HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.27.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
May 27, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at Virtual
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me e ti ng wi ll c onve ne at 6:00pm on M ay 27, 2021 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/3aa V P fU
Webinar I D: 941-5956-7529
P assword: 132581
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (346)248-7799 or Toll-F r ee : 833-548-0282
P assword: 132581
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to planning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the me eting and the Re cor ding Se cr etar y will re ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the mee ting at the link above and "raise your hand" during the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r To join a Zoom
mee ting, clic k on the link pr ovide d and join as an atte ndee . You will be aske d
to e nte r your name and email addre ss (this is so we can identify you whe n you
ar e c alled upon). To spe ak on an item, clic k on the "Raise your H and" option
at the bottom of the Zoom mee ting we bpage once that item has ope ne d. When
you are calle d upon by the Re cor ding Se cr etar y, your devic e will be r emotely
un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may spe ak for thre e minute s. P lease
state your name clear ly, and when your time is over, your de vice will be
mute d again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
harm are not allowed and will re sult in you be ing imme diately re moved fr om
Page 1 of 62
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2021 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
D Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
new res idential building c onstruc tion and a 5’-0” building height modific ation to the required 20’-0”
building height at a distanc e 3’-0” from the side s treet (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0” at
a dis tance 3’-0” from the s ide street (north) s etbac k at the property located at 701 S . C ollege S treet,
Page 2 of 62
bearing the legal desc ription Block C , C lamp’s Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
F P resentation by s taff on building lighting s haring fixture and lighting types , illumination styles, and lighting
terms .
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, 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 3 of 62
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 27, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2021 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 4 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: May 13, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 13, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/2Qse0q1
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on May 13, 2021 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/2Qse0q1. Webinar ID: 981-0745-2685. To participate by phone: Call in number: (346)
248-7799 or Toll-Free: 833-548-0282. Password: 956796. Public Comment was allowed via the
conference call number or the “ask a question” function on the video conference option; no in-
person input was allowed.
Members Present: Terri Hyde; Steve Johnston; Catherine Morales; Pam Mitchell; Michael Walton;
Karalei Nunn; Faustine Curry
Members Absent: Robert McCabe
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Meeting called to order by Chair Curry at 6:00 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide
comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, please identify yourself by either entering your name, address and item
number on the Q/A chat on your screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3
Page 5 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: May 13, 2021
minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a
member of the public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their
name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be addressed
to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers during the public hearing
portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing
and provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 22, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion by to approve by Commissioner Hyde. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved
(5-0) with Commissioner Morales absent.
D. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson updated the Commission regarding updates to the bylaws to allows Alternate
Commissioners to serve on the dais.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines
at the property located at 113 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description Lots 5 & 8, Block 40,
City of Georgetown. - Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Commissioner Walton abstained from this item as he filled out a conflict of interest form.
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for an internally
illuminated monument sign that proposes to use the existing brick and concrete sign base that is
21” tall and 73” wide, and install an acrylic, internally illuminated sign that is 47” tall and 52”
wide, or 17 sq. ft. The sign is proposed to have a white acrylic cabinet that would be internally
illuminated with LED lights that could provide illumination of the white acrylic in white or a
spectrum of color based on red, green and blue (RGB). Over the white acrylic cabinet would be
placed the City Post logo, similar to a postage stamp, in black acrylic with cutouts for the
lettering and part of the logo. A metallic gold acrylic border and details would be added atop
the black acrylic logo. The back of the sign, which faces the business and not the public right-of-
way, is proposed to have changeable copy for messages to customers.
The applicant, Christopher Damon addressed the Commission and was available to answer
questions.
Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to accept Item E (2020-55-COA) as presented with the condition that the optional
colors be used for a specific reason, one at a time, and not in a rotating fashion at the same
time, by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved (4-0).
Commissioner Walton returned to the dais.
Page 6 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: May 13, 2021
F. Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new residential
building construction and a 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0” building
height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0” at
a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback at the property located at 701 S. College
Street, bearing the legal description Block C, Clamp’s Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown &
Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new, two-story house
that is proposed to be connected via a breezeway to the existing accessory structure. The new
house is proposed to be positioned in the same location on the site as the existing house, which
was approved for demolition by HARC on July 23, 2020 with the condition that an archive
document of the property be provided to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. The archive
document was provided to the City on September 18, 2020, and the applicant is awaiting approval
of the requested residential infill construction before proceeding with the approved demolition.
The new, two-story house is proposed to be located in the same position on the site as the existing
house. The height of the house combined with the location relative to the side street (north)
setback along E. 7th Street require the approval of a building height modification for the new
structure. In the Old Town Overlay District, building height is limited to 15’ at the setbacks, with
an additional 5’ in height permitted for every 3’ in horizontal distance from the setback. The
proposed structure has a second story greater than 20’ in height at a distance less than 6’ from the
side street (north) setback along E. 7th Street. The new residential structure is proposed to have
gable roofs, first and second floor porches, lapped fiber cement siding, asphalt shingle roofing,
double-paned vinyl, single hung windows with a 4/4 pattern and clear, insulated glass and
decorative fiber cement porch columns with decorative metal railings. The house is proposed to
be slab on grade construction with the foundation visible below the siding and a brick chimney
with a stucco coating. The existing accessory structure is proposed to be remodeled to have
siding, windows and roofing to match the main house and to be connected via a breezeway of
similar materials.
Commissioner Morales joined the meeting during the staff report.
Commissioner Walton sought clarification on the items that were marked partially complies.
Bostick explained why a project meets the criteria, and why some are partially complies. Due to
the building height modification that does not meet criteria, this item was marked partially
complies.
The applicant, Pam Helgerson, addressed the Commission and was available to answer
questions. The Commission had several questions regarding the designs, and architectural style.
The applicant provided further information and clarification regarding the changes to the
project.
Page 7 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: May 13, 2021
G. Presentation Continued from the April 8, 2021 regular meeting:
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for:
• an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade to change a
portion of the front façade to a screened porch;
• the addition of a porch, patio or deck for the addition of a new front porch;
• a 1.6’ setback encroachment into the required 15’-0” side street setback for the addition of a
porch 13.4’ from the side street (west) property line;
• an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade for a two-story
garage addition;
• an 18'-5" setback encroachment into the required 25'-0" street-facing garage setback, for the
garage to be constructed 6'-7" from the side street (west) property line;
• a 2'-6" building height modification to the required 15'-0" maximum building height at the
side street setback, to allow the dormer to be 17'-6" at the setback;
• a 3'-0" building height modification to the required 15'-0" maximum building height at the
required 10' rear (south) setback, to allow the garage addition to be 18'-0" tall at a distance
11'-7" from the rear (south) property line;
• the addition of a porch, patio or deck for the addition of a new second-floor deck between
the proposed new two-story garage addition and the existing two-story accessory structure;
• a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’-0” rear (south) setback, for the
construction of a second-floor deck 5’-6” from the rear (south) property line;
• replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature for the
replacement of the 32” front door with a 36” front door;
• replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature for the
replacement of a second-floor window on the accessory structure with a door for access to
the proposed second-floor deck;
• replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature for the
replacement of three historic windows on the west façade of the historic main structure with
a new French door and three windows that are proposed to be relocated from the north and
east facades for the creation of the screened porch; and a 0.08 floor-to-area ratio (FAR)
modification to the 0.45 floor-to-area ratio for the Old Town Overlay District, to allow a
floor-to-area ratio of 0.53 at the property located at 1202 E. 13th Street, bearing the legal
description Lot 1, Block 1, Coffee Heights Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic
Planner
Staff report by Bostick. In the regular meeting on April 22, 2021 the Applicant requested HARC
approval for several changes to the property, which included enlarging the current front porch,
changing the room at the front left corner of the house from an enclosed room to a screened porch
with new windows on the E. 13th Street façade, and replacing the existing 32” wide front door with
a new 36” wide front door. The applicant also requested to construct a two-story garage addition
attached to the existing one-story historic home with an 18’-5” setback modification for the distance
from the garage to the Laurel Street (west) property line and two building height modifications as
building height in the Old Town Overlay District is limited to 15’ at the setbacks, and the proposed
Page 8 of 62
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: May 13, 2021
height of the structure exceeds that limit on the west side of the garage addition by 2’-6” and on the
south side of the garage addition by 3’-0”. The property has an existing historic accessory structure
in the southeast corner of the lot, which is two stories in height. The applicant requested approval
to construct a second-floor deck between the new garage addition and the existing historic
accessory structure. Although part of the deck was proposed to be between the structures and not
visible from the street, part of the proposed deck would be viewed as part of the Laurel Street
façade and would require a 4’-6” setback modification as it was proposed to be constructed up to
the rear (south) property line. The applicant requested HARC approval to remove one of the
windows on the second floor of the historic accessory structure and replace it with a door to
facilitate access to the proposed second floor deck between the structures. The applicant also
requested HARC approval to remove three of the historic windows on the west façade of the house,
which faces Laurel Street, and replace them with a French door and with three windows that were
proposed to be removed and replaced as part of the creation of the front screened porch.
The applicant, Julie Craig, addressed the Commission and was available to answer questions.
Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to accept Item G (2020-59-COA) as presented by staff by Commissioner Nunn. Second by
Commissioner Morales.
Commissioner Walton asked what the next steps are and what options the applicant has. Bostick
explained that a COA memo will be drafted and provided to the applicant regarding the outcome.
The applicant can file an appeal, and there will be instructions provided for that.
Motion approved (6-0).
H. Discussion of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines Update proposed changes with
feedback from the Commissioners to staff.
Report by Bostick. At this meeting, the Planning staff will take feedback from the Historic &
Architectural Review Commission on the proposed revisions and changes to the
Guidelines. Staff will also share an update on project outreach, share the feedback received from
the outreach process and provide the Commission an overview of the steps and timeline
remaining in the Update process including the Commission’s review and recommendation to
the City Council.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved (6-0).
Meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 9 of 62
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 27, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new
res idential building c onstruc tion and a 5’-0” building height modific ation to the required 20’-0” building
height at a dis tance 3’-0” from the s ide street (north) s etbac k to allow the building to be 25’-0” at a dis tance
3’-0” from the s ide street (north) s etbac k at the property located at 701 S . C ollege S treet, bearing the legal
des cription Bloc k C , C lamp’s Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Applic ant is req uesting HAR C ap p ro val for a new, two -s tory ho use that is p ro p o s ed to be connec ted
via a b reezeway to the exis ting acc es s o ry s tructure. T he new hous e is proposed to be p o s itioned in the
s ame loc ation o n the s ite as the exis ting hous e, whic h was approved fo r demolitio n by HAR C on July 23,
2020 with the c o nditio n that an arc hive doc ument o f the p ro p erty b e provid ed to staff p rio r to the is s uance
of the C O A. T he archive doc ument was provid ed to the C ity on S eptember 18, 2020, and the applic ant is
awaiting approval o f the requested res idential infill cons tructio n before p ro ceeding with the approved
demolition.
T he applic ant initially reques ted ap p ro val o f a 5’-0” b uilding height modific ation to the req uired 20’-0”
building height at a d is tance 3’-0” from the s id e s treet (no rth) s etbac k to allow the build ing to b e 25’-0” at a
dis tance 3’-0” from the side street (no rth) s etbac k for the new infill c o nstruc tion. Bas ed o n feedbac k from
the His toric & Arc hitectural R eview C ommis s ion (HAR C ) in a c o nc ep tual review held o n May 13, 2021
the new, two-sto ry hous e is p ro p o s ed to b e lo cated in a s imilar pos itio n on the s ite as the exis ting house
but has since s hifted to the s outh so that the build ing height mo d ificatio n wo uld not b e req uired. T he new
res idential s tructure is p ro p o s ed to have gable roofs, firs t and sec o nd floor p o rches , lapped fiber cement
s iding, asphalt s hingle roofing, d o uble-paned vinyl, single hung wind o ws with either a 2/2 or a 1/1 pattern
and clear, ins ulated glass and dec o rative fib er c ement p o rch columns. Bas ed o n HAR C feed b ack in the
conceptual review, the ap p lic ant is proposing wo o d railings for the porc hes. T he ho use is p ro p o s ed to be
s lab o n grad e c ons truc tio n with the foundatio n visible below the siding and a bric k c himney with a stuc co
coating. T he existing ac cessory s tructure is proposed to be remodeled to have s id ing, wind o ws and
roofing to matc h the main ho use and to be connec ted via a b reezeway of s imilar materials . Based on
HAR C feedbac k fro m the conceptual review the applic ant has provid ed an elevation with the railings
initially propos ed for the breezeway removed and is reques ting approval of either option.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Page 10 of 62
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 11 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 1 of 7
Report Date: May 21, 2021
File Number: 2019-67-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
residential building construction and a 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0” building
height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0” at a distance
3’-0” from the side street (north) setback at the property located at 701 S. College Street, bearing the legal
description Block C, Clamp’s Revised Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 701 S. College Street
Applicant: Pam Helgerson
Property Owner: Bradley & Pamela Helgerson
Property Address: 701 S. College Street
Legal Description: Block C, Clamp’s Revised Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: HARC approved demolition of existing low priority historic main structure on
July 23, 2020 via 2020-19-COA.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: Existing main structure was constructed c. 1883
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Existing main structure is Low Priority, existing
accessory structure is not a contributing structure
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• New building construction (residential infill), including attaching the existing, non-historic
accessory structure to the new building
• 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0” building height at a distance 3’-0” from
the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0” at a distance 3’-0” from the side
street (north) setback (this portion of the request has since been removed by the applicant,
although the approval criteria is included as it was part of the public hearing notification).
HPO:
• Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for the existing, non-
historic accessory structure
Page 12 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 2 of 7
STAFF ANALYSIS
Property History & Current Structures
The historic main structure currently on the subject property was approved for demolition by
HARC on July 23, 2020 with the condition that an archive document of the property be provided to staff
prior to the issuance of the COA. The archive document was provided to the City on September 18, 2020,
and the applicant is awaiting approval of the requested residential infill construction before proceeding
with the approved demolition.
The historic main house is part of the context that has developed around the subject property at the
intersection of E. 7th and S. College Street. The historic structure, constructed c. 1883 on what was then
the far east side of Georgetown, was likely a simple rectangular shape with a gable roof and fireplace in
the center, and a porch wrapping the west and south sides. The “L” on the south façade of the house was
very likely a later addition constructed between 1883 and 1908. The one-story house was positioned to
face directly west toward Downtown along E. 7th Street and is situated on Block C of Clamp’s Revised
Addition to the City of Georgetown, a block which has stayed intact as a single block since at least 1870
when Charles Burlew purchased the parcel from C. A. D. Clamp and Emzy Taylor. The house has at least
two later additions, an addition to the north façade that extended the footprint approximately 6’ to the
north and a two-story addition to the rear or east façade of the structure. An accessory structure on the
property that serves as a carport and additional living area is not historic and appears to have been
constructed over time, beginning in the 1980s.
Request for New Construction
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new, two-story house that is proposed to be connected
via a breezeway to the existing accessory structure. The new house is proposed to be positioned in the
same location on the site as the existing house, which was approved for demolition by HARC on July 23,
2020 with the condition that an archive document of the property be provided to staff prior to the
issuance of the COA. The archive document was provided to the City on September 18, 2020, and the
applicant is awaiting approval of the requested residential infill construction before proceeding with the
approved demolition.
The applicant initially requested approval of a 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0”
building height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0”
at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback for the new infill construction. Based on feedback
from the Historic & Architectural Review Commission (HARC) in a conceptual review held on May 13,
2021 the new, two-story house is proposed to be located in a similar position on the site as the existing
house but has since shifted to the south so that the building height modification would not be required.
The new residential structure is proposed to have gable roofs, first and second floor porches, lapped fiber
cement siding, asphalt shingle roofing, double-paned vinyl, single hung windows with either a 2/2 or a
1/1 pattern and clear, insulated glass and decorative fiber cement porch columns. Based on HARC
feedback in the conceptual review, the applicant is proposing wood railings for the porches. The house
is proposed to be slab on grade construction with the foundation visible below the siding and a brick
chimney with a stucco coating. The existing accessory structure is proposed to be remodeled to have
Page 13 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 3 of 7
siding, windows and roofing to match the main house and to be connected via a breezeway of similar
materials. Based on HARC feedback from the conceptual review the applicant has provided an elevation
with the railings initially proposed for the breezeway removed and is requesting approval of either
option.
Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines states: “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.” UDC Sec. 4.08.050(H)
additionally states that “The new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the building or structure and its
environment.” Further guidance in the Design Guidelines that can be applied to the subject property
reads as follows: “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 construction on an historic site… For
example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.
The proposed development would include a similar amount of open space on the lot to what existed before the
previous home was demolished.”
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 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 new structure is proposed to have a
setback similar to the historic structure, and
which meets the UDC requirement for
setbacks in the Residential Single Family
(RS) zoning district. Although front
setbacks vary along E. 4th Street and
surrounding streets, extended setbacks are
not typical of the majority of the properties
in this part of the Old Town Overlay
District, much of which developed after the
1930s.
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional size
of residential buildings
Complies
The proposed structure is divided into
modules including the front porch, and
gable roof, and is designed with features
Page 14 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 4 of 7
A typical building module should not exceed 20
feet in width. The building module should be
expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of
3 feet
- A change in primary façade material for
the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece.
Variations in façade treatments should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear façades.
and proportions similar to a traditional
residential structure.
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 siding is fiber composite lapped siding
with fiber composite trim, which has an
appearance similar to wood siding when
painted.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
The proposed project complies with
applicable UDC requirements as the
building height modification has been
removed from the request.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
The subject property is not located within a
National Register Historic District but the
location and footprint of the proposed new
structure are similar to that of the historic
structure that has been approved for
demolition, retaining some of the historic
site relationships.
Page 15 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
The proposed new construction complies
with applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed new construction does not
diminish the integrity of the site, which is
surrounded by a mix of high, medium and
low priority structures and non-
contributing structures. It retains a similar
footprint and similar location to the original
historic structure, and the breezeway
connection to the accessory structure retains
site relationships that have been in place
since the 1980s.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed new construction is
compatible with surrounding properties in
the Old Town Overlay District, which have
a variety of architectural styles and time
periods that range from approximately 1880
to 1950.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed new construction is
compatible with the character of the Old
Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not block any
Courthouse views and is surrounded by
primarily single-story structures that do
not have a view of the Courthouse or
Town Square Historic District.
Page 16 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is located in the Old
Town Overlay District and is not adjacent
to or nearby the Downtown Overlay
District or the Town Square District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Does Not Comply
The residential infill structure is
proposed to be two stories in height,
while the existing historic structure on
the subject property approved for
demolition and the majority of the
surrounding structures are a single story
in height. Larger, two-story structures in
the Old Town Overlay District were
generally set back from property lines
with large front and side street setbacks,
especially on large lots, and there is
sufficient room on the site for the new
two-story structure without the building
height modification.
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square Historic District; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is located in the Old
Town Overlay District and is not adjacent
to or nearby the Downtown Overlay
District or the Town Square District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
Proposed project is located in the Old
Town Overlay District and is not adjacent
to or nearby the Downtown Overlay
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for residential infill, based on the findings that the
architectural style and character are compatible with the Old Town Overlay District, and that the
connection to the existing accessory structure complies with the requirements of the Unified
Development Code, noting that the building height modification is no longer included in the request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 17 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 7 of 7
As of the publication date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in
opposition of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 18 of 62
Location
2019-67-COA
Exhibit #1
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 7TH S
T
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
PI
N
E
S
T
E 6TH ST
E 8TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
ELM
S
T AS
H
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
E 8TH S
T
E 9TH S
T
E 9TH S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 19 of 62
Page 20 of 62
Page 21 of 62
Page 22 of 62
Page 23 of 62
Page 24 of 62
Page 25 of 62
Page 26 of 62
Page 27 of 62
1. County .4ILLIAMSON
City/Rural b ! 14
2. Name
5. USGS Quad No. 7:097-717
UTM Pt
Acreage
W1,1 Site No. 662
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM—TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
1. County WILLIAMSON W M 5. USGS Quad No 3097-313 Site No. 662
City/Rural
2. Name
GEORGETOWN GE UTM Sector 627-3389
6. Date: Factual Est 188,5?/1984
Address 703 COLLEGE 7. Architect/Builder
Contractor
3.Owner 8.Style/Type vernacular
Address 9. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Present Use vacant - work in progress
10.Description One-story wood frame dwel lino: exterior walls with weatherboard aiding;
oable roof with 7.2dma_o_sitio_n shingles: box eaves: massive interior stuccoed-
stone chimnsv with corbeled CED: sinple-door entrance; nine-bay porch with
shed extends on south and west elevations: turned wood posts: rear additions
11. Present Condition good - work in progress; substantial remodeling is affecting integrity
12.Significance Primary area of significance: ARCHITECTURE, This dwelling appears to
be amomg the oldest extant residences in the city: however much of its historic
fabric is being covered, removed and compromised with recent alterations
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site >(describe)
the old
in a residential area
east of the central business district; near High School
14. Bibliography Sanborn Maps: SHE; files 15. Informant
16. Recorder Hardy-Heck-Moore Date July 1984
DESIGNATIONS
TNRIS No. Old THC Code B&W 4x5s
35mm Negs
YEAR
PHOTO DATA
Slides
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX
DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME NR: q Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
I0 24
42 7, 7 ‘12
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM—TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
No.
Page 28 of 62
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 College St 2016 Survey ID:125220
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R041474Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 10/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1885
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: (Notes from 2007 Survey: vinyl siding, windows, door, and porch posts; rear addition)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:972
ID:662
*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:125220 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks integrity
Latitude:30.637552 Longitude -97.671739
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 29 of 62
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 College St 2016 Survey ID:125220
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
EastPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 30 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 1 of 7
Report Date: May 21, 2021
File Number: 2019-67-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
residential building construction and a 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0” building
height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0” at a distance
3’-0” from the side street (north) setback at the property located at 701 S. College Street, bearing the legal
description Block C, Clamp’s Revised Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 701 S. College Street
Applicant: Pam Helgerson
Property Owner: Bradley & Pamela Helgerson
Property Address: 701 S. College Street
Legal Description: Block C, Clamp’s Revised Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: HARC approved demolition of existing low priority historic main structure on
July 23, 2020 via 2020-19-COA.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: Existing main structure was constructed c. 1883
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Existing main structure is Low Priority, existing
accessory structure is not a contributing structure
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• New building construction (residential infill), including attaching the existing, non-historic
accessory structure to the new building
• 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0” building height at a distance 3’-0” from
the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0” at a distance 3’-0” from the side
street (north) setback (this portion of the request has since been removed by the applicant,
although the approval criteria is included as it was part of the public hearing notification).
HPO:
• Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for the existing, non-
historic accessory structure
Page 31 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 2 of 7
STAFF ANALYSIS
Property History & Current Structures
The historic main structure currently on the subject property was approved for demolition by
HARC on July 23, 2020 with the condition that an archive document of the property be provided to staff
prior to the issuance of the COA. The archive document was provided to the City on September 18, 2020,
and the applicant is awaiting approval of the requested residential infill construction before proceeding
with the approved demolition.
The historic main house is part of the context that has developed around the subject property at the
intersection of E. 7th and S. College Street. The historic structure, constructed c. 1883 on what was then
the far east side of Georgetown, was likely a simple rectangular shape with a gable roof and fireplace in
the center, and a porch wrapping the west and south sides. The “L” on the south façade of the house was
very likely a later addition constructed between 1883 and 1908. The one-story house was positioned to
face directly west toward Downtown along E. 7th Street and is situated on Block C of Clamp’s Revised
Addition to the City of Georgetown, a block which has stayed intact as a single block since at least 1870
when Charles Burlew purchased the parcel from C. A. D. Clamp and Emzy Taylor. The house has at least
two later additions, an addition to the north façade that extended the footprint approximately 6’ to the
north and a two-story addition to the rear or east façade of the structure. An accessory structure on the
property that serves as a carport and additional living area is not historic and appears to have been
constructed over time, beginning in the 1980s.
Request for New Construction
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new, two-story house that is proposed to be connected
via a breezeway to the existing accessory structure. The new house is proposed to be positioned in the
same location on the site as the existing house, which was approved for demolition by HARC on July 23,
2020 with the condition that an archive document of the property be provided to staff prior to the
issuance of the COA. The archive document was provided to the City on September 18, 2020, and the
applicant is awaiting approval of the requested residential infill construction before proceeding with the
approved demolition.
The applicant initially requested approval of a 5’-0” building height modification to the required 20’-0”
building height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow the building to be 25’-0”
at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback for the new infill construction. Based on feedback
from the Historic & Architectural Review Commission (HARC) in a conceptual review held on May 13,
2021 the new, two-story house is proposed to be located in a similar position on the site as the existing
house but has since shifted to the south so that the building height modification would not be required.
The new residential structure is proposed to have gable roofs, first and second floor porches, lapped fiber
cement siding, asphalt shingle roofing, double-paned vinyl, single hung windows with either a 2/2 or a
1/1 pattern and clear, insulated glass and decorative fiber cement porch columns. Based on HARC
feedback in the conceptual review, the applicant is proposing wood railings for the porches. The house
is proposed to be slab on grade construction with the foundation visible below the siding and a brick
chimney with a stucco coating. The existing accessory structure is proposed to be remodeled to have
Page 32 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 3 of 7
siding, windows and roofing to match the main house and to be connected via a breezeway of similar
materials. Based on HARC feedback from the conceptual review the applicant has provided an elevation
with the railings initially proposed for the breezeway removed and is requesting approval of either
option.
Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines states: “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.” UDC Sec. 4.08.050(H)
additionally states that “The new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the building or structure and its
environment.” Further guidance in the Design Guidelines that can be applied to the subject property
reads as follows: “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 construction on an historic site… For
example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.
The proposed development would include a similar amount of open space on the lot to what existed before the
previous home was demolished.”
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 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 new structure is proposed to have a
setback similar to the historic structure, and
which meets the UDC requirement for
setbacks in the Residential Single Family
(RS) zoning district. Although front
setbacks vary along E. 4th Street and
surrounding streets, extended setbacks are
not typical of the majority of the properties
in this part of the Old Town Overlay
District, much of which developed after the
1930s.
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional size
of residential buildings
Complies
The proposed structure is divided into
modules including the front porch, and
gable roof, and is designed with features
Page 33 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 4 of 7
A typical building module should not exceed 20
feet in width. The building module should be
expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of
3 feet
- A change in primary façade material for
the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece.
Variations in façade treatments should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear façades.
and proportions similar to a traditional
residential structure.
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 siding is fiber composite lapped siding
with fiber composite trim, which has an
appearance similar to wood siding when
painted.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
The proposed project complies with
applicable UDC requirements as the
building height modification has been
removed from the request.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
The subject property is not located within a
National Register Historic District but the
location and footprint of the proposed new
structure are similar to that of the historic
structure that has been approved for
demolition, retaining some of the historic
site relationships.
Page 34 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
The proposed new construction complies
with applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed new construction does not
diminish the integrity of the site, which is
surrounded by a mix of high, medium and
low priority structures and non-
contributing structures. It retains a similar
footprint and similar location to the original
historic structure, and the breezeway
connection to the accessory structure retains
site relationships that have been in place
since the 1980s.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed new construction is
compatible with surrounding properties in
the Old Town Overlay District, which have
a variety of architectural styles and time
periods that range from approximately 1880
to 1950.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed new construction is
compatible with the character of the Old
Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not block any
Courthouse views and is surrounded by
primarily single-story structures that do
not have a view of the Courthouse or
Town Square Historic District.
Page 35 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is located in the Old
Town Overlay District and is not adjacent
to or nearby the Downtown Overlay
District or the Town Square District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Does Not Comply
The residential infill structure is
proposed to be two stories in height,
while the existing historic structure on
the subject property approved for
demolition and the majority of the
surrounding structures are a single story
in height. Larger, two-story structures in
the Old Town Overlay District were
generally set back from property lines
with large front and side street setbacks,
especially on large lots, and there is
sufficient room on the site for the new
two-story structure without the building
height modification.
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square Historic District; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is located in the Old
Town Overlay District and is not adjacent
to or nearby the Downtown Overlay
District or the Town Square District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
Proposed project is located in the Old
Town Overlay District and is not adjacent
to or nearby the Downtown Overlay
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for residential infill, based on the findings that the
architectural style and character are compatible with the Old Town Overlay District, and that the
connection to the existing accessory structure complies with the requirements of the Unified
Development Code, noting that the building height modification is no longer included in the request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 36 of 62
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-67-COA – 701 S. College Street Page 7 of 7
As of the publication date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in
opposition of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 37 of 62
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 27, 2021
S UB J E C T:
P res entation by staff on building lighting sharing fixture and lighting types, illumination s tyles , and lighting
terms.
IT E M S UMMARY:
As a C ertified Local G overnment (C LG ) the C ity of G eorgetown undertakes training for s taff and His toric
& Arc hitectural R eview C ommissioners on a variety of topics that are part of the C ity's historic
pres ervation efforts as well as topic s that are part of the C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s applic ation review
process. T he s taff pres entation will provide an overview of building lighting types , terms, styles and
impacts , followed by questions and dis cus s ion by the C ommissioners .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 38 of 62
Building Lighting
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
May 27 , 2021
1Page 39 of 62
•Lighting Definitions
•Lighting Principles
•Building Illumination Solutions
•Special Topic: Light Pollution
•Recap, Questions & Discussion
Agenda
2Page 40 of 62
•Fixtures can:
•Hold the light source
•Be decorative or task-oriented
•Be architectural components
Definitions: Fixture
3Page 41 of 62
•Measures energy used
•Light sources can have
different wattage for
same level of brightness
•Direct relationship to
environmental and
utility costs
Definitions: Wattage
4Page 42 of 62
Definition: Lumens
•Measure of brightness
(total light radiated out)
•Component of light
pollution
•“Lux” and “Footcandles”
are better measures of
perceived intensity, but
“Lumens” is more
commonly used term
5Page 43 of 62
Definitions: Accent Lighting
•Decorative
•Typically, narrow ribbons or lines
•Not necessarily “illuminating” anything
6Page 44 of 62
Definitions: Ambient Lighting
•Illuminates features for decorative or utilitarian
effect
•Used as a general term for lighting
•Light source itself is usually not a part of the
aesthetic effect
7Page 45 of 62
Definitions: Task Lighting
•Installed for a specific job
•About the use, not the aesthetics
•Most typical example is a desk lamp
•Light is off when task is done
8Page 46 of 62
•Measures intensity
per sq.ft.
•Pertains most to
visual effect
Definitions: Footcandles
9Page 47 of 62
Lighting
Principles –
Color
Temperature
Color Temperature is about the
*source* of the light.
•Lower end = redder
•mid-range = white
•higher end = bluer 10Page 48 of 62
Lighting Principles –CRI
•Color Rendering Index (CRI) is the ability of a light source to reveal
color in comparison to a natural light source (sunlight)
•Higher score means more visibility for object color
•Higher scores are better for retaining visual character
11Page 49 of 62
Lighting Principles -Shielding
•Prevents light spillover (glare)
•Lowers light pollution (excessive artificial light)
12Page 50 of 62
Building Illumination Solutions
13
Fixtures installed at the ground
and angled up:
•Beams are invisible
•Architectural details highlighted
•Can potentially be solar powered
Page 51 of 62
Building Illumination Solutions
14
Painting fixture to match existing
building color:
•Inexpensive option
•Can protect fixture from deterioration
•Minimizes visibility
Page 52 of 62
Building Illumination Solutions
15
Tall Lamp Post:
•Fixture itself is a decorative
addition
•Pedestrian-oriented
•Most appropriate for shorter
structures
Page 53 of 62
Building Illumination Solutions
Cove Lighting:
•Conceals light source behind
decorative element or wall
•Can be done with a historically-
appropriate decorative addition
16Page 54 of 62
Special Topic:
Light Pollution
17Page 55 of 62
Definition: Light Trespass
•Light that encroaches on the property of others.
18Page 56 of 62
Definition: Glare
19
•Strong light that can obscure
visibility
Page 57 of 62
Definition: Light Clutter
20
•Excessive grouping of lights
Page 58 of 62
Environmental Light Pollution
•Light that harms animals or plants in some way
•Infrared light can disrupt natural tree leaf cycles
•Lighting can disrupt bird migration patterns
•Bright lights can cause birds to crash into buildings
21Page 59 of 62
22
Light Pollution Solutions: Fixture & Light Type
•Fully-shielded light sources and
lights that illuminate only the
area or task intended are best.
Page 60 of 62
Light Pollution Solutions: Motion Sensing
23
•Light only turns on when needed
•Reduces impact on bird populations
•Saves energy
Page 61 of 62
Building Lighting Recap
•Lighting can be a variety of purposes including accent, ambient, and
task lighting.
•Lighting can be measured in energy used, brightness, intensity, color
of the light, and how the light renders the color of objects.
•There are multiple solutions for successfully illuminating buildings.
•Light pollution can be prevented by using properly shielded fixtures
and illuminating only the area needing the light.
24Page 62 of 62