HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.26.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
September 26, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding
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 H istor ic and Ar chite ctural R evie w Commission, appointed by the
M ayor and the C ity Counc il, is re sponsible for he aring and taking final
ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppropriateness base d upon
the City C ouncil adopte d Downtown De sign Guide line s and Unifie d
De ve lopme nt Code.
Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s:
· S taff P re se ntation
· Applic ant P r esentation (L imited to ten minutes unle ss state d
othe rwise by the C ommission.)
· Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant
· C omments from C itize ns *
· Applic ant Re sponse
· C ommission De libe rative P roc ess
· C ommission A ction
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the
r oom, to the r ec ording se cr etar y be for e the item the y wish to addre ss be gins.
E ach speaker will be pe rmitte d to addr ess the Commission one time only for
a maximum of thre e minute s.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 22, 2019 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
B P ublic Hearing and possible action o n a reques t for a C ertificate o f Appropriateness for the New
Construction of a Single-Family Residence at the p ro p erty loc ated at 907 S Elm, bearing the legal
desc ription o f Blo ck 27, Lot 6 (NW /P T ) & Lo t 7 (S W /P T ) of the G las s coc k Additio n (0.07 ac res ).
(2019-37-C O A) – Nat Waggoner, AI C P, P MP, Long R ange P lanning Manager
C Updates , C ommis s ioner questions and comments. S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Page 1 of 28
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 _________________, 2019, 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 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 26, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Augus t 22, 2019 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:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: August 22, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
August 22, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Amanda Parr;
Pam Mitchell; Karalei Nunn; Catherine Morales; Josh Schroeder
Absent: Terri Asendorf-Hyde
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner; Mirna
Garcia, Management Analyst
Call to order by the Chair at 6:10 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 8, 2019 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and re-approval of the minutes
from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting due to a modification. Alternate member Pam Mitchell
was in attendance for the July 25 meeting. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Motion to approve Item A by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston.
Approved (7-0).
B. CONTINUTED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2019 HARC MEETING
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an
addition to a street facing façade at the property located at 503 E 14th Street, bearing the legal
description of Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT) (2019-42-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior
Planner
Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is creating an addition for a master bathroom,
which affects the south façade (street-facing). The applicant is also creating a covered porch on
the rear of the structure which affects the west façade (street-facing). Per Section 3.13 of the
Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a
street facing façade. The existing structure is Minimal Traditional style with a cross-hipped roof,
constructed mainly of brick. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure has some
alternations, but is still significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal
Traditional structures are known for their low or intermediate pitched roofs (generally gabled),
double-hung windows, and minimal added architectural features. South façade: Overall, the
proposed addition to the south façade is appropriate because it is located in the rear of the
structure, maintains the existing building materials, and has a slight jog in the foundation which
helps to create a differentiation. This addition would be adding onto a previous expansion of
the original structure. The proposed addition is also compatible in scale. The existing structure
is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed
bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft. The proposed addition will remove a window from existing east
façade; however, the window will be re-installed. West façade: The addition of the covered
Page 4 of 28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: August 22, 2019
porch to the rear of the existing structure respects the original structure in size and scale. To
maintain the scale, the roofline is extended – however, this extension does not create
differentiation. The Design Guidelines do recommend subtle differentiation, in this instance, the
applicant proposes shingle plank siding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the covered patio.
While these provide the differentiation encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the style is not
consistent with Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. The Public Hearing
was closed.
Commissioner Parr had a question regarding the material used for the underside of the roof.
The applicant explained that pine will be used.
Motion to approve Item B (2019-42-COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by
Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0).
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for Replacing a Historic Architectural Feature
with a Non-Historic Architectural Feature (Siding) at the property located at 1008 S Main Street,
bearing the legal description of Lot Addition (2019-49-COA). – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
Staff report was presented by Irby. The applicant is proposing to replace wood siding with
Hardieplank siding on a medium priority structure, located at 1008 S Main Street. The applicant
is proposing the change in materials due to deteriorating siding and maintenance concerns. The
medium property structure located at 1008 S Main Street does not have an identified style on
the historic resource survey. The structure is a bungalow plan and the 2016 survey noted that
the structure retains a relatively high degree of integrity. The 2007 survey noted that windows
are in poor condition. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation
and maintenance of the existing historic materials. “The best way to preserve historic building
materials is through well-planned maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a
good application of paint. In some cases, historic building materials may be deteriorated. When
deterioration occurs, repairing the material rather than replacing it is preferred.” Frequently, damaged
materials can be patched or consolidated using special bonding agents. Preservation Principal
#5 calls to: Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired.
Maintain the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly
is necessary for repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace
the existing configuration. For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material
that is beyond repair may be replaced. The guidelines call for the replacement material to match
the original in appearance. The April 2019 revisions to the Unified Development Code now
allows for low and medium priority structures to use in-kind materials. Material that is intended
to replace a historic material or feature that is either the same or a similar material, and the result will
match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of
the structure, may be permitted by the identified decision maker for medium and low priority resources.
The proposed replacement siding is Hardieplank v-groove lock joint siding of the same width
as the original wood. The v-groove lock joint matches the profile of the original wood and
would be an appropriate in-kind replacement.
Page 5 of 28
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: August 22, 2019
Commissioner Nunn asked if the applicant is replacing all the siding and Irby responded that
they are.
Commissioner Parr had a comment regarding a recent amendment to the UDC and the staff’s
presentation. Commissioner Parr would like the UDC to match with the design guidelines
presented better.
Commissioner Romero asked if there will be a lot of seams in the in-kind material. Irby said that
will not be seen with this type of siding.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak and Chair Schroeder
closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item C (2019-49COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by
Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0).
D. Updates, Commissioner Questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Waggoner shared information from the Commissioner training in Seguin. The Texas Historical
Commission held the training and reviewed public outreach, how the Commission can share
the successes to the public. The training also covered rules and ruling processes and spoke
about a preservation plan. Although the City of Georgetown has design guidelines, and the
master plan, we don’t have a preservation plan. The training discussed the value of a
preservation plan.
Commissioner Parr commented on the importance of adopting a preservation plan along with
the comprehensive plan. She also commented that there was a preservation attorney that helped
describe rules. She commented that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to describe to the
Commission why they should be able to do what they are requesting with their property.
Commissioner Mitchell had a question about variances approved in the past and if precedence
was discussed. Irby indicated that precedence was not discussed, it was more about the
importance of defining areas.
Commissioner Parr also commented on an opportunity to host a training in Georgetown.
Waggoner commented that once the historic planner position has been filled, the Department
will be able to hold more trainings.
Commissioner Romero also commented that it would be useful to provide the materials from
the training for new HARC Commissioners.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Parr. Meeting adjourned
at 6:32pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Page 6 of 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 26, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for the New
Construction of a S ingle-F amily Residence at the property loc ated at 907 S Elm, bearing the legal
des cription of Bloc k 27, Lot 6 (NW /P T ) & Lot 7 (S W /P T ) o f the G lassc o ck Additio n (0.07 ac res ).
(2019-37-C O A) – Nat Waggoner, AI C P, P MP, Long R ange P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is req ues ting to cons truct a 1,905 sq. ft. single-family struc ture on a vacant lo t in the O ld
Town O verlay District. T he struc ture is proposed to have a 5 3/4” Hard iep lank lap s iding with b o ard and
batten at the gabled ends. T he applic ant has p ro p o s ed a s teep pitc hed 12/12 c ro s s -gabled roof with a street
facing gabled dormer with single hung, divided light windows.
T he proposed s tructure meets the d imensional standards o f the Unified Develo p ment C ode (U D C ) for the
R es idential S ingle-F amily (R S ) zoning dis tric t.
T he majority of the s tructures within the bloc k are single story with the exc eption of two s tructures within
the immediate area which have als o incorporated a half s tory, such as the residences at 901 and 916 S . Elm.
Both properties are located on a c orner lot, whic h lessens the impact the 2nd sto ry may have on adjac ent,
s ingle story s tructures.
T he p ro p o s ed struc ture is no t compatib le with the his toric c harac ter of the neighborhood or Dis tric t in
terms of height, the p ro p o rtion and the sc ale of the p ro p o s ed build ing, p artic ularly with the inclus io n o f a
full 2nd story. S taff rec ommend s that the applic ant and C ommission cons id er mo d ificatio n of the reques t
that reduces the massing and protec ts the character of the b lo ck, which is defined by a majority s ingle story
s tructures.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he application has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
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 - Materials Exhibit
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 7 of 28
EL
M ST
ASH S
T
PINE ST
E 7TH S T
E 8TH ST
S M
AI
N
S
T
WALNUT
ST
S MYRTLE ST
S CHUR
CH ST
S AUSTIN AVE
E 11TH ST
E 10TH S T
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
S CO
LLE
G
E
S
T
W 9TH S T
E 9 T H S T
W 8 TH S T
W 11 TH S T
W 7 TH S T
W 10TH S T
E 9TH 1/2 ST
W UNIVERSIT Y AVE
E 9TH ST
E 11TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 8 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
2019-57-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 8 of 28
Page 9 of 28
TOTAL PERMEABLE
TOTAL LOT
SQUARE FOOTAGE CHART
ITEM SQUARE FT.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 1272
HOUSE 987
1741
3013
DRIVEWAY 233
CONC WALK 52
%
42%
58%
100%
33%
7%
2%
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
SITE PLAN1
ARCHITECTURAL
* FLOOR TO AREA = 0.33
A1
REVISIONSREVISIONS
1-23-2019
907 ELM
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
E
X
A
S
A
S
P
E
C
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
90
7
E
L
M
S
T
7-28-2019
CH
A
N
C
E
L
E
I
G
H
CU
S
T
O
M
H
O
M
E
S
(5
1
2
)
8
4
8
-
1
1
8
5
8-1-2019
Page 10 of 28
HOSE BIB
(WIDTH ONLY, HEIGHT AS
SHOWER HEAD @ 84" AFF
NOTED ON PLANS)
DOOR SIZE TAG42
GAS/PROPANE VALVE
SYMBOL LEGEND
HB
FAUCET
COV. PORCH
TOTAL FRAME
TOTAL COVD.
SQUARE FOOTAGE CHART
ITEM
65
SQUARE FT.
TOTAL SLAB 1043
MAIN HEATED 651
1895
1895
GARAGE 336
14.0
Provide control and expansion joints as required on
concrete drives, walks, patios and masonry walls.
15.0
openings unless otherwise noted.
All windows will be dimensioned to center of rough
These plans and specifications are intended to meet
all applicable codes and ordinances. Contractor to
comply with all local codes, ordinances and deed
Contractor to provide a 3/4" plywood catwalk from
attic access to HVAC units (if applicable). Units
to be located within 20'-0" of access
each 150 s.f. of total covered roof area as per code.
Provide a minimum of 1 s.f. of ventilation area for
Weather strip attic access door(s).
sizes with manufacturers details & specs.
All window sizes are nominal rough opening, verify
All angles shown on plans are 45^ unless noted otherwise.
state and local building codes.
be of a good quality and meet all applicable national,
All wood, concrete and steel structural members shall
for any changes or modifications made to these plans
The Designer assumes no responsibility
Contractor shall insure compatibility of the building
All dimensions should be read or calculated and
for errors that are not reported.
construction. Contractors shall assume responsibility
to the attention of the designer prior to beginning
Any discrepancies or omissions in plans to be brought
5.0
never scaled
12.0
13.0
11.0
10.0
6.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
restrictions.
GENERAL NOTES:
by others.
with all site requirements.
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
Provide vacumm breakers at any water supply outlet
with a hose connection at outlets which could be
submerged and are not protected by an air gap.
Provide attic ventilators in the upper portion of the
space to be ventilated, at lest 3'-0" above eave or
cornice joist. Apply all vents to rear of residence.
16.0
Provide fireblocking, draftstops and firestops between
all vertical and horizontal concealed spaces, IE: Soffits,
Drop Ceilings, Cove Ceilings, Etc.
UPPER HEATED 843
TOTAL HEATED 1504
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN1
MAIN -
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN2
UPPER -
GAMEROOM
SLOPED CLG
MSTR BDRM
SLOPED CLG
BDRM 2
SLOPED CLG
WIC
9' CLG
WIC
9' CLGMSTR BATH
9' CLG
61
61
62
62
62
62
82
82
82
62 62 82
LIVING
9' CLG
KITCHEN
9' CLG
BDRM 3
9' CLG
GARAGE
9' CLG
HALL
9' CLG
PORCH
9' CLG
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN3
MAIN ELEC -
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN4
UPPER ELEC -
& LIGHT
BLOCK & WIRE
FOR CLG FAN
& LIGHT
BLOCK & WIRE
FOR CLG FAN
& LIGHT
BLOCK & WIRE
FOR CLG FAN
& LIGHT
BLOCK & WIRE
FOR CLG FAN
VENT
VENT
VENT
SSS
SS
SSS
3S
SWITCHED BELOW
SS
TV
TV
TV
3S
S3S
LIGHTS ABOVE
SS
SS
S
3SS
S
3S
SSS
OUTLET @ CLG
FOR GARAGE DOOR
OPENER
SS
& LIGHT
BLOCK & WIRE
FOR CLG FAN
SS
S
3S
3S
TV
S
S
TV
GFI
WPGFI
WP
GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI
220V
GFI GFI
3SSS3S
82
62 62
82
A1
REVISIONSREVISIONS
1-23-2019
907 ELM
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
E
X
A
S
A
S
P
E
C
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
90
7
E
L
M
S
T
7-28-2019
CH
A
N
C
E
L
E
I
G
H
CU
S
T
O
M
H
O
M
E
S
(5
1
2
)
8
4
8
-
1
1
8
5
8-1-2019
Page 11 of 28
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
ROOF PLAN5
RI
D
G
E
RI
D
G
E
RI
D
G
E
RI
D
G
E
PI
T
C
H
12
:
1
2
PI
T
C
H
12
:
1
2
PI
T
C
H
12
:
1
2
PI
T
C
H
12
:
1
2
PITCH12:12PITCH12:12
PITCH12:12 PITCH12:12
RIDGE RIDGE
NOTE:
Grade lines shown on Exterior Elevations
drawings are for rough estimate purposes
only and shall not be construed to represent
actual Finished Grade.
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"1
REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"3
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"2
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"4
12
12
12
12 12
1212
12
12
12
12
12
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC 12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
SIDING
AS SPEC
SIDING
AS SPEC
SIDING
AS SPEC
SIDING
AS SPEC
BRD & BAT
AS SPEC
BRD & BAT
AS SPEC
PLATE HT.
FINISH FLOOR
PLATE HT.
FINISH FLOOR
PLATE HT.
FINISH FLOOR
PLATE HT.
FINISH FLOOR
12
1212
12 12
12
12
12
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
BRD & BAT
AS SPEC
12
1212
12
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
SIDING
AS SPEC
BRD & BAT
AS SPEC
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
RIDGE HT.
RIDGE HT.
12:12
ROOFING AS
SPEC
FINISH GRADE
FINISH GRADE
RIDGE HT.
FASICA HT.
FASICA HT.
RIDGE HT.
FINISH GRADE
A2
REVISIONSREVISIONS
1-23-2019
907 ELM
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
E
X
A
S
A
S
P
E
C
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
90
7
E
L
M
S
T
7-28-2019
CH
A
N
C
E
L
E
I
G
H
CU
S
T
O
M
H
O
M
E
S
(5
1
2
)
8
4
8
-
1
1
8
5
8-1-2019
8-8-2019
Page 12 of 28
Page 13 of 28
Page 14 of 28
Page 15 of 28
Page 16 of 28
Page 17 of 28
Page 18 of 28
Page 19 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: September 26, 2019
File Number: 2019-57-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the New
Construction of a Single-Family Residence at the property located at 907 S Elm, bearing the legal
description of Block 27, Lot 6 (NW/PT) & Lot 7 (SW/PT) of the Glasscock Addition (0.07 acres). (2019-37-
COA) – Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planning Manager
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 907 S Elm
Applicant: Chance Leigh Custom Homes
Property Owner: Chance Leigh Custom Homes
Property Address: 907 S Elm
Legal Description: Block 27, Lot 6 (NW/PT) & Lot 7 (SW/PT) of the Glasscock Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: The property previously had a low priority structure, which was demolished.
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to construct a 1,905 sq. ft. single-family structure on a vacant lot in the Old
Town Overlay District. The applicant states the characteristics of the house will be cottage style. The
structure is proposed to have a 5 3/4” Hardieplank lap siding with board and batten at the gabled ends.
The applicant has proposed a steep pitched 12/12 cross-gabled roof with a street facing gabled dormer
with single hung, divided light windows.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The block in which this structure is located contains a mixture of (3) low and (5) medium priority
structures, with a high and National Registry property to the rear (east).
Figure 1 - Block context
Page 20 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 2 of 9
The design features proposed (roof pitch and form, porch, windows, front facing garage) are those
similar to features described as New Traditional Craftsman style of home according to the Field Guide
for American Houses (2015). These features are compatible to those found on the block and is supportive
of the character of the District.
The proposed structure meets the dimensional standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC) for
the Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning district. Floor-to-Area (FAR) ratio and impervious cover are
two zoning district standards which inform the design of any structure proposed for this lot. FAR, as
defined by the UDC is “the ratio of total building floor area to the area of the lot on which it is located. When the
allowed FAR is multiplied by the lot area it results in the maximum amount of floor area allowable in a building on
that lot.” The proposed structure has a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.33, the zoning district maximum
allowed is .45.
Figure 2 - Example FAR Diagram
The property is not developing to the maximum FAR of .45 because of the UDC limitation of impervious
cover. Impervious cover, as defined by the UDC is, “any hard-surfaced, man-made area that does not readily
absorb or retain water, including, but not limited to, building roofs, parking and driveway areas, pavement, graveled
areas, sidewalks, and paved recreation areas.”
Page 21 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 3 of 9
Figure 3 - Diagram of existing Impervious cover
The applicant has shared a concern over the need to accommodate a 3-bedroom, 2 bath residence to meet
potential buyer expectations. According to the applicant, this requires that the structure have a full 2 nd
story; effectively increasing square footage while not exceeding impervious cover limitations. The
concern with the proposal of a full 2nd story and resulting square footage is twofold: (1) is the District
character and the (2) is the spatial relationship this 2nd story will have with the adjacent structures.
The 2016 Historic Resources Survey notes that both properties retain a relatively high degree of integrity;
property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character . Both properties are single story
structures.
To the north of the property are two medium priority structures. According to the Williamson County
Appraisal District, the properties to the north are approximately 651 sq. ft and 483 sq. ft. and are similar
in size and style to the house that was originally on the subject property. The applicant provided a review
and summary of existing square footage for propertie s along Elm Street, which includes structures along
the block and within the neighborhood:
Elm Street from 9th to 10th - Low Priority Homes - Avg. sf. 1373 sf
Elm Street from 9th to 10th - All Priority Homes - Avg. sf. 1140 sf
Elm Street from 8th to 11th - Low Priority Homes - Avg. sf. 1384 sf
Elm Street from 8th to 11th - All Priority Homes - Avg. sf. 1343 sf
The majority of the structures within the block are single story with the exception of the residence at 901
Elm which has a half story addition towards the rear of the structure. There are similar structures within
the immediate area which have also incorporated a half story, such as the residence at 916 S. Elm, both
Page 22 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 4 of 9
properties are located on a corner lot, which lessens the impact the 2nd story may have on adjacent, single
story structures.
Figure 4 - 901 S. Elm (half story) Figure 5 - 916 S. Elm (half story)
Figure 6 - Adjacent building footprints
Page 23 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 5 of 9
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL
CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN
OVERLAY DISTRICT
STAFF ANALYSIS
14.01 - Locate a new building using a residential setback.
✓ Align the new non-residential building front at a setback
that is in context with the area properties.
✓ New residential buildings should meet the minimum
front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased
setback if the block has historically developed with an
extended setback.
✓ Generally, additions should not be added to the front
facing façades.
✓ Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that
aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
The proposed structure
complies with the setbacks of
the zoning district at 20’. The
properties along Elm St have a
lesser setback, ranging from 6’-
10’.
14.08 - Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are
preferred.
✓ Brick and stone are preferred for new construction.
✓ New materials should appear similar in character to those
used traditionally. For example, wooden siding, brick, and
stone should be detailed to provide a human scale.
✓ New materials should have a demonstrated durability in
the Central Texas climate. For example, some façade
materials used in new construction are more susceptible
to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or
brick.
Complies
HardiPlank lap siding is
proposed, which is a cement
(masonry) product. HardiPlank
siding is similar in character to
residential materials that were
traditionally and compactible
with the materials for the
adjacent historic structures
along Elm St. which include
stucco and wood siding.
14.10 - Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.
✓ Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not
appropriate.
✓ Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
✓ Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The design is primarily
Hardiplank lap siding.
14.23 - Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character
of the building and neighborhood.
• The primary goal should be preserving the original
residential character, appearance, and scale of the
structure.
✓ Building uses that are closely related to the original use
are preferred. Avoid radical alterations to either the
interior or exterior of the structure.
✓ Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors.
Does Not Comply
The adjacent properties are low
and medium priority structures
on the Historic Resource
Survey and contribute to the
character of the neighborhood.
The proposed infill design is
not compatible with the design
of the nearby structures in
Page 24 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 6 of 9
terms of massing (height) and
scale (proportion).
Chapter 14 of the Design
Guidelines state that “The
purpose of guidelines for new
construction is not to prevent
change in the Old Town Overlay
District, but to ensure that the
District’s architectural and
historic character is respected. The
height, the proportion, the roof
shape, the materials, the texture,
the scale, and the details of the
proposed building must be
compatible with existing historic
buildings in the District.”
While the proposed structure is
meeting the requirements of the
setbacks, FAR, and building
height, the proposed roofline
and mass of the 2nd story could
impact the adjacent 1 story
structures.
The two structures to the north
are medium priority,
comparatively small, one-story,
and have minimal details. The
proposed structure is two-story
and has a front-facing garage.
The structure to the south at
401 E 10th St. is one-story,
minimal traditional house with
a rectangular plan, hipped roof,
and wood siding; partial-width,
projecting porch with a hipped
roof over a single front door
Between the primary structure
and the proposed is a garage
that is setback from Elm Street
which may provide some
Page 25 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 7 of 9
buffering (spacing) from the
proposed structure. There is a
structure with a half story
within the block; however, it is
on a corner lot which mitigates
for the massing because the half
story is located at the rear of
the structure and does not have
a structure to the north. The
proposed structure is on an
infill lot between two existing
structures and should mimic
the design of the structures,
which contribute to the
neighborhood.
It is possible to add new
construction within the
boundaries of historic
properties if site conditions
allow and if the design, density,
and placement of the new
construction respect the overall
character of the site. According
to the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation –
Standard 9 in particular – and
the Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings, new construction
needs to be built in a manner
that protects the integrity of the
historic building(s) and the
property’s setting.
In addition, the following
should be considered,
Protecting the historic setting
and context of a property,
including the degree of open
space and building density,
must always be considered
when planning new
Page 26 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 8 of 9
construction on an historic site
This entails identifying the
formal or informal
arrangements of buildings on
the site, and whether they have
a distinctive urban, suburban,
or rural character. For example,
a historic building traditionally
surrounded by open space
must not be crowded with
dense development.
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
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, particularly #9, 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;
Does Not
Comply
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and
Does Not
Comply
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed structure is not compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood or District in
terms of height, the proportion and the scale of the proposed building, particularly with the inclusion of
a full 2nd story. Staff recommends that the applicant and Commission consider modification of the request
that reduces the massing and protects the character of the block, which is defined by a majority single
story structures.
Page 27 of 28
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-57-COA – 907 S Elm Page 9 of 9
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 and Renderings
Exhibit 4 – Materials
SUBMITTED BY
Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 28 of 28