HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.25.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
April 25, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at City Council Chambers - 510 West 9th St., Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the F ebruary 28, 2019 HAR C meeting.
Madis on T homas , His toric and Downtown P lanner
B P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a A C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for: 1) 10'
setback encroac hment along the property line adjac ent to the unimproved Ash S treet, into the required 15’
setback, allowing for a res idential struc ture 5' from the property line per the Unified Development C ode
(UDC ) S ection 4.08d.080.D; for the property located at 407 E. 5th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of
0.33 ac. G las s coc k Addition, Block 32, Lot 3-4 (C O A-2018-59). Madis on T homas , Downtown His toric
P lanner
C P ublic hearing and possible action for the demolition of a high priority s tructure located outside of the
his toric overlay dis tric ts at 608 W. 15th S treet– Madis on T homas , AI C P, His toric and Downtown
P lanner
D Consideration and review of by-laws , inc luding the proposed revision that would es tablish provis ions
for two regular meetings per month and the attendance policy.
E P resentation and discussion on the proc es s and standards related to the Unified Development C ode
HAR C approval criteria. Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic and Downtown P lanner.
C E RT IF IC AT E O F P O S T IN G
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily
ac cessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained so pos ted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
____________________________________
R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary
Page 1 of 100
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the Minutes from the F ebruary 28, 2019 HAR C meeting.
Madison T homas, Historic and Downtown P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
Page 2 of 100
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a A C ertificate of Appropriateness for: 1) 10'
s etbac k enc roachment along the property line adjacent to the unimproved As h S treet, into the required 15’
s etbac k, allowing for a residential s tructure 5' from the property line per the Unified Development C ode
(UDC ) S ec tion 4.08d.080.D; for the property loc ated at 407 E. 5th S treet, bearing the legal des cription of
0.33 ac . G lassc ock Addition, Bloc k 32, Lot 3-4 (C O A-2018-59). Madison T homas, Downtown Historic
P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applicant is requesting to add a carport adjacent to the existing garage at the rear and side of the lot which
also contains a historic home. T he carport is proposed to be 240 square feet and will match the two other
existing structures in roof pitch, roof materials which is metal roofing, siding materials which is hardie and
color. T he applicant is requesting a 10' encroachment along the property line adjacent to the unimproved Ash
Street, into the required 15’ setback, allowing a residential structure 5' from the property line. T he applicant is
requesting this encroachment to align the carport up with the existing driveway and because other areas for a
carport on the site are limited.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Historic Res ource Survey 2016 Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 3 of 100
EL
M
S
T
E 7 T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
ST ASH
S
T
SCENIC DR
E 5 T H S T
E 4 T H S T
E 2 N D S T
W
ES
T
S
T
H
O
L
LY
S
T
E 6 T H S T
S
A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
E U N I V E R S I T Y AVE
W 8T H S T
PI
N
E
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
W 10T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
ST
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
F
O
R
ES
T
S
T
T H O M A S C T
W 7T H S T
W 3R D S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 11 T H S T
M
A
RTI
N
LU
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
ST
S IH 35 NB
E 8 T H S T
SOUTHWESTERN B L V D
N
A
U
S
T
I
N
AVE
S M I T H C R E E K R D
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
W 5 T H S T
SO ULE DR
E 3 R D S T
S E R VI C E R D
B LUE HOLE PARK RD
B R E N D O N L E E L N
W 2 N D S T
RAILROAD AVE
W 9TH ST E R UTERSVIL
L
E
D
R
E 9T H S T
R
U
C
K
E
R
S
T
M C K E N Z I E D R
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
W U N I VE RS I T Y AV E
R E T R E A
T
P
L
E 9T H 1/2 S T
TI
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
MONT
GO
MERY S
T E 1 0 T H S T
E 3R D S T
W 9T H S T
PI
N
E
S
T
E 8 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 2 N D S T
E 9 T H S T
COA-2018-059Exhibit #1
Coordinate S ystem : Texas S tat e Plane /C ent ral Z one/NA D 83/US F eetCartographic Data For G eneral P lanning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Feet
Page 4 of 100
Dear Georgetown City Staff and HARC Members:
The renovation plan to the property located at 407 East 5th Street is to remodel an existing shed/apartment
located behind the primary homestead. The purpose of the remodel is to update the existing apartment and
to create a more useful one car garage space. The renovation would also include a detached car port to
accommodate a second vehicle. This detached carport would need to encroach 10' into the building set back
in order to allow an appropriate traffic flow without removing large trees. We are requesting a setback
Variance from HARC.
In 2016 the Mauldins renovated and enlarged the primary homestead located at 407 East 5th Street. The
homestead had been built in 1942 and had been unoccupied for many months. With the renovation of the
main homestead completed, we decided to remodel the shed/ apartment on the property and add a
detached car port. A garage and detached car port are needed to house our vehicles. The apartment needs
to be remodeled to make it handicap accessible for the possible need of a family member who may be unable
to climb stairs and needs additional accommodations within the space.
Although inquiries were made regarding the date that the apartment was included in the shed space, both of
the prior owners are deceased and their son no longer lives in the area. There was no response from the son
to our communication efforts.
Additional Information
1. According to the updated plans submitted to your office on November 30, 2018, the front façade is
described as follows:a. The non-working garage door would be replaced with a custom, working, wood carriage style garage door.
This would not be original but would be built to resemble original features.
b. The rotting two-door unit with panels would be replaced with a custom door unit with glass panels to
resemble the existing rotting structure.
c. No windows on front facing façade will be changed, added or deleted
2. The rotting wood siding materials would be Repaired, Patched and Replaced as needed.
3. The original shingle roof is to be replaced with metal roof which would model the existing roof materials
used on the north side of the primary homestead closest to the shed/apartment. This change would provide a
much longer lasting and higher quality roof. The form, pitch and shape of the roof would not be changed.
4. Paint colors that will be used are the same approved colors from the prior City/HARC submission for the
primary homestead.
Respectfully submitted by,
Travis Adams, Builder
Stan and Jen Mauldin, Homeowners
Page 5 of 100
RIATA BUILDERS
1799 CR 245
Georgetown, Texas 78633
Phone: 512-818-1117
E-mail: tadams.riata@hotmail.com
PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
Owner:Stan and Jen Mauldin
Job Address:407 E. 5th st
Phone #:512-763-6553
E-mail shmauldin85@gmail.com, jenmauldin4@gmail.com
Date:11/30/2018
We hereby propose to furnish all labor and material to build a custom home
based on the following scope of work, allowances and exclusions on
Owners Property
Approximate Living Square Footage is: 562
Scope of Work
Scope summery
Renovation of existing garage/ Guest House.
Demo interior walls and roof of existing building
Repair/ rebuild exterior walls, roof framing and roof decking to
deal with any existing rot or damage
Roof shape to be rebuilt to match existing. Material to be snaplock V groove metal
Rebuild interior and exterior of building to meet current code
New siding, roof and exterior facades to match existing main
house/ resemble existing shed.
New electrical, Plumbing and mechanical in new Guest house.
New concrete walk path along south side of building
New flatwork approach to garage from existing driveway.
Build new Carport next to garage
Scope Specs
Permits, foundation engineering and insurances
Engineered foundation with broom finished concrete on porches
Conditioned areas have 5/8" plywood roof decking
7/16" OSB sheathing with Tyvek wrap on whole house
Snap-lock V groove metal roof with Kynar finish Color TBD
Try Supply Vinyl windows with insulated low E glass, Color is White (to match existing)
6'8" Fiberglass one lite exterior doors
Open Cell foam insulation in the exterior walls and roof cavities
14 SEER air conditioning system with Electric Heat Pump and programmable T-stats
Custom cabinets per plan in paint grade material
Painted trim package including 5 1/4" base board and 3 1/4" door casing.
6'8" masonite solid core interior doors with Satin Hardware
Ceramic Tile Flooring in Bathroom
Vynil plank wood Floor in Living, Kitchen, Bedroom and closets.
Tile shower surround and pan in bath with frameless clear glass enclosure
Granite tops with tile backsplash in kitchen,
Gas Tankless water heater mounted on ext of building
Plumbed for Water Softner Loop
Page 1 of 1Page 6 of 100
This area is inaccessible
by vehicle due to
topography and natural
landscape.
This area is not
suitable to build the
carport due to large
pecan trees that we
do not want to
disrupt.
•This area is the only available
space on the lot.
•This area will also flow best
with existing/ proposed traffic
pattern for the primary garage.
•Because of the drainage
easement The carport would
not interfere be obtrusive to
any neighbors
•This street is unimproved
•This easement appears to
only be used for drainage
Page 7 of 100
P-01
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
DATE:
3/31/2019
NTS
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
Plan Info
M A ULD IN R ESIDE N C E
A P A RTM E N T/ G A R AG E
407 E. 5TH ST
GEORGETOWN
TEXAS
WCAD INFO:WCAD INF O:
Property Type - Residential
Legal Description - GLASSCOCK ADDITION, BLOCK 32, LOT 3-4, ACRES .33
Neighborhood - G652H - Old Town Gtown Class H2
Account - R-20-4800-0000-0184
Map Number - 3-1127
407 E. 5TH ST
Georgetown, TX 78626
Layout Page Table
Label Title Description Comments
P-01 Plan Info NTS
P-02 Existing 1/4"=1'
P-03 Existing Elevation Photos NTS
P-04 Proposed floorplan 1/4"=1'
P-05 Proposed Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1'
P-06 Proposed Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1'
P-07 Proposed Roof Plan
P-08 Electrical 1/4"=1'
P-09 Material Specs - Scope
P-010 Garage Door NTS
P-011 Carport 1/4"=1'
P-012 Carport 3D NTS
P-013 Site plan 1"=20'
P-014 Underground Utilities 1"=20'
Page 8 of 100
P-09
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
DATE:
3/31/2019
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
Material Specs - Scope
407 E. 5TH ST
Georgetown, TX 78626
***some example photos may be effected by light and or poor quality
camera, and may not resemble color accurately***
Scope:Scope:
Renovation of existing garage/ Guest House.
Demo interior walls and roof of existing building
Repair/ rebuild exterior walls, roof framing and roof decking to
deal with any existing rot or damage
Rebuild interior and exterior of building to meet current code
New siding, roof and exterior facades to match existing main
house/ resemble existing shed.
New electrical, Plumbing and mechanical in new Guest house.
New concrete walk path along south side of building
New flatwork approach to garage from existing driveway.
Build new Carport next to garage
Exterior Facade Material:Exterior Facade Material:
Siding material: 6in Hardie Lap cedar mill texture
Trim Material: Cedar mill textured Hardie
Windows: White Vinyl single hung windows to match existing main house
Roof Color: Match Existing main house (snap lock metal)
Exterior Paint colors: (matching existing structure)Exterior Paint colors: (matching existing structure)
Siding: Kelly Moore - KM5818 Kettlemen
Trim: Kelly Moore - KMW 43 Whitest White
Roof Example Window example
Siding material/ ColorTrim material/ Color Page 9 of 100
20'
12'
10'
10'
12' X 20'
CARPORT
6x6 Smooth
cedar column
45 deg. gussets
Decorative Corbels
Siding gable to match houseRoof pitch to match house
6x6 smooth cedar columns
painted to match trim color of house
Exterior Elevation Front
13'-2"
20'
12'-10"
9'
3'-10"snap lock "v groove" metal roof
Grade line
Exterior Elevation Right P-011
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
DATE:
3/31/2019
1/4"=1'
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
Carport
407 E. 5TH ST
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page - 11"x17"
1/4"=1'
Proposed CarportProposed Carport
Placement Requires a setback Varience
Design to resemble/ Complement main house
Paint colors to match main house
Page 10 of 100
P-012
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
DATE:
3/31/2019
NTS
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
Carport 3D
407 E. 5TH ST
Georgetown, TX 78626
Revision Table
Number Date Revised By Description
1 2/21/2019 T. ADAMS Updated roof material
2 2/21/2019 T. ADAMS Updated door style
Page 11 of 100
SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
4'-8"
22'-9"
9'
14'-6"
4'
5'-8"
16'-2"
4'
9'
26'-4"
38'
95'-4"
90'-1"
20'-9"
19'-11"
10'
10'
2'
15'2'3'-9"
20'
12'-11"
15'-1"
10'
New Concrete
Ramp to grade
New 4' Concrete walk path
Concrete Steps and platform
from grade to side entry door
Dimensions per code
A/C pad
New Stone retaining wall to replace existing wood wall
"back yard"
26'x36'
appartment/ garage
(existing)12'x20'
Carport
(proposed)
We are requesting a set back variance of 10' here
to accommodate new detached carport.
P-013
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
DATE:
3/31/2019
1"=20'
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
Site plan
407 E. 5TH ST
Georgetown, TX 78626
Total Lot (according to WCAD) - 14,375 sq. ft.
Back Yard total - 4,525 sq. ft.
Impervious Cover:Impervious Cover:
Existing - 2908.97 sq. ft.
Main house (Including covered porches)- 1874.97 sq. ft.
Shed/ Apartment - 936 sq. ft.
Main house A/C pad - 10 sq. ft.
Front entry walk path - 115 sq. ft.
Proposed - 656.18 sq. ft.
Apartment flatwork - 406.18 sq. ft.
Apartment A/C pad - 10 sq. ft.
Carport - 240 sq. ft.
Proposed Lot Total Impervious - 3565.15 sq. ft. (24.801% of total
lot)
Proposed back Yard Total Impervious - 1592.18 sq. ft. (35.186 % of
back yard)
Proposed back yard total coverage (structures and buildings) -
1185.815 sq. ft. ( 26.205% of back yard)
Page size - 11"x17"
Scale - 1"=20'
Revision Table
Number Date Revised By Description
1 2/21/2019 T. ADAMS Changed side set back
2 2/21/2019 T. ADAMS Added rear yard calc.
3 2/21/2019 T. ADAMS deminsion from carport to rear
prop.
Page 12 of 100
SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
E / L
C / W
C / W
w / W
w / W
w / W w / W w / W w / W
E / L
E / L
E / L
E / L
G
G
4'-8"
22'-9"
9'
14'-6"
4'
5'-8"
16'-2"
4'
9'
26'-4"
38'
95'-4"
90'-1"
20'-9"
19'-11"
10'
10'
2'
15'2'3'-9"
20'
12'-11"
15'-1"
10'
New Concrete
Ramp to grade
New 4' Concrete walk path
Existing Electric line
from house to shed
Existing Waste water line
from main house to city sewer
Existing Water line from main house to shed
(Re-use this water line for new apartment)
Concrete Steps and platform
from grade to side entry door
Dimensions per code
New Electric line from main house electric
panel to new sub panel on apartment
Tie in new Sewer connection
from apartment to city sewer
New Gas line from main house to apartment
A/C pad
New Stone retaining wall to replace existing wood wall
"back yard"
26'x36'
appartment/ garage
(existing)12'x20'
Carport
(proposed)
We are requesting a set back variance of 10' here
to accommodate new detached carport.
P-014
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
DATE:
3/31/2019
1"=20'
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
Underground Utilities
407 E. 5TH ST
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 13 of 100
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:407 E 5th St 2016 Survey ID:124262 A
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address ROSE, REUBEN JR ET AL, 407 E 5TH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.639408 Longitude -97.673561
Addition/Subdivision:S3677 - Glasscock Addition
WCAD ID:R042567Legal Description (Lot/Block):GLASSCOCK ADDITION, BLOCK 32, LOT 3-4, ACRES .33
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 3/17/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1940
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: North
Page 14 of 100
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:407 E 5th St 2016 Survey ID:124262 A
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story single-family home with no particular style. It has a cross-gabled roof, hardiplank siding, and a partial-width,
projecting porch with a single front door with partially glazed sidelights.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Entry stoop replaced with a partial-width porch (porch roof and porch supports replaced;
porch surround added); door replaced, sidelights added, door surround added; siding
replaced and string course added; windows resized and replaced; addition at rear
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:
Cross-Gabled
Hardiplank
Vinyl
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 15 of 100
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:407 E 5th St 2016 Survey ID:124262 A
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: some window replacement)
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:Due to recent alterations, priority has been
lowered from the previous survey.
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
1984 survey and 2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:262007 ID:78a
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Low
Page 16 of 100
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:407 E 5th St 2016 Survey ID:124262 A
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 17 of 100
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2018-059 – 407 E. 5th St. Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: 4/25/2019
File Number: COA-2018-059
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 10' setback
encroachment along the property line adjacent to the unimproved Ash Street, into the required 15’
setback, allowing for a residential structure 5' from the property line per the Unified Development Code
(UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; for the property located at 407 E. 5th Street, bearing the legal description of
0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3-4 (COA-2018-59). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic
Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Carport Setback Encroachment
Applicant: Travis Adams
Property Owner: Stan & Jen Mauldin
Property Address: 407 E. 5th Street, Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 32, Lot 3-4
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: Main House: 1940
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 2016 Main House: Low Garage: Low
2007 Main House: Medium Garage: Medium
1984 Main House: Low Garage: N/A
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to add a carport adjacent to the existing garage at the rear and side of
the lot which also contains a historic home. The carport is proposed to be 240 square feet and will match
the two other existing structures in roof pitch, roof materials which is metal roofing, siding materials
which is hardie and color. The applicant is requesting a 10' encroachment along the property line adjacent
to the unimproved Ash Street, into the required 15’ setback, allowing a residential structure 5' from the
property line. The applicant is requesting this encroachment to align the carport up with the existing
driveway and because other areas for a carport on the site are limited.
Page 18 of 100
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2018-059 – 407 E. 5th St. Page 2 of 5
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed carport location is adjacent to the existing apartment/garage. It will meet the rear
setback of 10’ from the property line, and will be significantly setback from the front property line. The
distance between the existing garage and the carport will be approximately 4’, however, there are no
distance requirements for buildings on the same lot in the building code. The side setback is required to
be 15’ from a street right-of-way. Although Ash Street is not improved and does not function as a
street, it remains a city right-of-way and the 15’ setback applies. The Unified Development Code (UDC)
requires side setbacks not adjacent to a street to be 6’.
When a setback encroachment is being requested, HARC should consider the following criteria:
D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Exception.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness,
per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base
zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District.
2. HARC may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate
of Appropriateness for a setback exception:
Approval Criteria Staff Findings
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a
matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed location of the carport
is appropriate in that it is not being
placed in front of either of the
existing structures (both are
identified on the historic resource
survey). It is being proposed at the
rear of the lot adjacent to the existing
garage structure. There are existing
trees and a retaining wall that limits
the possible locations on the lot. The
carport as it is proposed could be
moved closer to the existing garage,
reducing the requested setback
encroachment. If they move it closer
to the garage they would still need to
provide enough space for
maintenance of the two structures.
Page 19 of 100
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2018-059 – 407 E. 5th St. Page 3 of 5
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into
the setback;
Complies
Pushing the carport towards the
northwest portion of the lot is not an
option due to the limited area to
maneuver a car between the existing
home’s screened patio and the
existing garage/apartment. This area
also has topography issues with an
existing wood wall, soon to be
replaced with a stone retaining wall
blocking off this portion of the
backyard. There is also limited space
on the lot due to the amount of large
trees on the property with trees that
run along the west portion of the lot
line and a row of trees that follow the
existing drive. However, there is
some open room on the lot between
the house and the trees, though a
structure and parking could impact
the trees and critical root zone.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property is
located;
Does Not Comply
The block was defined as the
properties adjacent to S. Elm Street,
E. 4th Street, S. College Street and E.
5th Street. There are no other houses
within this block that are less than
15’ from these streets. The other
properties along the unimproved
Ash St. have a detention culvert
running along their property and the
road, so this context is difficult to
determine.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be
set closer to the street than other units within the block;
Partially Complies
The proposed setback is compatible
with the existing structures on the lot
adjacent to E. 5th St., however if Ash
St. were to develop, it would be
closer than any other structures are
to a street.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure
removed within the past year;
N/A
Page 20 of 100
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2018-059 – 407 E. 5th St. Page 4 of 5
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure
that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and
encroachment as proposed;
N/A
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure
is significantly larger than the original;
N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
N/A
i. Reserved.
j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
There are a few other properties
along the block that have a single-car
carport (attached and detached) of a
size and scale.
k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting
their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed location of this
structure will not negatively impact
the adjoining property, which is an
undeveloped road. There are no
current plans in place to develop the
street, and the proposed structure is
setback far enough, that if the road
were to develop in the future, it
would not impose the line of sight.
l. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent
structures; and/or
Complies
The setback from the property line 5’
which would allow the maintenance
of the structure.
m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Partially Complies
The proposed location of the
structure is not impacted by trees,
however if placed in other possible
locations on the lot, existing trees
could be impacted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant places the structure 6’ from the side
setback. That is a typical side setback and the adjacent road is unimproved and has been. If it were to
Page 21 of 100
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2018-059 – 407 E. 5th St. Page 5 of 5
develop, the structure is proposed far enough back to not impact road visibility. It meets the majority of
the criteria outlined, will not negatively impact adjacent properties, and has site limitations to placing it
in other locations throughout the lot.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3– Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 22 of 100
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Public hearing and possible action for the demolition of a high priority struc ture loc ated outs ide of the
historic overlay districts at 608 W. 15th S treet– Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic and Downtown P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Background
T his approximately .24 ac re property inc ludes a high priority s tructure identified on the 2016 Historic
R es ourc e S urvey. It was als o on the 1984 or 2007 his toric resource s urveys as a high priority struc ture.
Acc ording to the 2016 Historic R es ourc e S urvey, the s ingle story s tructure is estimated to have been built
in 1890 and retains s uffic ient (arc hitectural) integrity and is an excellent or rare example of its type or style.
T he 2016 s urvey identifies the s tructure as an L-plan with F olk Victorian s tylis tic influences. T he property
is not located in either of the historic overlay districts , but loc ated in a neighborhood a few bloc ks west of
O ld Town. T he applicant purc hased the home last year, from a family that had owned it s inc e the early
1970’s . T he applic ant c onsidered relocation, however it has been c onfirmed that due to the struc ture and
condition of the home, relocation is not an option.
Public Comments
As req uired by the Unified Development C o d e, all property o wners within a 200 fo o t radius of the s ubjec t
property that are loc ated within C ity limits were notified of the rezo ning ap p licatio n (13 notices mailed ), and
one (1) s ign was posted on-s ite. To date, s taff has not rec eived any public comments.
Findings
T he s truc ture has deterio rated beyond a reas o nable amount of repair and maintenance. In its current s tate it
cannot be re-occ upied. To bring it to a livable condition, the foundation would need to be leveled and the
flooring replac ed , the single wall c o nstruc tion would need to be converted to double to allo w for
electric/gas and p lumbing. Exis ting gas and water plumb ing p o s e s afety issues d ue to the “makeshift”
installation and it appears to have extens ive termite d amage. T he property c anno t inhabited or provid e an
alternative use in its c urrent state. T he s ignificant amount o f d amage this ho use has inc urred overtime
without routine maintenance has left it in a state of disrepair.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Supporting Documents Exhibit
Exhibit 4- HARC Demolition Proces s Exhibit
Page 23 of 100
Exhibit 5- HARC Criteria Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Demolition Subcommittee Form Exhibit
Exhibit 7- Historic Res ource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 8- HPO Report Exhibit
Page 24 of 100
S MAIN S
T
EL
M
S
T
S AUS
TIN AVE
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
TW 17TH ST
W 10TH ST
RAILROAD AVE
W UNIV E RSIT Y AV E
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
FORE
S
T
S
T
W 11TH ST
W 1 8 TH S T
W 1 6 T H S T
S MYRTLE ST
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
E 10TH S T
E 11 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
S
T
E 18TH ST
E 1 9 TH S T
S IH 35 FWY NB
TIMBER
S
T
ROCK S
T
W 1 5 T H S T
ALLEY
E
N
T
R
2
6
0
N
B
EXIT 261 NB
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E 15TH ST
PAIGE ST
E 1 7 T H S T
E 20TH ST
E UNIVERSIT Y AVE
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
EXIT 262 NB
W 14TH ST
E 13TH ST
BRUSH
Y S
T
E 14TH ST
E 16TH ST
W 1 3 T H S T
C Y R U S A V E
W 9TH ST
UNIVERSITY AVE TN W
BRIDGE ST
CANDE
E
S
T
ENTR 262 SB
WEST ST
E 1 9 T H 1 /2 S T
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
GEORGE ST
W 2 0 TH S T
W 19TH ST
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
STO N E C I R
MONTGOMERY STS IH 35 NB
WEST ST
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S IH 35 FWY SB
A
L
L
E
Y
E 1 6 T H S T
FOR
E
S
T
S
T
W 18TH ST
HART S
T
W16TH S T
W 1 4 TH S T
S I H 3 5 N B
W 18TH ST
WE
S
T
S
T
W 1 9 TH S T
2019-10-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 25 of 100
Lewis Asset Management, LLC
PO Box 1306
Georgetown, TX 78627
January 29, 2019
Planning and Development
406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
To Whom It May Concern:
Lewis Asset Management, LLC, has prepared this letter to state our intent to apply for a
certificate of appropriateness to demolish the structure at 608 W 15th Street.
The following details apply:
Existing Zoning District: Single Family
Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential
Growth Tier Designation: Tier 1A (Developed/Redeveloping)
The property at 608 W. 15th Street, Georgetown TX was purchased in April 2018 and is currently
in the process of being re-platted from one lot to two. The existing home that is on the property
was built in 1890 and although it is not in the Historic Overlay District, it has been recognized by
the Historic Resources Survey as having historic value. In a substantial effort to save the
structure, our original plan was to split the current lot in two, re-position the home to fit on one of
the lots and build a new construction home on the second lot. This plan was derived in an effort
to create value with the additional lot since remodeling the house as it sits on the one lot was not
financially viable. Upon extensive further research and evaluation of the property, it has now
been determined that demolishing the current structure is the only economically feasible option.
The house has extensive termite damage, wood rot, major foundation and structural issues as well
as hazardous plumbing and electrical issues throughout. The house as it stands today is unsafe
and unlivable and there is a not a feasible way to repair the building to those standards.
All options have been exhausted - to repair the home to meet the safe and livable criteria would
take more than the home would be worth and to move the structure would be unpractical due to
the additional framing that would be required in order to keep the home from falling apart in its
current state. We ask that the committee approve our request to demolish the structure due to
unreasonable economic hardship.
Thank you for your consideration. If there are any questions regarding this application, please feel
free to contact me at (512) 948-5306.
Sincerely,
Peyton Lewis
Owner
Page 26 of 100
Page 27 of 100
Page 28 of 100
Page 29 of 100
Page 30 of 100
Page 31 of 100
front elevation
Page 32 of 100
front elevation Page 33 of 100
front right elevation Page 34 of 100
front right corner
Page 35 of 100
front porch
Page 36 of 100
front entry Page 37 of 100
front porch from right side
Page 38 of 100
Page 39 of 100
front left corner Page 40 of 100
right elevation Page 41 of 100
back right elevationPage 42 of 100
back right corner Page 43 of 100
rear of the house Page 44 of 100
rear elevation Page 45 of 100
exposed plumbing and electrical on rear
Page 46 of 100
rotten siding, exposed plumbing and electrical Page 47 of 100
hazardous electrical wiring on rearPage 48 of 100
Rotten walls, flooring and siding
makeshift plumbing.
Page 49 of 100
inadequate insulation and mold on ceiling
Page 50 of 100
more rotten walls and flooring as well as rotten and missing siding
Page 51 of 100
mold on ceiling
Page 52 of 100
floor rot
Page 53 of 100
floor joist is compromised
Page 54 of 100
termite damage and rot
Page 55 of 100
termite damage to the floor joist throughout
Page 56 of 100
extensive termite damage
Page 57 of 100
termite damage
Page 58 of 100
termite damage
Page 59 of 100
Page 60 of 100
termite Damage
Page 61 of 100
termite Damage
Page 62 of 100
hazardous electrical panel
Page 63 of 100
rotten roof decking
Page 64 of 100
rotten roof decking
Page 65 of 100
rotten sidingPage 66 of 100
rotten siding Page 67 of 100
rotten siding and makeshift skirting
Page 68 of 100
rotten siding and makeshift skirting
Page 69 of 100
Subject: 608 15th Street
To Whom It May Concern,
In this section you will find attached two budgets. The first showing the cost of making the structure
livable. This would be the bare essentials with almost nothing being done to the exterior of the house.
The second, a budget for a complete remodel of the current house bringing it to a like new condition.
Lastly you will find an estimate from River City Structural Movers to move the home and an estimate
from Centex for the extensive foundation work.
If any additional information or documentation is needed, please let us know so we can get it to you as
soon as possible.
Thank you for your time.
Peyton Lewis
Owner
Page 70 of 100
608 15th Street
Budget to Make it Livable
Foundation repair 19,500
lumber 4,000
repair windows 1,000
framing 5,000
electrical 8,000
plumbing 5,000
plumbing fixtures, tub and water heater 3,000
HVAC 8,000
drywall 5,000
insulation 2,000
paint 3,000
flooring 1,000
appliances 2,500
light fixtures 800
hardware/mirrors/etc 500
haul off and cleanup labor 1,000
blinds 300
Total 69,600
Price per sq/ft 63.27
Sale price 176,000 160$
Purchase price (95,000)
Building (69,600)
Real estate commission (10,560) 6%
Closing cost (1,760) 1%
Loss (920)
Page 71 of 100
608 15th Street
Budget for Complete Remodel
foundation repair 19,500
lumber 10,000
new metal roof 9,000
new windows 3,000
framing 10,000
electrical 8,000
plumbing 5,000
plumbing fixtures, tub & water heater 4,000
HVAC 8,000
drywall 5,500
insulation 2,000
paint 6,500
flooring 8,000
cabinets and countertops 8,000
appliances 2,500
light fixtures 2,000
hardware/mirrors/etc 1,500
haul off and cleanup labor 1,000
blinds 600
Total 114,100
Price per sq/ft 104
Sale price 209,000 190$
Purchase price (95,000)
Building (114,100)
Real estate commission (12,540) 6%
Closing cost (2,090) 1%
Loss (14,730)
Page 72 of 100
Section One: Lifetime Service Agreement
The Lifetime Service Agreement will be applicable and issued only upon (i)completion of the Scope of Work and any Change Order and (ii)
payment in full to CenTex House Leveling (“CenTex”) by Owner.
Warranty Terms:
a)If future settlement occurs within FIVE (5)years from the date of completion that can be corrected by adjusting on piers previously installed
by CenTex,adjustments will be performed at no cost to the Owner,or any future Owners during the applicable warranty term,provided all
provisions of the Agreement have been met.
b)If future settlement occurs after FIVE (5)years from the date of completion of all work that can be corrected by adjusting piers previously
installed by CenTex,adjustments can be performed at $100.00/pier,per adjustment,for the life of the structure providing all provisions of the
Agreement have been met. If required, Owner is responsible for any permit fees, engineering fees and post repair leak test.
c)The Warranty is limited to the area supported by the pier(s)installed by CenTex.Piering in one area of the structure will not provide
warranty coverage for this warranty to any other part of the foundation.
d) Access for warranty adjustments will be performed as called for in this Agreement.
e) The warranty shall be null and void if:
1) Payment in full is not received per Agreement.
2) Structure has been damaged, added on to, altered or modified since this Agreement.
3) Structure and/or piers have been affected by plumbing leaks, water intrusion, adverse drainage conditions, soil erosion, heaving
or intentional damage.
X
Property Owner Date
X
Property Owner Date
P: (512) 444-5438
P: (888) 425-5438
F: (512) 371-9551
A111297Bid#:
Peyton Lewis
608 W 15th St
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 1 of 3
CENTEX HOUSE LEVELING - AUSTIN, LLC
PIER & BEAM FOUNDATION REPAIR AGREEMENT
Install 10” Sonotube Pier39
Install/Replace 4x6 Wood Beam per Lin Ft308
Improve Level Condition of Foundation1
Skirting, Remove and Dispose. Others to replace.1
NOTE: Customer is responsible for removal of floors prior to work Sales Tax
Scope of Work
Total $19,502.00
Discount
Third Party Fees $750.00
Charges
Optional Pier Types Discounts
Third Party Services Special Contract Provisions
$18752.00Scope of Work
If additional work is necessary that is not called for in this Agreement,
additional cost will apply for such work thru a separate Agreement.........
2x6 Floor Joists: $20.00 per ln ft.
If any existing wood beam is reusable a credit of $24.00 per ln ft will apply.
City Permits and Engineering Certification
Date
Dean Zubkoff
Dean Zubkoff
1/4/19
CenTex House Leveling - Austin, LLC
dean@welevelit.com
512-230-2310
512-948-5306
HELPING MAKE A DIFFERENCE: FOR EVERY JOB WE PERFORM, CENTEX DONATES TO HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY. WHEN YOU HIRE CENTEX, YOU HELP MORE THAN JUST YOUR HOME’S FOUNDATION.
Payment Terms - 50% at Start, 50% at Completion of Centex Work
Page 73 of 100
Payment Terms and Conditions:
a) 50% of Agreement at start, 50% at completion of CenTex work.
b) CenTex reserves the right to stop job and keep idle if payment terms of Agreement are not met, including Change Orders.
c) Change Orders must be in writing and signed by CenTex & Owner.
Section Two: CenTex’s Responsibilities
a) CenTex shall furnish all labor, materials & equipment to perform services described in the Scope of Work & any Change Order.
b)If the Scope of Work is to improve the level condition of the foundation (unless otherwise noted),by installing piers,then during the
raising process, the extent of improvement to the level condition of the foundation will be in the sole judgment of CenTex.
c)If the Scope of Work is stabilization only,¬ to improve the level condition of the foundation,then stabilization,for the purposes of this
Agreement,is defined as preventing,as best as possible,any further or continued downward movement of the structure.The piers installed
by CenTex are solely intended to stabilize the foundation.Neither stabilization,nor CenTex’Warranty,limits,protects from,or prevents the
potential for the structure to heave with or heave off, the piers installed by CenTex.
d)CenTex shall temporarily remove any plant(s);shrub(s)&landscaping that may obstruct pier installation.When feasible,all plant(s),
shrub(s) & landscaping will be replanted, but CenTex is not responsible for, nor guarantees the livelihood of any disturbed plant(s).
Section Three: General Conditions
a)All plumbing,including,(i)joints,fixtures or fittings (ii)deteriorated or leaking pipes,or (iii)sprinkler/irrigation systems which have
preexisting problems or problems resulting from work performed will not be repaired by CenTex unless otherwise noted in this Agreement or
Change Order.
b)Owner agrees that in order to perform the Scope of Work during the initial piering as well as any future warranty adjustments,that
sheetrock,wallpaper,brick and/or other rigid materials including the slab,framing,roof and walls may crack.If such cracking occurs,
CenTex is not responsible for the repair of these items.The Scope of Work does not include any repairs,cosmetic work,electrical work or
the replacement of any such materials.
c)Owner agrees that if it is discovered after work has begun,that the slab foundation,(i)was constructed of substandard materials,(ii)
possesses structural deficiencies,or,(iii)possesses inadequate reinforcement to support the load required for the installation of piers,an
adjustment in the price of the Agreement may be required and shall be agreed to by Owner in a Change Order.Should the Owner be
unwilling to agree to the required Change Order,CenTex will refund monies paid less the cost of material(s),labor performed,engineering
fees,and City permits.This Agreement shall then be of no further binding effect and shall be mutually rescinded.CenTex shall issue no
Warranty for partial work performed.
d)Owner agrees that if it is discovered by either party,after installation of the initial Scope of Work per this Agreement,that the foundation,
i)was constructed of substandard materials,(ii)possesses structural deficiencies,or,(iii)possesses inadequate reinforcement to support
the load required or sustain the repair (“substandard issues”), CenTex is not responsible to repair or restore the property.CenTex,
at its sole discretion, may void future warranty obligations based upon its inspection and discovery of such substandard issues.
e)Owner agrees that if builder’s piers,other preexisting piering systems,or anchors of any type are discovered after work has begun &it is
necessary to disconnect them from the foundation, an additional charge per pier will be assessed by a Change Order.
f) Owner agrees that if rock is encountered an additional charge of $250.00/hour will apply thru separate Change Order.
g)Owner agrees to furnish CenTex the electricity/water to perform the services in accordance with the Scope of Work and any Change
Order.
A111297Bid#:
Peyton Lewis
608 W 15th St
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 2 of 3
PIER & BEAM FOUNDATION REPAIR AGREEMENT
CENTEX HOUSE LEVELING - AUSTIN, LLC
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON PAGES ONE, TWO, AND THREE ARE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT.
BY INITIALING, I HAVE READ, AGREE, AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Property Owner Initials: ________ Date: ____________ Property Owner Initials: ________ Date: ____________
welevelit.com
P: (512) 444-5438
P: (888) 425-5438
F: (512) 371-9551
Page 74 of 100
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON PAGES ONE, TWO, AND THREE ARE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT.
BY INITIALING, I HAVE READ, AGREE, AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Property Owner Initials: ________ Date: ____________ Property Owner Initials: ________ Date: ____________
welevelit.com
A111297Bid#:
Peyton Lewis
608 W 15th St
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 3 of 3
PIER & BEAM REPAIR AGREEMENT
CENTEX HOUSE LEVELING - AUSTIN, LLC
Section Four: Dispute Resolution
a)Collection Action:If Owner fails to pay CenTex under the terms of this Agreement,Owner agrees that it will pay all costs and expenses
incurred by CenTex in bringing collection action,including but not limited to attorney’s fees,collection agency fees,investigation fees,and
any other costs associated with litigation such as court costs,witness fees,and travel expenses.Venue is Austin,Travis County,Texas.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Texas.
b)Binding Arbitration:Owner and CenTex agree to negotiate with each other in good faith and to use their best efforts to reach a
fair and equitable settlement satisfactory to both parties.Other than CenTex’s right to bring a Collection Action,should
settlement negotiations fail with respect to any and all other disputes or claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement,an
alleged breach of this Agreement,or the terms of the Warranty issued by CenTex,including but not limited to claims based on
contract,tort,or statute,the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association,
following the American Arbitration Association’s Construction Industry Rules.Any fee for initiating arbitration must be paid by
the party initiating arbitration.Thereafter,the parties shall share the fees and expenses of the arbitration proceeding equally.
Each party shall pay its own negotiation,mediation or arbitration expense as those expenses are assessed through the
proceeding.
Owner waives its right to a trial by jury.
No Punitive Damages:The arbitrator is not empowered to award punitive damages.The parties expressly waive any claim to
punitive damages with respect to any disputes.
IMPORTANT NOTICE:You and your contractor are responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of this contract.If you sign this
contract and you fail to meet the terms and conditions of this contract,you may lose your legal ownership rights in your home.KNOW
YOUR RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE LAW.
Section Five: Limitation of Liability
a)Both Owner and CenTex agree if CenTex is found liable to Owner under this Agreement,in no event shall any award to Owner be in
excess of the contracted price of this Agreement and any Change Orders,less third party fees paid by CenTex for engineering certification,
City permits, and plumbing tests/repairs.
b)If CenTex is the prevailing party in any proceeding,be it arbitration or court,it shall be entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary
attorney’s fees and costs from Owner.
c)It is understood and agreed by CenTex and Owner that this Agreement contains the final and entire agreement between them,and that
they shall not be bound by any terms,statements,conditions or representations,oral or written,express or implied,not contained within
this Agreement.A written Change Order signed by CenTex and Owner may only modify this Agreement.No oral statements made by any
CenTex representative during any phase of the services provided by CenTex are enforceable,unless such oral statement is reduced to
writing and contained in this Agreement or any Change Order.
P: (512) 444-5438
P: (888) 425-5438
F: (512) 371-9551
Page 75 of 100
Estimate
Date
4/10/2018
Estimate #
13
Name / Address
Stonefish Investment Group
Peyton Lewis
P.O. Box 1306
Georgetown, TX 78627
20 Redfish Lane
Port Lavaca TX
77979
512-237-1373
Please let us know if you have any questions and we will get back with you as soon as
possible.
Phone #
5122371373
Total
Description Qty Rate Total
This is the cost to remove existing metal roof and save for
reinstallation by others. Roof rafters will be taken down and laid on
top of ceiling for house move. House will be cut into two pieces and
relocated to its new location.
27,000.00 27,000.00
This is the cost to install new half inch zip wall roof sheathing. 2,000.00 2,000.00
Framing allowance. This allowance is for the cost of new floor
systems installed in the home.
11,000.00 11,000.00
This is the cost to install new interior 2x4 walls throughout the
home. This is needed for bracing and will remain in place after the
house is set onto its foundation.
4,000.00 4,000.00
This is the cost for installation of foundation. Also includes cost for
engineering services to determine pier size and layout. Upon receipt
of engineer drawings cost may change if engineer calls for
exceptional measures.
16,000.00 16,000.00
Building materials will be billed on a cost plus 10% basis. All
receipts will be submitted to client upon invoice. This is done as a
transparent measure so that client sees actual cost of materials used.
0.00 0.00
$60,000.00
Page 76 of 100
Page 77 of 100
Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval.
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Historic Structure.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are
unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when
reviewing the application.
2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when
considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure:
a. Loss of Significance.
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer
historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the
historic overlay district; and
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant
and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the
historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the
building or structure for such designation; and
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were
not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or
negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by
neglect; and
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse
effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or
b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable,
practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or
structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return
on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or
relocated; and
ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any
other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or
c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the
structure.
Page 78 of 100
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: 2019-10-COA
MEETING DATE: 4/5/2019
MEETING LOCATION: 608 WEST 15TH STREET
APPLICANT: Peyton Lewis
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Amanda P., Lawrence R.
STAFF PRESENT: Madison T., Nat W., Glen Holcomb
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh S., Catherine M.
COMMENTS
Applicant:
Mr. Lewis bought the property to make two (2) lots and planned on keeping the structure and moving it
to the other lot. Unfortunately, he determined that the structure was unstable and not structurally sound
enough to move. Mr. Lewis already has started collecting some information on the history of the home
and information on previous owners.
Subcommittee:
What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that
should be made to the structure for re-occupancy?
Existing single walls will require extensive framing and reinforcement to allow re-occupancy; the floor
is rotted out and unleveled, plumbing issues/makeshift gas lines, and no running water.
Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to
the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure
to its original design?
There are some additions at the rear and side which are not visible from the street. Some are historic
additions and some are just older. It looks like the portion on the west side of the home was a historic
addition, with the small shed-like structure at the rear being a more recent addition. The street facing
façade of the structure is generally recognizable.
May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
Page 79 of 100
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 3
Could reuse some of the interior wood however there are concerns with major termite damage which
could spread if reused without treatment. See the previous response on the structural condition for
required changes for restoration.
May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
No, not structurally sound (termites and single-wall const.) would not allow the structure to be relocated.
Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style,
architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme?
Yes, as stated in the Historic Resource Survey it has a significant style, identified as “Folk Victorian”
Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones?
Wood could be generally repurposed however the termite infestation could spread.
Other comments
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions: Archival with record (history, timeline)
Info on style and others in the area.
Disapproval
Based on:
Page 80 of 100
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 3 of 3
Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date
Page 81 of 100
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:608 W 15th St 2016 Survey ID:123882
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042682Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 2/20/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1890
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:353
ID:249
*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:123882 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:30.630624 Longitude -97.682379
None Selected
None Selected
Page 82 of 100
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:608 W 15th St 2016 Survey ID:123882
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
Photo Direction
Photo Direction
Page 83 of 100
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: 2019-10-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 608 W. 15th Street
APPLICANT: Peyton Lewis, Lewis Asset Management, LLC
Background
This approximately .24 acre property includes a high priority structure identified on the 2016
Historic Resource Survey. It was also on the 1984 or 2007 historic resource surveys as a high
priority structure. According to the 2016 Historic Resource Survey, the single story structure is
estimated to have been built in 1890 and retains sufficient (architectural) integrity and is an
excellent or rare example of its type or style. The 2016 survey identifies the structure as an L-
plan with Folk Victorian stylistic influences. The property is not located in either of the historic
overlay districts, but located in a neighborhood a few blocks west of Old Town. The applicant
purchased the home last year, from a family that had owned it since the early 1970’s. The
applicant considered relocation, however it has been confirmed that due to the structure and
condition of the home, relocation is not an option.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application
(13 notices mailed), and one (1) sign was posted on-site. To date, staff has not received any public
comments.
Findings
The structure has deteriorated beyond a reasonable amount of repair and maintenance. In its
current state it cannot be re-occupied. To bring it to a livable condition, the foundation would
need to be leveled and the flooring replaced, the single wall construction would need to be
converted to double to allow for electric/gas and plumbing. Existing gas and water plumbing
pose safety issues due to the “makeshift” installation and it appears to have extensive termite
damage. The property cannot inhabited or provide an alternative use in its current state. The
significant amount of damage this house has incurred overtime without routine maintenance
has left it in a state of disrepair.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions: Archival Record, See attached recommendation
Disapproval
Page 84 of 100
File Number: 2019-10-COA
Meeting Date: April 25, 2019
Page 2 of 2
4/10/2019
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Page 85 of 100
HIGH PRIORITY
Required
Optional (if
available)Page Description
X Cover Page
Picture of house, address, date, who
compiled report
X Table of Contents
X Introduction
Year built, Historic Resources Survey
info, style, use
X Property Information Sheet
Address, size, estimated constructuon
date, notable persons, historic
significance/features, ownership
X Building History
X Style Information What style, information on that type
X Site Plan
X Elevation Drawings
Floor Plan
Identify and provide basic information,
drawn plan
X Existing Features/Elements
X Sanborn Maps
Salvage Plan
X Property Survey
X Historic Resource Survey
X Photos
Current photos (interior, exterior, drone)
& past photos
X Deed History
Page 86 of 100
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Consideration and review of by-laws, including the propos ed revis ion that would establis h provisions for
two regular meetings per month and the attendance policy.
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1: 2019 HARC Bylaws Exhibit
Page 87 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 1 of 8
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
BYLAWS
ARTICLE I. NAME AND PURPOSE
Section 1.1. Name. Historic and Architectural Review Commission (“Commission” or
“HARC”).
Section 1.2. Purpose.
a. The Commission has the power and it shall be its duty:
1. To make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of Historic
Overlay Districts and Historic Landmarks;
2. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other
supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review;
3. To approve or disapprove Certificates of Appropriateness;
4. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant,
on new construction or the restoration, alteration or maintenance of any historic
resource or other building within the districts; and
5. To perform any other functions requested by the City Council.
See Ordinance Chapter 2.50.
b. The Commission shall have the express authority to delegate review of specific
projects (as defined by majority vote of the Commission) to either:
1. A Subcommittee of the Commission composed of at least three members; or
2. City Staff as designated by the City Manager.
c. Any permit issued pursuant to such delegation of authority shall require the
signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Commission and any denial may
be appealed to the full Commission.
Page 88 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 2 of 8
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
Page 89 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 3 of 8
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.
Page 90 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 4 of 8
An appointment to fill a vacated term is not included as a term for purposes of counting
consecutive terms.
Section 2.6. Compensation and Expenditure of Funds. Members serve without
compensation. The Commission and its Members have no authority to expend funds or
to incur or make an obligation on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by
the City Council. Members may be reimbursed for expenses authorized and approved
by the City Council and the Commission.
Section 2.7. Compliance with City Policy. Members will comply with City
Ordinances, Rules and Policies applicable to the Commission and the Members,
including but not limited to Ethics Ordinance Chapter 2.20 and City Commissions,
Committees and Boards Ordinance Chapter 2.36.
Section 2.8. Removal. Any Member may be removed from their position on the
Commission for any reason, or for no reason, by a majority vote of the City Council.
ARTICLE III. COMMISSION OFFICERS
Section 3.1. Officers. The Commission Officers are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
Secretary. The Chairman is recommended by the Mayor and the City Council shall
approve the recommendation by a vote of the majority of the Council during the annual
appointment process. Should the Mayor fail to recommend a Chairman for each board,
committee, or commission, and/or the Council fails to approve any Chairman
recommended by the Mayor, a majority of the Council plus one may approve
appointment of a Chairman to serve as a Chairman without a recommendation of the
Mayor. The other Commission Officers are elected by a majority vote of the Members at
the first meeting after the annual appointment process.
Section 3.2. Terms of Office for Commission Officers. Commission Officers serve for
a term of one year. In the event of vacancy in the office of Chairman, the Vice-
Chairman shall serve as Chairman until the City Council appoints a replacement
Chairman. A vacancy in the other offices shall be elected by majority vote of the
Members at the next regularly scheduled meeting, or as soon as reasonably practical for
the unexpired term. If possible, a Commission Officer shall continue to serve until the
vacancy is filled.
Page 91 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 5 of 8
Section 3.3. Duties.
a. The Chairman presides at Commission meetings. The Chairman shall generally
manage the business of the Commission. The Chairman shall perform the duties
delegated to the Chairman by the Commission.
b. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Vice-Chairman by the
Commission. The Vice-Chairman presides at Commission meetings in the
Chairman’s absence. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman
in the Chairman’s absence or disability.
c. The Secretary shall perform the duties delegated to the Secretary by the
Commission.
ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS
Section 4.1. Time and Date of Regular Meeting. The Commission shall meet twice a
month on the same week of the month, the same day of the week, at the same time, and
at the same place. The regular date, time and place of the Commission meeting will be
decided by the Members at the first meeting of the Commission after the annual
appointment process.
Section 4.2. Agenda. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman, the
Director of Planning and Development or designee (as Historic Preservation Officer),
the City Manager or designee, or at the request of a Member. The party (or individual)
requesting the agenda item will be responsible for preparing an agenda item cover
sheet and for the initial presentation at the meeting. Items included on the agenda must
be submitted to the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the Commission meeting
at which the agenda item will be considered. Agenda packets for regular meetings will
be provided to the Members in advance of the scheduled Commission meeting.
Agenda packets will contain the posted agenda, agenda item cover sheets, and written
minutes of the last meeting.
Section 4.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman or by
request of three (3) Members.
Section 4.4. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members. A
quorum is required for the Commission to convene a meeting and to conduct business
at a meeting.
Page 92 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 6 of 8
Section 4.5. Call to Order. Commission meetings will be called to order by the
Chairman or, if absent, by the Vice-Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, the meeting shall be called to order by the Secretary, and a temporary
Chairman shall be elected to preside over the meeting.
Section 4.6. Conduct of Meeting. Commission meetings will be conducted in
accordance with these Bylaws and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures, as
applicable to the Commission. See Ordinance Chapter 2.24.
Section 4.7. Voting. Each Member shall vote on all agenda items, except on matters
involving a conflict of interest, substantial financial interest or substantial economic
interest under state law, the City’s Ethics Ordinance, or other applicable Laws, Rules
and Policies. In such instances the Member shall make the required disclosures and
shall refrain from participating in both the discussion and vote on the matter. The
Member may remain at the dais or leave the dais, at the Member’s option, while the
matter is being considered and voted on by the other Commission Members. Unless
otherwise provided by law, if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved
by a majority of the Commission Members present at the meeting.
Section 4.8. Minutes. A recording or written minutes shall be made of all open
sessions of Commission meetings. The Staff Liaison is the custodian of all Commission
records and documents.
Section 4.9. Attendance. Members are required to attend Commission meetings
prepared to discuss the issues on the agenda. A Member shall notify the Chairman and
the Staff Liaison if the Member is unable to attend a meeting. Excessive absenteeism
will be subject to action under Council policy and may result in the Member being
replaced on the Commission. See Ordinance Section 2.36.010D. Excessive absenteeism
means failure to attend at least 75% of regularly scheduled meetings, including
Commission meetings and Subcommittee meetings. If a Member is removed from the
Commission that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be
appointed to the Commission in accordance with Section 2.5 above.
Section 4.10. Public Participation. In accordance with City policy, the public is
welcome and invited to attend Commission meetings and to speak on any item on the
agenda. A person wishing to address the Commission must sign up to speak in
accordance with the policy of the Council concerning participation and general public
comment at public meetings. Sign-up sheets will be available and should be submitted
to the Chairman prior to the start of the meeting. If any written materials are to be
provided to the Commission, a copy shall also be provided to the Staff Liaison for
Page 93 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 7 of 8
inclusion in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers shall be allowed a maximum of three
minutes to speak, but may take up to six minutes if another individual who signs up to
speak yields the time to the speaker. If a person wishes to speak on an issue that is not
posted on the agenda, they must file a written request with the Staff Liaison no later
than one week before the scheduled meeting. The written request must state the
specific topic to be addressed and include sufficient information to inform the
Commission and the public. A person who disrupts the meeting may be asked to leave
and be removed.
Section 4.11. Open Meetings. Public notice of Commission meetings shall be provided
in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. All Commission
meetings and deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed
closed session matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
Section 4.12. Closed Sessions. The Commission may conduct closed sessions as
allowed by law, on properly noticed closed session matters, such as consultation with
attorney on legal matters, deliberation regarding the value of real property, competitive
utility matters, and economic development negotiations. A recording or certified
agenda shall be made of all closed sessions of Commission meetings.
ARTICLE V. REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL
The Commission shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how the
Commission may best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports
from the Commission at regularly scheduled Council meetings.
ARTICLE VI. SUBCOMMITTEES
Section 6.1. Formation. When deemed necessary by a majority of the Commission,
Subcommittees may be formed for specific projects related to Commission matters.
Section 6.2. Expenditure of Funds. No Subcommittee, or member of a Subcommittee,
has the authority to expend funds or incur an obligation on behalf of the City or the
Commission. Subcommittee expenses may be reimbursed if authorized and approved
by the Commission or by City Council.
Section 6.3. Open Meetings. Subcommittee meetings and deliberations shall be open
to the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Page 94 of 100
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Bylaws
Revised April 2019
Page 8 of 8
ARTICLE VII. BYLAW AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the Commission Members at any
regular meeting of the Commission. The Commission’s proposed amendments to the
Bylaws must be approved by City Council at the next Council meeting after the
Commission’s approval. Bylaw amendments are not effective until approved by City
Council.
Approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of
____________________, 2019.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
_____ _____
Robyn Densmore Dale Ross
City Secretary Mayor
Page 95 of 100
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Presentation and discussion on the process and s tandards related to the Unified Development C ode
HAR C approval c riteria. Madis on T homas , AI C P, His toric and Downtown P lanner.
IT E M S UMMARY:
S ection 3.13 of the Unified Development C ode outlines the review and approval process for modific ations ,
infill, signage and demolition of his toric resources both within and outs ide of the his toric districts in
G eorgetown. S taff will provide the C ommis s ion an overview of the process and answer any questions of
the C ommission.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Madison T homas, AI C P, Historic & Downtown P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- HARC Approval Criteria Exhibit
Page 96 of 100
Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval.
A. Review Process.
1. Initiation.
Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission may be made upon application by the property owner of the affected property or
their authorized agent following the established application processes and requirements of this
Chapter.
2. Application Completeness.
a. The applicant shall submit all of the information and materials required in the UDC
Development Manual as specified on the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness
checklist.
b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine that a complete application has been
submitted with all material necessary to review the Certificate of Appropriateness'
conformance with applicable criteria for approval in accordance with this Code.
3. Staff Review.
a. Once a Certificate of Appropriateness has been initiated and the application deemed
complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for consistency with
any applicable criteria for approval.
b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall prepare a report to the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission.
c. The Historic Preservation Officer's report shall include a recommendation for final action.
4. Responsibility for Final Action.
a. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall review the application, the Historic
Preservation Officer's report, conduct a hearing in accordance with the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission's established procedures and State law, and take final
action on the application within 35 days of the application hearing unless the applicant
agrees to extend the time.
b. An application before the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall be
considered approved by a majority vote of all members of the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission.
B. Criteria for Approval.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall determine whether to grant a Certificate of
Appropriateness based on the following criteria:
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
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;
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Page 97 of 100
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.
C. Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height Exceptions.
1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A
must submit documentation to HARC that the following standards will be met if the requested
exception to the height standards is approved:
a. The proposed building or addition shall not obscure views to and from the Courthouse or
overwhelm or detract from views of the Town Square Historic District;
b. The proposed building or addition shall be compatible with the height, scale, massing, and
volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District;
and
c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the aesthetic and economic
goals of the Downtown Master Plan.
2. The documentation required by Section 3.13.030.C.1 must include, at a minimum, the following
information:
a. A visual analysis that identifies:
i. The extent to which the building would impact views to and from the Courthouse, and
to what extent the building will be visible from four directions; and
ii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structures and the
character of the district; and
b. A summary of the conclusions of the visual analysis as to how the proposed building will
impact the District, specifically the immediate surroundings.
3. HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section
4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved:
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will
be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown
Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.
D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Exception.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness,
per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base
zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District.
2. HARC may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness for a setback exception:
Page 98 of 100
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure
without encroaching into the setback;
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the
subject property is located;
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other
units within the block;
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with
relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether
the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the
original house;
i. Reserved.
j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;
k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties,
including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
l. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure
and/or any adjacent structures; and/or
m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the
lot to be preserved.
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Historic Structure.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are
unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when
reviewing the application.
2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when
considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure:
a. Loss of Significance.
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer
historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the
historic overlay district; and
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant
and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the
historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the
building or structure for such designation; and
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were
not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or
negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by
neglect; and
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse
effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or
Page 99 of 100
b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable,
practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or
structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return
on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or
relocated; and
ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any
other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or
c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the
structure.
Page 100 of 100