LIFT
METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING
SINGLE DOOR
INSET 6 FEET
WOOD MATERIAL
WOOD MATERIAL
WOOD MATERIAL
WOOD MATERIAL
ACCORDION FOLDS THIS WAY;
HINGE ON THIS SIDE
SINGLE HINGE DOOR
WITH HINDE ON THIS SIDE
DOORS MEET AND LOCK HERE; AT THIS SEAM
FIXED CLERESTORY WINDOW
A8.4
MATERIAL
SAMPLES
Rev.:03/09/2020
TEA ROOM
a: Davin Hoyt
c: Davin Consulting
p: (737) 402.9843
e: davinhoyt@gmail.com
Print Size: 48"x36"
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Davin Hoyt
(737) 402.9843
davinhoyt@gmail.com
Georgetown, Texas
224 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
C:/2009_out/00_Consulting/HoytEdwards/HOYT_PLANXX
TIMES
AUTHOR INFORMATION:
Date:10/25/2018
G
Tare Away Scales for in
the field needs:
scale: 1"=1'-0"
scale: 1/2"=1'-0"
scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
scale: 1/8"=1'-0"
1'
0 0 0 0
2'4'8'
2'4'8'
16'
3'6'
12'
24'
4'
8'
16'
32'
1'
3'
5'
7'
2'
6'
10'
14'
4'
12'
20'
28'
Page 26 of 93
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:N/A W 216/224 8th St 2016 Survey ID:126345
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R041428Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1920
One-Part Commercial Block
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:199
ID:93
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:126345 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.63644 Longitude -97.678656
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Southeast
Page 27 of 93
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:N/A W 216/224 8th St 2016 Survey ID:126345
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Page 28 of 93
14
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
Williamson 3097-313 93
1. County 5. USGS Quad No. Site No
City/Rurai Georgetown GE UTM Sector 626-3389
2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est
7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner X W 3 Style/Type
Address `3 '10 W 3C-1, 79h9F, 9 Original Use nmmpr r
4. Block/Lot (ITC/P1 !r c(1
commercial Present Use
10. Description nne—srnry 1 nad—near no commercial buidling of brick: flat roof w/ built—uo tar
and 2rav_Pl ravor -i nc..,,! wood sash double—hung windows w/ 6/6 lights: double doors for six
nrhpr nnrP,Jnri-hy FPaturq inclucIP XBiA 9x6) facade: decorative brick
work {:-.c34 r-znnnir
11. Present Condition 3p nd
12. Significance ront-r-i hiltpq rn the hi_ qrnric rilaracrer of the district
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe)
1920
Address 216-26. W Rrh
1.
14. Bibliography GHS files 15. Informant
16. Recorder
DESIGNATIONS
q RTHL 0 NABS (no.) TEX-
N R: 0 Individual ®Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE
City/Rural Georgetown GE
2. Name
NR File name: Williamson Co. Courthouse Historic Dist.
ROLL FRME
to
to
to
2.3
io
No 2 of 2
Site No. crl
Bi /MHM
Date 1985
PHOTO DATA
TN R IS No nid THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
Williamson
County 5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313
Page 29 of 93
Page 30 of 93
Tea Room –224 W. 8th St.
2020-11-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
April 23, 2020
1Page 31 of 93
Item Under Consideration
2020-11-COA –Tea Room
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for replacing a historic architectural feature with a
non-historic architectural feature and the addition of an awning or canopy for
the property located at 224 W. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of
0.2983 acres out of part of Lots 6 and 7 of Block 50 of the City of Georgetown.
2Page 32 of 93
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural feature
(entrance)
•The addition of an awning or canopy
3Page 33 of 93
Item Under Consideration
4Page 34 of 93
Historic
Courthouse
5Page 35 of 93
Current Context
6Page 36 of 93
224 W. 8th St. –Historic Photos (c. 1934)
7Page 37 of 93
224 W. 8th St. –1984 Photos
Photos from 1984 showing the façade of 224 W. 8 th Street in 3 photos. The flat canopy
across the front was still in place between the storefront and transom windows.
8Page 38 of 93
Current Photo
9Page 39 of 93
224 W. 8th St. –Proposed Design
10Page 40 of 93
224 W. 8th St. –Proposed Design
11Page 41 of 93
224 W. 8th St. –Proposed Design (No COA Review)
12Page 42 of 93
224 W. 8th St. –Back of Building View
13Page 43 of 93
Current Context
14Page 44 of 93
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
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;Partially
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 15Page 45 of 93
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•No public comments
16Page 46 of 93
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the addition of the
canopy, and DENIAL of the request for the recessed entrance,
recommending that the entrance be maintained in its current flush
position and configuration identical to the other storefront entrance
sections in the building facade.
17Page 47 of 93
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
18Page 48 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 23, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a 6'
s etbac k enc roachment into the required 6' side (west) setback to allow the expans ion of a res idential
acc es s ory s tructure 0' from the s ide (wes t) property line at the property loc ated at 1202 E 15th S t., bearing
the legal desc ription of 0.517 acres out of Bloc k 9 of O utlot Division B -- Britin Bostick, Downtown &
His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he s ubjec t p ro p erty includ es the C hesser-Mo rgan Hous e, which is ind ividually lis ted o n the National
R egister o f His toric P lac es as well as includ ed in the O live S treet Natio nal R egis ter His toric Dis tric t. O n
the property are two acc es s o ry s tructures, a d etac hed carport and a d etac hed acc es s o ry s tructure that may
have previo usly b een us ed as a garage, b arn or s torage o utb uilding. T he c arp o rt is not his toric , but the
acc es s ory s tructure is lis ted as a med ium p rio rity s tructure o n the 2016 Historic R es o urc e S urvey, with an
es timated c o ns truc tion d ate of 1920. T he struc ture is a simple rec tangular form with board and batten
s iding and a gable roof, whic h is presently a red s tanding s eam metal roof. W hen the applic ant purc hased
the p ro p erty in 2019 the sub ject struc ture had an additio n to the rear o r south s id e of the s tructure with a
flat ro o f, which is not cons is tent with the style o f the his toric struc ture and whic h has b een d is c overed to
have s tructural issues related to water infiltratio n and cons tructio n. As it is situated alo ng the wes t property
line and in the 6’ s ide s etbac k req uired by the R es id ential S ingle-F amily (R S ) zoning district, a proposed
addition and alteration to c orrect the deficiencies of the addition requires approval by HAR C .
T he ap p lic ant would like to extend the gable roof o f the o riginal portio n o f the s truc ture over the addition,
as well as build o ut the additio n so that the exterio r walls c o mp lete a rectangle, cons is tent with the form of
the o riginal s truc ture. Due to the its current p lacement within the s id e setb ack, the extens io n o f the roof
propos ed wo uld also b e within the required side setback. T herefo re, the ap p licant reques ts a s etbac k
modification to allow for the additional square footage and roof extens ion.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Photos Exhibit
Page 49 of 93
Exhibit 6 - Public Comments Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Exhibit
Page 50 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
File Number: 2020-22-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a 6'
setback encroachment into the required 6' side (west) setback to allow the expansion of a residential
accessory structure 0' from the side (west) property line at the property located at 1202 E 15th St., bearing
the legal description of 0.517 acres out of Block 9 of Outlot Division B.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Setback Modification
Applicant: Denis (Scot) Flynn
Property Owner: Denis Flynn
Property Address: 1202 E. 15th Street
Legal Description: 0.517 acres out of Block 9 of Outlot Division B
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: 2019-COA-17 (carport addition)
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1920 (HRS) (Main Structure is 1895 per HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium (Main Structure is High Priority)
National Register Designation: Olive Street National Register Historic District, Main
Structure is the Chesser-Morgan House and listed
individually on the National Register of Historic Places
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property includes the Chesser-Morgan House, which is individually listed on the National
Register of Historic Places as well as included in the Olive Street National Register Historic District. On
the property are two accessory structures, a detached carport and a detached accessory structure that
may have previously been used as a garage, barn or storage outbuilding. The carport is not historic, but
the accessory structure is listed as a medium priority structure on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey,
with an estimated construction date of 1920. The structure is a simple rectangular form with board and
batten siding and a gable roof, which is presently a red standing seam metal roof. When the applicant
purchased the property in 2019 the subject structure had an addition to the rear or south side of the
Page 51 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 2 of 7
structure with a flat roof, which is not consistent with the style of the historic structure and which has
been discovered to have structural issues related to water infiltration and construction. As it is situated
along the west property line and in the 6’ side setback required by the Residential Single-Family (RS)
zoning district, a proposed addition and alteration to correct the deficiencies of the addition requires
approval by HARC.
The applicant would like to extend the gable roof of the original portion of the structure over the addition,
as well as build out the addition so that the exterior walls complete a rectangle, consistent with the form
of the original structure. Due to the its current placement within the side setback, the extension of the
roof proposed would also be within the required side setback. Therefore, the applicant requests a setback
modification to allow for the additional square footage and roof extension.
Accessory structures are limited by the UDC to 25% of the square footage of the principal structure,
except may be allowed up to 600 square feet for the construction of a detached two-car garage. The
applicant provided the square footage of the principal structure, including enclosed porches and an
upper floor area, of 2,344 square feet. The current size of the subject accessory structure is 518.4 square
feet and the proposed addition is 58.4 square feet, bringing the proposed total size to 576.8 square feet,
which is within the 25% allowed.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.37 Preserve an historic garage or outbuilding
structure when feasible.
Use the garage for parking. It may be
appropriate to alter an historic garage to
accommodate contemporary vehicles.
Garage doors visible from the street:
- Repair rather than replace original or
historic doors that are significant to the
character of the garage, if technically
feasible.
- If repair of historic garage doors is not
technically feasible, new replacement
doors may be approved if they duplicate
the existing size, shape, proportion,
profiles, hardware, details, glazing, panel
type and design, and operation, and fit
within the existing opening.
Complies
The proposed addition is for the purpose of
preserving the medium priority outbuilding
or accessory structure, and for securing the
building from further weather damage. In
this case the style of the outbuilding is not
consistent with that of the main house, but
the proposed addition is consistent with the
style of the subject building.
Page 52 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
New garages or carports must be compatible
in style, size, material, roof profile, and details
with the historic principle building on the lot.
Siding on garages or carports must be
compatible in style, size, material, roof profile,
and details with the historic principle building
on the lot.
Siding on garages should match the cover
material on houses, except that wood siding is
acceptable in cases where the house is
constructed of masonry.
Avoid demolition. See UDC Section 3.13 for
any proposed demolition in the Overlay
Districts.
In some cases, it may be appropriate to re-
position the historic garage on its original site
in o rder to accommodate other needs.
Also incorporate on-street parking spaces in
calculations for parking needs, where allowed
by HARC. See UDC 9.02.060.
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than
that of the building are inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed alterations do not damage historic
features, but rather improve upon a
previous addition.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed addition is compatible with
the historic accessory structure, which is the
subject structure. As the accessory structure
is of a different style and character than the
main structure, the proposed addition in
this case is preferred to be compatible with
the subject accessory structure.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
Complies
Page 53 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 4 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
The proposed addition is to the rear of the
structure and will have minimal impact on
the appearance of the accesso ry structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed addition is located within a
setback and requires approval by HARC.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic ma terials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The proposed addition complies with the
standards, and in this case the extension of
the existing (non-historic) metal roof would
be preferred to match the current roof
rather than be differentiated from it.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Complies with applicable Guidelines.
Page 54 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The addition is proposed to resolve
structural and water infiltration issues and
to provide for a character more consistent
with the original structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed addition is minimal and to
the rear of the structure and does not
significantly further an existing
encroachment.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed addition does not diminish
the character of the Old Town Historic
Overlay Dist rict.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of the
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is
to correct existing deficiencies in an
addition that was constructed prior to
the current owner’s acquisition of the
property.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
The proposed addition is to a structure
that is already situated in the setback
and is constrained by the existing
building footprint.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
Proposed setback modification is for an
historic outbuilding, which is estimated
to be older than many other structures
within the block. However, there are
Page 55 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
other accessory structures also situated
within setbacks within the block.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed addition is to the rear of
the subject structure and does not
encroach into the street setback.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures have been replaced or are
proposed to be replaced with this project.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
Proposed addition is to an existing
historic structure.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Complies
Proposed addition is to an existing
historic structure.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
The proposed addition is to an accessory
structure, not to the main house, and is a
small addition in square footage to fill
out the southwest corner of the subject
structure, which is not significant
compared to either the accessory
structure or the main house.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The proposed addition will not result in
a structure out of scale with other
structure on t he subject property or
compared to other structures within the
same block.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
Proposed addition along the side (west)
property line does not significantly
increase the existing condition and does
not limit the maintenance of adjoining
properties.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Partially Complies
When a structure is located along a
property line that adjoins another
property, maintenance of the
encroaching structure is limited along
Page 56 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -22-COA – 1202 E. 15 th Street Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
the side that abuts the property line. In
this case, there are no other structures on
the adjacent property that abut the
subject structure.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No trees or significant features of the lot
are affected by the proposed project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the reasons stated
above.
As of the date of this report, staff has received two (2) written comments in favor (but one of the comments
in favor expressing concern regarding the project) and one (1) written comment in opposition of the
request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Photos
Exhibit 6 – Public Comments
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 57 of 93
Location
E 15TH S
T
E 16TH S
T
E 17TH S
T
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
VI
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
E 14TH ST
VI
N
E
S
T
OLI
V
E
S
T
MAP
L
E
S
T
E 16TH ST
JA
M
E
S
S
T
VIN
E
S
T
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
202022&OA
Exhibit #1
Page 58 of 93
Page 59 of 93
Page 60 of 93
Page 61 of 93
County
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:
Address:1202 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:124270 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address BRUNO, MARK & TRACY TRIPULAS, 1202 E 15TH ST, GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.630678 Longitude -97.666132
Addition/Subdivision:S4321 - Outlot Division B
WCAD ID:R044838Legal Description (Lot/Block):OUTLOT DIVISION B, BLOCK 9(PT), ACRES .517
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 10/26/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1920
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: South
Page 62 of 93
County
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:
Address:1202 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:124270 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story ancillary building with no particular style. It is clad in wood board-and-batten, and has a rectangular plan, front-
gabled roof, and a single door with a shed roof awning.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Awning added; some windows replaced
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood Siding:
Board-and-Batten
Vinyl, Wood
N/A
N/A
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 63 of 93
County
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:
Address:1202 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:124270 B
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:
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
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not recorded2007 ID:372b
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 64 of 93
County
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:
Address:1202 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:124270 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 65 of 93
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1202 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:124270 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R044838Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 5/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1895
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:372a
ID:252
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name Chesser-Morgan House
ID:124270 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.630708 Longitude -97.665841
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: South
Page 66 of 93
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1202 E 15th St 2016 Survey ID:124270 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 67 of 93
Page 68 of 93
Page 69 of 93
Page 70 of 93
Page 71 of 93
Page 72 of 93
Page 73 of 93
Page 74 of 93
Page 75 of 93
Page 76 of 93
April 14, 2020
Project Name: 1202 E. 15th Street
Project Case: ZBA 2020-1-VAR
HARC 2020-22-COA
The notifications received from the City of Georgetown ask us to choose ‘to object’ or be ‘in favor’ of
modifications to an accessory structure at 1202 E. 15 th Street.
While we do not object to the expansion of the accessory structure at 1202 E. 15 th Street, or the
encroa chment into the 6’ setback, we do question the calculations that make it compliant to not require
a Zoning Variance that would permit the structure to exceed 25% of the principal structure.
And although it is outside the prevue of ZBA or HARC, we are sens itive to the concerns of neighbors with
adjoining properties regarding the nature of the home -based business associated with the structure.
We support improvements and responsible growth in Old Town and the importance to follow and/or
comply with Guidelines and UDC regulations that set a precedent for future projects.
Susan & Scott Firth
1403 Olive Street
Page 77 of 93
Page 78 of 93
1202 E. 15th Street
2020-22-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
April 23, 2020
1Page 79 of 93
Item Under Consideration
2020-22-COA –1202 E. 15th Street Setback Modification
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for a 6' setback encroachment into the required 6' side
(west) setback to allow the expansion of a residential accessory structure 0'
from the side (west) property line at the property located at 1202 E 15th St.,
bearing the legal description of 0.517 acres out of Block 9 of Outlot Division B.
2Page 80 of 93
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Setback modification
3Page 81 of 93
Item Under Consideration
4Page 82 of 93
Annie Purl
Elementary
5Page 83 of 93
Current Context
6Page 84 of 93
1205 E. 15th Street –Survey & Plan
7Site Survey showing structure along property line.Plan of addition to finish out structure.Page 85 of 93
1202 E. 15th Street –Current Photos
8Page 86 of 93
Current Context
9Page 87 of 93
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;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 10Page 88 of 93
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
11Page 89 of 93
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or
Partially
Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
12Page 90 of 93
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•32 letters mailed
•Tw o (2) public comments in favor and one (1) opposed
13Page 91 of 93
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of the request.
14Page 92 of 93
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
15Page 93 of 93