Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda_ HARC_08.11.2022
Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown August 11, 2022 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. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural C ommittee - Jes s ica Lemanski, P lanning S pec ialis t C P ublic Hearing and P ossible Ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new signage that is inc onsistent with an approved Mas ter S ign P lan or applicable guidelines at the property loc ated at 823 S outh Aus tin Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.826 acres, being part of Lot 8, Block 51, C ity of G eorgetown. (2022-40-C O A) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange 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 _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. Page 1 of 54 __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 54 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 11, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2022, regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural C ommittee - Jessic a Lemans ki, P lanning S pecialist IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Kimberly S penc er, Development Administration P rogram Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Page 3 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 1 of 11 July 28, 2022 Members Present: Linda C. Burns, Vice-Chair; Jennifer Powell; Tom W. Davis; Alton Martin; Alternate Pierce P. Macguire; Alternate William “Jud” Harris; Lawrence Romero; Karalei Nunn; Members Absent: Michael Walton, Chair Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Tadd Phillips, Interim Planning Director; Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program Manager, Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist Meeting called to order by Linda Burns at 6:04 pm. Vice-Chair Linda Burns served as Acting Chair in the absence of Chair Michael Walton. Kimberly Spencer updated the Commission and the public on the logistics of the meeting (Nat Waggoner calling in on Teams to present staff reports, clarifying motions, etc.) Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 14, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program Manager Vice-Chair Burns opened the floor to Commissioners to discuss or ask questions. No discussion. Motion to approve Item B as presented by Commissioner Martin. Second by Commissioner Davis. Approved unanimously (7-0). C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Page 4 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 2 of 11 July 28, 2022 for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for the property located at 1503 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition. (2022-3-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and clarified the applicant’s request by noting their intent to construct a total of 1,732 sq. ft. of additions (849 sq. ft. of 2nd floor space and the first floor addition that include a new garage, new storage, and additional living space is 936 sq. ft.) as well as a 236 total sq. ft. of structures including a 162 sq. ft. porch and a 131 sq. ft. breezeway and 450 sq. ft. of new driveway pavement.. A portion of the addition is setback from the primary façade of the existing garage and creates an overhang of approximately 7’ 8”. The addition has a gabled roof with an actual height of 24’. The addition is proposed to connect to the primary structure by a 24 ft. 6-inch breezeway. The garage addition includes 5/16in. x 144in Hardibacker lap siding to match the primary structure. The proposed windows are JELD-WEN 2500 Series Black Painted Clad Wood Double Hung Window w Natural Interior and Screen which are to be twice as tall as they are wide. Waggoner spoke to the location of the structure, the surrounding properties and structures, the Sanborn maps, and the character of the surrounding residences. Waggoner also presents renderings of proposed plans and changes to the structure. Waggoner outlined the conceptual feedback provided by HARC in previous HARC meetings as follows: At the April 14, 2022 meeting the Commission provided the applicant the following feedback on their conceptual plans: - Concern for looming with full 2nd story bedroom windows - Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3 - Concern for massing, scale and form -Design Guidelines 3.5.C - Concern architectural character, mass, scale and materials are not compatible with the historic character of the primary structure - Design Guidelines 3.5.K - Inclusion of architectural features of existing building - Design Guidelines 3.5.K.5 Waggoner noted the changes made to the conceptual plan following the 4/14/22 meeting, which include: - Reducing the total square footage of the addition from 2,623 sq. ft., to 1, 603 sq. ft. - Reducing the height of the addition from 25’ to 22’ - Reducing the 2nd story of the addition to a half story and include dormers - Intention to include architectural details of the primary structure into the addition such as windows, railing, eave details, and roof forms. At the May 12, 2022 conceptual, the Commission provide the applicant the following feedback. - Concern for accurate representation of total square footage of additions. Page 5 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 3 of 11 July 28, 2022 - The design responded to concerns for looming - Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3. - The Commission was generally accepting of the mass, scale and form of the addition with the exception of 1 Commissioner. - Commissioners noted that the ornamental features are a choice and not a requirement and that the character of the addition needs to reflect the new addition but does not require mirrored detail as there needs to be differentiation of design from old to new and to avoid a false sense of history by mimicking details of the primary structure. - The dormers on the south elevation of the addition street are side facing - and 3.5.E.2.c (side facing) meet Guidelines for size and proportions. Waggoner presented renderings of the proposed changes, discussed floor plans for the ground and second floor renderings and called attention to the separation of the two garage doors to separate the driveways. Waggoner noted the connection between the garage addition and the main living quarters are supported by the breezeway and connected to the extended porch, noting that the breezeway could be removed with limited interference to the primary structure; Applicant intends to match materials to the primary structure, and Waggoner noted that the applicant is now proposing platted wood double hung windows instead of the vinyl windows proposed at the 5.12.22 meeting. Waggoner reviewed the approval criteria by sharing that staff determined that the proposed project complies with 25 of the 33 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 and recommends approval for the request. Waggoner also noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, 3 signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request. Vice-Chair Burns opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners. No questions or discussion. Vice-Chair Burns opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth. Motion to disapprove Item C as presented by Commissioner Davis. Second by Alternate Macguire. Approved unanimously (7-0). D 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, and a 17’ - 8 " encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage 7' - 4" from the side street (west) property line for the property located at 1227 S. Church, bearing the legal description Lot 16, Block 1, Cody Addition (2022-26-COA) - Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Page 6 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 4 of 11 July 28, 2022 Dir.- Long Range Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and clarified that the applicant proposes a 23’ 6” by 18’ carport on the west side (rear) of the property oriented toward S Myrtle as the property is situated between two streets. The carport is open on the sides and provides overhead coverage with an angled butterfly roof and a proposed height of 12’ 6”. The minimal design is comprised of only two materials: powder-coated dark gray metal for the structural posts and beams, and light gray metal decking for the roof material. Waggoner noted the location of the property and the materials to be used, which would match the original structure, if approved. Waggoner speaks to the location of the primary structure and the surrounding properties, including the streets backing up to the structure. Waggoner noted that staff reviewed the request in accordance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) and other applicable codes. Staff has determined that the proposed request complies with 6 of the 7 applicable criteria established in UDC Section 3.13.030 for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Waggoner established that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness request (42 notices), and (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 2 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 5). Applicant and owner are present to answer any questions for the Commission. Vice-Chair Burns opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Davis noted that even though the project was at the back of the house, it backs up to Myrtle Street, where it would be exposed to those living on Myrtle Street. Commissioner Davis also cites page 185 of HARC Design Guidelines as it pertains to roof profiles, noting that he is not inclined to approve this item due to those guideline illustration suggestions. Commissioner Powell also noted that the addition may not complement the design standards of the neighborhood and echoes Commissioner Davis’ concern for the view of the property from Myrtle St. Gary Wong, Principal Architect of Wong Architects on University Avenue (Applicant), to address commissioners’ questions on the carport as related to the Design Guidelines. Wong discusses difficult property orientation, opening up to Myrtle Street, neighboring property carports and garages, the decision for a carport as opposed to a gabled garage or shed roof due to conflict with existing structure, and inverting the carport. Vice-Chair Burns opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward. Page 7 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 5 of 11 July 28, 2022 Motion to disapprove Item D as presented by Commissioner Davis. Second by Commissioner Powell. Commissioner Nunn noted that she appreciated the difficulty of the area and property, but the design of the carport did not fit with the area or comply with design standards. Motion approved unanimously (7-0). E Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure for the property located at 305 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 3-7 Block 17 (W/PT), Glasscock Addition. (2022-28-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and noted that the property COA appears twice on the agenda, one for the demolition of a portion of the rear of the property and one for a new addition to the property. Waggoner shared that the applicant is requesting the demolition of an approximate 272 sq. ft. addition at the rear of the property. The historic addition is estimated to have been constructed a between 1925 and 1965 as an enclosure to an original rear porch. Historic materials of the rear addition include single pane double hung windows and original wood siding. Waggoner discusses the location and historical mapping of the property as well as surrounding properties as it pertains to the Sanborn Map, previous additions to the structure, salvaging the windows and siding, and discusses the approval criteria. Waggoner noted that the Demolition Subcommittee recommended that the windows to the rear and the wood be salvaged to the extent feasible. Waggoner noted that in reference to the demo approval criteria for UDC Section 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv, staff found that it complies with 3 of the 4 criteria. As a result of staff’s findings on the approval criteria, in addition to the Demolition Subcommittee’s report, staff recommends approval with the condition that the windows and siding be salvaged to the extent feasible. Commissioner Davis noted that he would like to approve with condition that the windows and siding be reused somewhere in the new addition to the property (on the basis of Design Guidelines on 4.4 and archiving the home). Applicant John Lawton, Green Earth Builders, approached the podium to address the Commission. Applicant noted that he reuses as many materials as possible to preserve the historical integrity of the home. Documentation of the home done by Liz Weaver. Commissioner Davis notes that documentation of the property should be done prior to the issuance of the COA in accordance Page 8 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 6 of 11 July 28, 2022 with the 4.4 guidelines. Vice-Chair Burns opened the public hearing. Linda Austin, 1009 S Elm St., approached the podium to address the Commission. Linda noted that two homes in her neighborhood had demolition requests approved by the Commission and that she believed these demos/additions were a net win for the character of her neighborhood. She is in favor of the request. Vice-Chair Burns closed the public hearing. Motion to approve Item E with condition of the applicant providing archival documentation as it pertains to Guideline 4.4 Sec A along with the reuse of salvageable materials as it pertains to Guideline 4.4 Sec. B for Item E by Commissioner Martin. Second by Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Nunn noted that she did not believe that preserving the windows was necessary, especially considering it is not required within the code. Does not want to impose an undue burden that is not required. Commissioner Davis noted that the windows were nonetheless part of the house during the historic surveys and the property is considered a medium priority property. Commissioner Martin noted the conditions could provide clarity to future applicants on the decisions of the Commission. Alternate Macguire asked to clarify the conditions of the motion. Answer: Document the original structure and reuse as many materials as feasible. Vice- Chair Burns asked Waggoner to clarify why this property required a COA for demolition and others do not. Waggoner stated the structure was over 50 years old according to the survey records. Materials are also examined to determine historical significance (siding and windows in this case). Approved unanimously (7-0). F Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and restoring historic architectural features for the property located at 305 E. 8th Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 3-7 Block 17 (W/PT), Glasscock Addition. (2022-28-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Commissioner Romero entered the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Page 9 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 7 of 11 July 28, 2022 Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and established that the property under consideration is located at 305 E 8th Street, three blocks away from the Williamson County Courthouse. The house is a medium-priority single-story home that was constructed in 1921. The resource does not have an identified style nor plan. Alterations have been made to the home, but they are primary situated towards the rear. The front of the home appears to be close to the original design. The front of the home features a large porch with four square columns. An open gable sits on top of the porch and features a bracket and a vent. The brackets are a distinct feature of the home. The applicant would like to make alterations to the rear of the house by enclosing a porch, adding a second story, increasing the height of the roof, and repairing the exterior of the home. Waggoner discussed proposed materials and previous additions to the structure. Waggoner established that staff determined that the proposed project complies with 19 of the 28 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed in the staff report. Based on these findings, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request. As required by the Unified Development Code, one (1) signs was posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request. Vice-Chair Burns opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commission. Alternate Macguire asked clarification on the impact of the addition (is that a staff assessment or more formal meaning)? Waggoner clarified that the roofline is extended 62”, making it a sizable addition to the existing roof, and changes the perception of height of the front elevation of the project. Commissioner Powell asked about chimney materials for the brick columns on the front elevation and whether they’re still intact. Applicant said he won’t know until the demo work begins; Tried to minimally change the elevations and gable on the west side to make the chimney functional; chimney is historically significant and beautiful. If any replacement of chimney is necessary, new materials would match. Commissioner Martin noted the asymmetry is strange, but he appreciated the beauty of the chimney. Applicant responded that the original gable would stay. He plans on taking most of the footage that is still there and increasing the elevation to allow function, and making an L structure to aid in flow of the house. Speaks to his past experience in roof extensions and methods for doing so. Commissioner Nunn comments that the elevation of the roof is too big and totally changes the scale and character of the house. Commissioner Davis agrees. Commissioner Nunn asked if there was another way to make the street view more symmetrical. Applicant replied that he didn’t want to extend lower story and increase impervious cover, so the second story was their solution to allow function. Could potentially raise the A frame. Page 10 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 8 of 11 July 28, 2022 Commissioner Davis advised Applicant if he finds the house needs more demolition, he would need to apply for another COA for demolition. Applicant understands and notes that he has done some other projects in town. Commissioner asked if there was room on the 2nd floor plans to open up a window or door to break up the slope of the roof. Applicant replied that dormers could be added or potentially raise the A frame. Commissioner Nunn notes that it still wouldn’t be symmetrical if you want the view of the chimney. Clarifies that her understanding of the request is to raise the chimney and cut off a portion to maintain the view, cutting off a portion of the new raised roof, making the view of the house from the front asymmetrical. Applicant: Taking the second A frame off, keeping the original North side A frame structure to make sure the chimney is exposed and functional. Vice-Chair Burns opened the public hearing. Linda Austin, 1009 S Elm St., approached the podium to address the Commission. The existing roof is not attractive, she believes it’s quite short. She likes the proposed changes and finds them aesthetically pleasing, refreshingly minimal, and attractive. Liz Weaver, 1221 S Main St., agrees with Linda Weaver; the plans look like a big change, but the existing house is too low/short and the proposed changes are good. She also volunteered to take pictures of the house tomorrow with the applicant in order to properly document/archive it. Vice-Chair Burns closed the public hearing. Alternate Macguire noted that he appreciated the public comments and the context/opinions they provided to the Commission. Motion to approve Item F as presented by Commissioner Powell. Second by Commissioner Martin. Approved (5-2, Harris and Nunn denied). G Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and a 6’- 6” setback encroachment into the 20’- 0” front setback to allow the addition of a porch 13’ - 6” from the front (west) property line for the property located at 1501 S. College Street, bearing the legal description of 0 .275 acres in Block 97 and 98, Dimmit Addition. (2022-37-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Nathaniel Waggoner presented the staff report and established that the applicant is proposing to add additional coverage to the porch by adding an extension to the roof. Applicant is also proposing to enclose an existing carport Page 11 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 9 of 11 July 28, 2022 Waggoner discussed a presentation error as it pertains to slide 23 in the staff presentation. He noted that the southern portion of the property is already within the 20 ft setback and as the gable projects, it will be no farther than the existing wing, so it is compliant with the guidelines. Waggoner established that staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 19 of the 21 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3.5 as detailed in the staff report. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request with the CONDITION that the proposed windows meet Design Guideline 3.5.G. for materiality. Waggoner noted that in reviewing ranch style homes, most additions are under the roofline. Additions comply with materials and roof form. 3.5.k.d complies. The gable modifications are not unusual and have historical significance in its own right (partially complies). Waggoner noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness request (32 notices), and number (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 2 written comment in favor and 0 in opposition to the request Applicant is present and available for any questions. Vice-Chair Burns opens the floor to Commissioners for questions and comments. Commissioner Davis noted that it’s critical that buildings intended for renovation must start out with an exact reflection of what is present on site, and he points out differences in the drawings versus the actual location and scale of the gables. Commissioner Davis uggests postponing the decision until accurate drawings are provided. Alternate Macguire asked Waggoner to elaborate on the review process. Waggoner explained that Meredith did a portion of the review and he (Waggoner) reviews her work. There were two rounds of review (needed more information on materiality and setback modification) on this application. Required to draw site to scale using a computer program (Bluebeam) for initial analysis/scaling/drawing. Alternate Macguire asked if we do have a scaled drawing? Waggoner replied that the applicant did provide a depiction, unsure if accurately scaled. Commissioner Davis stated that the scale and proportion of the drawing from the North side is not consistent with the photographs (gable on right side of house seems the same height as the long ridge of the house), and is an important part of the review process. Applicant Jon Patch stated that for the scope of work on this project (small), the drawings are suitable. Perspective is difficult to depict in a 2D drawing. He then acknowledged the drawing from the North had an error and apologizes. Commissioner Davis asked if the applicant is intending to put two gables on the front porch? Applicant replied yes, for cosmetics, but it does not project past the eave of either and is not Page 12 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 10 of 11 July 28, 2022 necessary to the project. Commissioner Davis inquired about the materials for the gables. Applicant established that intended materials are flat panels, sheet goods with no textures and smooth finish. Wood with board and batten appearance; made of plywood with faux batten strips applied. Applicant stated they are modifying window openings on the North side to make smaller. Intend to brick in the opening and move windows towards the back of the garage to avoid setting them so far to the front. Adding brick to the front and middle column to move away from the front. Commissioner Davis comments that he would like the columns, ridges, and gables to reflect current conditions before giving approval. Alternate Macguire defers to Davis’s expertise, would like to see another drawing before approving (i.e. postpone decision until next meeting). Vice-Chair Burns agrees that the drawings should accurately reflect the property. Vice-Chair Burns speaks to the garage in the front and how that will be enclosed, as well as the asymmetry of the porch and lining up the windows. Vice-Chair Burns opens the public hearing. Jon Patch approached the podium to address the Commission. Original windows were aluminum single pane and have been replaced within the past 5 years. Proposed windows are identical to the windows on the rest of the house. Vice-Chair Burns closes the public hearing. Waggoner asks if there is additional discussion on the impact of additives in terms of the characteristics for staff feedback. Vice-Chair Burns says she would like some kind of accurate roof sketch if going forward with the gables. Waggoner clarifies that postponed items need to return in no more than 35 days, or longer if applicant is willing to postpone further. August 25th HARC meeting would be the corresponding postponement date. Motion to postpone Item G to the August 25th HARC meeting by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Davis. Approved unanimously (7-0) H Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Tadd Philips, Planning Director Tadd acknowledged that Sofia is not present, and we appreciate Nat virtually presenting despite recovering from illness. Also informs that Nat will be moving to a Transportation Planning position within the City, and we are excited to see what he does. Page 13 of 54 Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 11 of 11 July 28, 2022 Tadd informs the Commission that Maddison O’Kelley will be starting August 22nd as the Historic Preservation Program Manager to replace Britin’s position. Kimberly discusses alternate commissioners participating in public comment with any items during a meeting. Public comment is intended to provide opportunity for public to inform the commission on their views. The meeting belongs to the governing body, whether there is an alternate is on the dais or not. Public does not participate in the decision making, but rather provides input. Since commissioner is part of the governing body, public comment would not be permitted. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Alternate Macguire. Second by Commissioner Nunn. Approved unanimously 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Linda Burns, Vice-Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary Page 14 of 54 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review August 11, 2022 S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing and P os s ible Action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for new s ignage that is incons is tent with an approved Master S ign P lan or applic able guidelines at the property located at 823 S outh Austin Avenue, bearing the legal des cription of 0.826 ac res , being part of Lot 8, Bloc k 51, C ity of G eorgetown. (2022-40-C O A) – Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange IT E M S UMMARY: Overview of Applicant’s Request: T he applic ant is req ues ting permis s ion fro m HAR C to ins tall a 39.5’ s q . ft. internally illuminated sign mounted on the p o rtic o o riented toward the inters ectio n of Austin Ave/9th S treet, in ad d ition to the two window s igns that have been reviewed by the HP O . S taff’s Analysis: S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request complies with 2, partially complies with 4 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in UDC S ection 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in the attac hed S taff R eport. 2 of the 8 criteria were not applicable to the proposed project. Public Comments: As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), number (2) s ign(s ) were posted on-s ite. As of the public ation date of this report, s taff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in oppos ition to the request. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid the required application fee. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4 – Historic Res ource Surveys Exhibit Pres entation Pres entation Page 15 of 54 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: August 5, 2022 Case Number: 2022-40-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property located at 823 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.826 acres, being part of Lot 8, Block 51, City of Georgetown. (2022-40-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Cozy Cannabis Applicant: Comet Signs LLC, c/o Tracy Stocky Property Owner: Stern Robert P Trust Property Address: 823 S. Austin Ave. Legal Description: 0.0826 acres, Lot 8 (S/PT), Block 51, City of Georgetown Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: Prior COA Denials: Prior COA Approvals: Post-Approval Project Amendments (Date): HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1925 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium National Register Designation: Williamson County Courthouse National Historic District Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✓ 39’.5 internally illuminated, canopy mounted sign HPO: ✓ New window signs (vinyl) x 2 Page 16 of 54 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-40-COA – 803 S. Austin Page 2 of 7 STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The property under consideration contains a medium-priority, southwestern-inspired building. The 2016 Historic Resources Survey indicates prior use of the site as an auto garage, and the 1984 HRS image provides evidence of this use. The 1984 survey describes the property as a one-story commercial building of brick and stucco veneer, with a hip roof and metal tiles with exposed rafter ends. Noteworthy features include roof tiles in mission style. The site is located at the intersection of Austin Ave and E 9th Street, the gateway to Georgetown’s square. The structure is situated at an angle on the site and features a portico over the driveway for customers at the primary entrance. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting permission from HARC to install a 39.5’ sq. ft. internally illuminated sign mounted on the portico oriented toward the intersection of Austin Ave/9th Street, in addition to the two window signs that have been reviewed by the HPO. Justification for Requests: The applicant’s business is new and needs updated signage. Technical Review: The proposed internally illuminated (push through) sign will be located at the front of the building, facing the intersection of Austin Ave and 9th Street. The angle of the building will make the sign visible from both streets. The proposed sign will measure 5’ 10” wide and 5’ 3” tall, 39.5’. The lettering will be approximately 3’ 6 3/8” tall and 3’ wide. The depth of the sign is 5”. The colors of the sign will be black with a light pink heart shape that is spliced in half horizontally with light green lettering. The sign is proposed to be internally illuminated, which is not permitted in Area 1 of Downtown. The illumination will produce approximately 60 watts of white LED lights pushed through the acrylic and vinyl sign face. There are four colors proposed for the illumination. The portico on which the sign will be installed is approximately 32’ in length and 16’ in height. The total length of the building including the portico is approximately 55’. The sign will be mounted with a new, aluminum bracket that measures 2” by 2”. The bracket will be mounted to a lower portion of the roof with bolts. Specifications on how the sign will be installed on the roof was not provided with this application. Page 17 of 54 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-40-COA – 803 S. Austin Page 3 of 7 DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 4 of the 9 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines (for the canopy sign portion of the request) in Chapter 5 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER FIVE – SIGNS & COLORS 5.1 Types of Signs The Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts may have a variety of the following five types of signs: primary, secondary, window, portable, and temporary. Primary Sign Only one primary sign will be allowed per business per building. 1. A primary sign should identify the services or business offered within. Complies Only the name of the business is provided. Sign will be visible from both Austin Ave and 9th Street. 2. The primary sign’s audience is specifically the viewer driving past in a vehicle. To avoid driver confusion, the information on the primary sign should be easily viewable from a vehicle. 3. The sign should contain only enough information to alert the viewer in a vehicle to the location of the business or entity at the building. 4. Whenever possible, other signs should be utilized for information geared towards pedestrian or other viewers. 5. The primary sign should be easily viewable from a vehicle with as little visual clutter as possible. Window Signs Window signs are painted or applied to the glass used at street level and/or on upper floors. The window signage is intended for the pedestrian walking on the sidewalk and conveys specific information about the business offered. 5.2 Number of Signs A business may have one (1) primary sign and two (2) secondary signs. Complies Three total signs are requested for one business, one wall sign and two window signs. Page 18 of 54 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-40-COA – 803 S. Austin Page 4 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER FIVE – SIGNS & COLORS 5.3 Placement of Signs on a Building Does Not Comply The sign exceeds maximum recommended size. The canopy sign proposed signs have minimal impact to the historic façade, are scaled proportionally to the portico size and do not obscure or compete with the façade. A. Consider the building front as part of an overall sign program. B. Coordinate a sign within the overall façade composition. A sign should appear to be in scale with the façade. C. A sign should be in proportion to the building, such that it does not dominate the appearance. A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition. D. Locate a sign on a building such that it will emphasize design elements of the façade itself. A sign should be designed to integrate with the architectural features of a building, not distract attention from them. E. A sign should not in any way obscure or compete with architectural details of an historic building façade. This is especially important for a building with historic significance. 5.5 Window Signs Complies The proposed window signs cover less than 30% of the total window area, are flush vinyl and cover less than 50% of each window. Coverage area A window sign should cover no more than thirty percent (30%) of the total window area. Materials Window signs may be painted on the glass, attached with flush vinyl, or hung just inside a window using appropriate attachment materials for the location and sign type. Total window signage No more than 50% of a window shall be covered by business signage, advertisements, open signs, hours of operation, and other messages. 5.8 Awning and Above Canopy Sign Size An awning or canopy sign shall not exceed one square foot for every one linear foot of façade width. The maximum height of a sign is limited to 36 inches. In no case should an awning or canopy sign exceed the width and height of the awning or canopy surface to which it is applied. Does Not Comply The request does not comply in size as the sign’s area is 39.6 sq. ft. and the portico is approximately 30’ in length. The height of the size is 63”. The area of the sign meets the dimensional standards. Calculating Area Page 19 of 54 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-40-COA – 803 S. Austin Page 5 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER FIVE – SIGNS & COLORS The size of an awning or canopy sign shall be calculated by its actual area of the sign face or a regular rectangle drawn around the sign image (words and graphics) on an awning and shall be included in the calculation for total allowable building signage. The location of the sign, mounted to the front façade, will extend above the roofline and obscure the roof tiles, which are features defined as noteworthy on the Historic Resource Survey. Location Consider mounting a sign centered on top of a building canopy where a flush-mounted sign would obscure architectural details. Appearance of a sign as viewed from an upper level out must be considered. The sign shall not completely block view of the square or the street from the second floor windows. 5.15 Sign Materials Complies The proposed primary sign is aluminum with acrylic for the illuminated portion. Appropriate materials Painted wood and metal are appropriate materials for signs. Their use is encouraged. Plastic Plastic is not permitted, except for flush, adhesive, professionally installed lettering or when used for illuminated signs. 5.16 Sign Lighting A. The light for a sign should be an indirect source. Does Not Comply The applicant is proposing four light colors, none of which are a warm white light, similar to daylight. B. Light should be directed at the sign from an external, shielded lamp. C. The fixture should have a sense of design, which is coordinated with the sign surface and appropriate to building style and character. D. A warm light, similar to daylight, is appropriate. 5.17 Internal Illumination in Area 1 Does Not Comply Does not comply in that the proposed illumination is for signs in Area 1. The “push-thru” illumination style illumination light is not a warm, white light. A. Internally illuminated signs are not appropriate in Area 1 as these do not reflect the historic character of the buildings and would not have been used during the period of significance. B. If internal illumination is used, it should be designed to be subordinate to the overall building composition. C. If internal illumination is used, illuminate only the sign next rather than the sign panel. Illumination may Page 20 of 54 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-40-COA – 803 S. Austin Page 6 of 7 GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER FIVE – SIGNS & COLORS be front-lit channel letters, "halo", or "push-thru" illumination styles when the light is a warm, white light. 5.18 Sign Mounting and Hardware A. Sign brackets and hardware should be compatible with the building and installed in a workman-like manner. Complies Angle iron is compatible with the metal tiles and galvanized. B. Place mounting brackets in mortar joints rather in stone or brick face. C. Stainless Steel mounting hardware is preferred. D. Non-galvanized metal is prohibited. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 2 out of 8 of these 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; Partially Complies Mounting bracket specifics were not provided by the applicant. The applicant did not provide a letter of intent. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Complies Proposed signs comply with applicable UDC requirements. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies The SOI standards do not address signs specifically. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies Proposed signs comply with the material. The window signs comply with size, location. The proposed canopy sign does not comply with location, illumination guidelines of internal illumination, size and color. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Partially Complies The proposed signs have no physical impact to historic building materials and are easily removed. Page 21 of 54 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-40-COA – 803 S. Austin Page 7 of 7 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS The location of the canopy sign, mounted to the front façade, will extend above the roofline and obscure the roof tiles, which are features defined as noteworthy on the Historic Resource Survey. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Not Applicable No new buildings or additions are proposed. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies The vinyl signs are in character with the overall district. While the Design Guidelines limit the use of illumination to Area 2, there are existing internally illuminated signs in Area 1 of the Overlay. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable Not proposing a master sign plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends DENIAL of the request for the canopy sign. As required by the Unified Development Code, two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys SUBMITTED BY Meredith Johnson, consultant PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Page 22 of 54 Location 2022-40-COA Exhibit #1 S A U S T I N A V E E 8TH ST ROC K ST FO R E S T ST W 8TH ST W 9TH ST W 7TH ST FOREST ST W 10TH ST S M A I N S T S C H U R C H S T S M Y R T L E S T E 10TH ST E 9TH ST TI N B A R N A L Y 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 23 of 54 © 2022 Comet Signs Proposal Drawing Final Drawing Client: Client Name Location: 823 S. Austin Ave Georgetown Texas Salesperson: Jamie Mitol Prj. Mngr.: Brian Leslie Date: 2/22/2022 Designer: Chris Brazell File Name: 22-0993 Cozy Cannabis-Wall Sign FINAL.cdr Proposal #: 65815 R4 Job #: 22-0993 T H I S D R AW I N G I S T H E E X C L U S I V E PROPERTY OF COMET SIGNS, LLC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM C O M E T S I G N S , L L C . I S S T R I C T L Y PROHIBITED. OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IS RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK / COPYRIGHT LAWS. CUSTOMER APPROVAL APPROVED BY: ________________________ DATE: ____ / ____ / ____ Job Name: (M/D/Y)-(initials): desc.Revisions 1 5of 1130 Rutherford, Suite 180 Austin, TX 78753 (512) 374-9300 TDLR #: 18010 MET #: E113766 Wall Sign 823 S. Austin Ave Georgetown Texas Page 24 of 54 © 2022 Comet Signs Proposal Drawing Final Drawing Client: Client Name Location: 823 S. Austin Ave Georgetown Texas Salesperson: Jamie Mitol Prj. Mngr.: Brian Leslie Date: 2/22/2022 Designer: Chris Brazell File Name: 22-0993 Cozy Cannabis-Wall Sign FINAL.cdr Proposal #: 65815 R4 Job #: 22-0993 T H I S D R AW I N G I S T H E E X C L U S I V E PROPERTY OF COMET SIGNS, LLC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM C O M E T S I G N S , L L C . I S S T R I C T L Y PROHIBITED. OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IS RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK / COPYRIGHT LAWS. CUSTOMER APPROVAL APPROVED BY: ________________________ DATE: ____ / ____ / ____ Job Name: (M/D/Y)-(initials): desc.Revisions 2 5of 1130 Rutherford, Suite 180 Austin, TX 78753 (512) 374-9300 TDLR #: 18010 MET #: E113766 ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 9’ - 0 ” ± 20’-7”± PROPOSED EXISTING BRACKET TO BE REMOVED Page 25 of 54 © 2022 Comet Signs Proposal Drawing Final Drawing Client: Client Name Location: 823 S. Austin Ave Georgetown Texas Salesperson: Jamie Mitol Prj. Mngr.: Brian Leslie Date: 2/22/2022 Designer: Chris Brazell File Name: 22-0993 Cozy Cannabis-Wall Sign FINAL.cdr Proposal #: 65815 R4 Job #: 22-0993 T H I S D R AW I N G I S T H E E X C L U S I V E PROPERTY OF COMET SIGNS, LLC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM C O M E T S I G N S , L L C . I S S T R I C T L Y PROHIBITED. OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IS RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK / COPYRIGHT LAWS. CUSTOMER APPROVAL APPROVED BY: ________________________ DATE: ____ / ____ / ____ Job Name: (M/D/Y)-(initials): desc.Revisions 3 5of 1130 Rutherford, Suite 180 Austin, TX 78753 (512) 374-9300 TDLR #: 18010 MET #: E113766 S/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HANGING SIGN QTY: ONE (1)Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" A ILLUMINATED VIEW 39.5 SQFT FABRICATE AND INSTALL S/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HANGING SIGN • 5” DEEP ALUM. PAN CHANNEL PAINTED (P1) W/ DIGITALLY PRINTED GRAPHICS. .125" THK. ALUM. FACE with .063" THK. ALUM. WELDED RETURNS. 2" NESTED PAN BACK. SCOPE OF WORK: .090" THK. ALUM. BACK and .063" THK .ALUM. WELDED RETURN. • FACE ROUTED OUT AND BACKED W/ 3/4” THK. CLEAR PUSH THRU ACRYLIC W// 2ND SURFACE VINYL TO MATCH (C1) AND (C2) INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED W/ WHITE LEDS. SELF CONTAINED • MOUNTED W/ 2” x 2" ANGLE IRON MOUNTING BRACKETS W/ MOUNTED TO ROOF W/ THRU BOLTS. BRACKET TO BE MOUNTED by CUSTOMER. POWER SUPPLY. P1 WHITE P2 BLACK C1 K:0 C:1.6 M:16.8 Y:8.63 C2 K:0 M:0 Y:22.35 C:15.29 5’ - 3 ” 2’ - 1 3 / 4 ” 1’ - 0 1 / 2 ” 5’-10” 3’ - 6 3 / 8 ” 5"5'-1 ⁄ " 2' - 7 ⁄ " 5'-8" 64⁰ 2'-10" PAINT BACK OF LOGO ⁄ " DIA. ALL-THREAD with 1 ⁄ " ANGLE ON INTERIOR. Page 26 of 54 © 2022 Comet Signs Proposal Drawing Final Drawing Client: Client Name Location: 823 S. Austin Ave Georgetown Texas Salesperson: Jamie Mitol Prj. Mngr.: Brian Leslie Date: 2/22/2022 Designer: Chris Brazell File Name: 22-0993 Cozy Cannabis-Wall Sign FINAL.cdr Proposal #: 65815 R4 Job #: 22-0993 T H I S D R AW I N G I S T H E E X C L U S I V E PROPERTY OF COMET SIGNS, LLC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM C O M E T S I G N S , L L C . I S S T R I C T L Y PROHIBITED. OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IS RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK / COPYRIGHT LAWS. CUSTOMER APPROVAL APPROVED BY: ________________________ DATE: ____ / ____ / ____ Job Name: (M/D/Y)-(initials): desc.Revisions 4 5of 1130 Rutherford, Suite 180 Austin, TX 78753 (512) 374-9300 TDLR #: 18010 MET #: E113766 56 Load: 72.8 % Modules: 56.0 Watts: 43.7 of 60.0 PS: Plastic Universal 60W Load: 72.8 % Modules: 56.0 Watts: 43.7 of 60.0 PS: Plastic Universal 60W A Page 27 of 54 © 2022 Comet Signs Proposal Drawing Final Drawing Client: Client Name Location: 823 S. Austin Ave Georgetown Texas Salesperson: Jamie Mitol Prj. Mngr.: Brian Leslie Date: 2/22/2022 Designer: Chris Brazell File Name: 22-0993 Cozy Cannabis-Wall Sign FINAL.cdr Proposal #: 65815 R4 Job #: 22-0993 T H I S D R AW I N G I S T H E E X C L U S I V E PROPERTY OF COMET SIGNS, LLC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM C O M E T S I G N S , L L C . I S S T R I C T L Y PROHIBITED. OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IS RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK / COPYRIGHT LAWS. CUSTOMER APPROVAL APPROVED BY: ________________________ DATE: ____ / ____ / ____ Job Name: (M/D/Y)-(initials): desc.Revisions 5 5of 1130 Rutherford, Suite 180 Austin, TX 78753 (512) 374-9300 TDLR #: 18010 MET #: E113766 5" 2" 5'-1 ⁄ " PRIMARY ELECT. OUT BACK IN SEAL-TITE CONDUIT 2" x 2" x ⁄ " ANGLE IRON BRACKET (SEE ENGINEERING) .090" THK. ALUM. BACK with .063" THK. ALUM. WELDED RETURNS NESTED INSIDE LOGO RETURNS. (PAINT BACK) ⁄ " x 1 ⁄ " x .125" ALUM. ANGLE STIFFENER IN LINE with BRACKETS. .125" THK. ALUM. FACE with .063" THK. ALUM. WELDED RETURN 2" x .063" THK. ALUM. GUSSETS AT PERIMETER PRINCIPAL QM2 WHITE LEDs BEHIND LOGO/COPY ⁄ " THK. CLEAR ACRYLIC with 2nd SURFACE VINYL AS NOTED SELF-CONTAINED POWER SUPPLY MOUNTED TO BACK OF CABINET. WEEP HOLES IN LOW POINTS OF LOGO with LIGHT SHIELDS (NOT SHOWN). SECTION (VERT.)3" = 1'-0"A Page 28 of 54 Page 29 of 54 Page 30 of 54 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:823 S Austin Ave 2016 Survey ID:125646 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R041447Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1925 Auto Garage 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: windows and door openings altered) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:651 ID:394 *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:125646 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.635867 Longitude -97.677843 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: East Page 31 of 54 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:823 S Austin Ave 2016 Survey ID:125646 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos NorthPhoto Direction Page 32 of 54 TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY 1. County Wi lliamson FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No (rev. 8-82) 94 WM City/Rural neorgernwn GE UTM Sector 626-3389 2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est 1925 Address 823 Austin 7 Architect/Builder Contractor 3. Owner E.E. Brogen 8 Style/Type Address 19n5 S. Main St., 7R676 9. Original Use rnmmerri al 4. Block/Lot OTS/Blk_ 51 Present Use commercial 10. DescriptiorOne-story commercial building of brick w/ stucco veneer; hip _roof w/ metal tiles; exposed rafter ends; wood sash display windows: double-door primary entrance Other noteworthy features include rnnf tiles i n tai Siq on style, hut metal : cervi re tati or 11. Present Condition aood 12. Significance Contributes to thc. historic character of the district 13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe) 14. Bibliography GHS files 15. Informant 16. Recorder RT/HliM Date DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA TN RIS No. Old THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides q RTHL Ej NABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs. NR: 0 Individual ®Historic District YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME 0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource 22 36 to NR File Name 25 24A to to Other See page 2 CONTINUATION PAGE No 2. of 2 TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82) WM GE 5. USGS Quad N0.3097-313 Site No 39L. Williamson City/Rural Georgetown 2. Name NR File Name: Williamson County Courthouse Historic District. 1. County Page 33 of 54 Sign at 823 S. Austin Ave 2022-40-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission August 11, 2022 Meredith Johnson, Johnson Planning Page 34 of 54 2 Item Under Consideration 2022-40-COA 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 823 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.826 acres, being part of Lot 8, Block 51, City of Georgetown. (2022-40-COA) –Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. -Long Range Page 35 of 54 3 Item Under Consideration HARC: ✓39’.5 internally illuminated,canopy mounted sign HPO: ✓New window signs (vinyl) x 2 Page 36 of 54 4 Page 37 of 54 5 Page 38 of 54 6 1885 Sanborn Page 39 of 54 7 1894 Sanborn Page 40 of 54 8 1905 Sanborn Page 41 of 54 9 1910 Sanborn Page 42 of 54 10 1916 Sanborn Page 43 of 54 11 1964 HRS Photo Page 44 of 54 12 1974 Aerial Photo Page 45 of 54 13 1984 HRS Photo Page 46 of 54 14 2016 HRS Photo(s) Page 47 of 54 15 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 48 of 54 16 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 49 of 54 17 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 50 of 54 20 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Partially Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District 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;Not Applicable 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not Applicable Page 51 of 54 21 Public Notification •Number 2 signs posted •To date, staff has received: •0 written comments IN FAVOR •0 written comments OPPOSED Page 52 of 54 22 Staff Recommendation Based on the findings listed above,staff recommends DENIAL of the request. Page 53 of 54 23 HARC Motion –2022-40-COA •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 54 of 54