HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.13.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
August 13, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
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 re gul ar me e ti ng will conve ne at 6:00pm on A ugust 13, 2020 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/2 Dr e A0 R
Webinar I D: 911-9725-5659
P assword: 607172
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r (toll fre e) 833-548-0282
P assword: 607172
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 69
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
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 July 23, 2020 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
D P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
an addition to a street facing façade;
a 5’-4” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 25’ s treet-facing garage setback to allow a
residential s tructure 19’-8” from the side s treet (south) property line;
Page 2 of 69
a 4’-6” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 10’ rear (wes t) s etbac k, to allow a res idential
struc ture 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
a 2’-9” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 6’ side (north) s etbac k for Lot 5 to allow a
residential s tructure 3’-3” from the lot line; and
an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west)
setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback
at the property loc ated at 1610 S . C hurc h S treet, bearing the legal des cription of Lot 5 and the s outh part
of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
E P resentation and dis cus s ion of potential items for C ommis s ion Training - Britin Bos tic k, Downtown and
Historic P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 69
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
D iscussion on how the Historic and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted, to
include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson, C N U-
A, P lanning Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 4 of 69
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the July 23, 2020 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 5 of 69
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: July 23, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
July 23, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/38c56ln
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on July 23, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/38c56ln
To participate by phone: Call in number: 833-548-0276 Webinar ID#: 960-6808-9299 Password:
176297
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Faustine Curry; Pam Mitchell; Terri
Asendorf-Hyde; ; Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn
Members absent: Art Browner
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia,
Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:02 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public
comments and how the public may address the Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director
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
Page 6 of 69
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: July 23, 2020
*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 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 qu estions 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.
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/.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 11, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Asendorf-
Hyde. Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for an addition to a street facing façade at the property located at 1404 Maple Street, bearing the
legal description of Lot 1, Resubdivision of Block 37 of the Snyder Addition. (2020-12-COA) --
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Alternate Commissioner McCabe was on the dais as Alternate Commissioner Mitchell was not present.
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant successfully applied for a permit and constructed a
swimming pool in 2019 and is now requesting HARC approval for the construction of a casita
or covered patio structure adjacent to and directly west of the swimming pool, to act as a shade
cover from the sun. Due to applicant having less than 40’ between the rear of the house and the
rear property line, as well as a shed structure located between the rear of the house and the rear
property line, the swimming pool was constructed to the south side of the house. The proposed
patio structure would be situated to the rear and left side of the house as viewed from Maple
Street, and primarily screened by an existing 6’ privacy fence. The proposed structure is to be
constructed of wood and metal with a shed roof that slopes downward to the rear property line
Page 7 of 69
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: July 23, 2020
and is approximately 9’ tall at the highest point or east edge of the shed roof, with an average
roof height of 8’-0”. Due to the location of the pool and the siting of the proposed patio
structure, the 10’ wide by 15’ long (150 sq. ft.) structure will encroach 5’-1” into the rear setback.
However, Section 6.05.010.D of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC)
provides an exception for accessory structures that are 8’-0” or less in height, reading:
“Accessory structures measuring eight feet or less in height are allowed in the setbacks in the
rear yard up to three feet from the property line, but may not extend into any P.U.E.” A P.U.E.
is a Public Utility Easement, and the property owner is moving forward with a request to
abandon the P.U.E. on their property. As this structure is proposed to be 8’-0” in height
according to the definition of Building Height in the UDC, it does not require a setback
modification. There are no structures on the property directly west or to the rear of the subject
property, which is owned by the City of Georgetown and which lies along the east side of the
rail track. The proposed patio structure would not further encroach into the rear setback than
the existing structures at the rear of the property.
Motion to approve Item D (2020-12-COA) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (7-0).
Alternate Commissioner McCabe was taken off the dais as Alternate Commissioner Mitchell was present
for the meeting.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the demolition of a low priority structure at the property located 701 S. College Street,
bearing the legal description of Block C of Clamp's Revised Addition. (2020-19-COA) – Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. This property is located in the Old Town Overlay District, at
the southeast corner of E. 7th and S. College Streets, on Block C of Clamp’s Revised Addition to
the City of Georgetown. This property does not have any state or federal historic designations
and is not included in any National Register Historic Districts. The main structure at 701 S.
College Street was first listed on the 1984 Historic Resource Survey (HRS) as a High Priority
structure with an estimated construction date of 1885 and was listed on the 2007 HRS as a Low
Priority structure, and again on the 2016 HRS as a Low Priority structure. The 1984 HRS entry
describes a one-story frame dwelling with weatherboard siding, a stone chimney that had been
stuccoed and rear additions. The condition was noted to be good, but with a work in progress
remodel affecting the historic integrity. The 1984 entry further estimated the structure to be
among the oldest residences in the city with much of its historic fabric being covered, removed,
or compromised with the recent alterations. The 2007 HRS does not provide additional
information or photos that are helpful to understanding the evolution of the structure. The 2016
HRS entry describes no stylistic influence with a Center Passage Plan, and notes that the
property lacks integrity and has had siding, windows, door, and porch posts replaced with a
rear addition to the structure. Staff recommend approval with conditions: that the applicant
provide an archive document to staff prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness,
to include at a minimum a floor plan, site plan, deed history, narrative of notable persons,
photos of the existing structure, and that the record be provided to the City of Georgetown in
one digital format copy as well as two bound hard copies for the City’s records, and that the
Page 8 of 69
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: July 23, 2020
historic stone and wood materials be salvaged to the extent feasible. Additionally, that photos
of the demolition and/or salvaged materials, construction methods and details and a narrative
of any findings discovered during the demolition and/or salvage process be provided to staff
within 90 days of the conclusion of the demolition process as an addendum to the archive
document.
Char Parr opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item E (2020-19-COA) with conditions as presented by Commissioner
Morales. Second by Commissioner Curry. Approved (7-0).
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for an addition to a street facing façade at the property located at 206 S. Main Street, bearing the
legal description of Lot 3 and the south portion of Lot 2 of Block 10 of the City of Georgetown.
(2020-27-COA) -- Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of a
carport and garage to the existing medium priority historic structure. The carport and garage
would be connected to the rear of the main structure via a breezeway and would provide
vehicle cover and hobby space for the property owner. The addition is proposed to replace the
existing carport and to be constructed of a metal frame structure with board and batten siding
and standing seam metal gable roof to be consistent with the existing main structure. The
proposed project would replace the existing non-historic 676 sq. ft. carport with a 480 sq. ft.
carport and 980 sq. ft. garage with 62 sq. ft. bathroom, connected to the 1,552 sq. ft. main
structure by a 128.5 sq. ft. breezeway. The total proposed addition is 1,650.5 sq. ft., or just over
double the existing main structure. A new shed is also included in the project but does not
require a COA as it is not part of the street-facing façade. The carport is proposed to have
columns similar to the front porch, and the carport and garage are both proposed to have board
and batten siding similar to the original siding of the house, which has been covered with
asbestos siding, as noted on the 1984 HRS. The carport and garage are proposed to have gable
roofs with standing seam metal roofing, which will be differentiated from the hip roof of the
main structure. Other features of the proposed addition include a flat roof for the breezeway,
eave overhangs for the carport and no eave overhangs for the garage. The proposed addition is
within the impervious cover and floor area ratio limits, is located within required setbacks and
does not exceed the building height limit at the setbacks.
Chair Parr opened and closed the public hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-27-COA) by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell. Second by
Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
G. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in modifications to the
building facade at the property located 410 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description
of Block 2 of the Hughes Addition. (2020-30-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic
Planner
Page 9 of 69
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: July 23, 2020
Staff report presented by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the
installation of an Outdoor Air (OA) louver for a proposed new Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) system to be installed for the main church building and sanctuary. The
louver is proposed to be installed in the west façade of the historic portion of the building,
above the roof of the c. 1930 addition and on the west side of the sanctuary building. The
proposed upgrade to the building’s HVAC system requires a larger volume of outside air
supplied to the attic space of the church’s sanctuary building than is presently available, and the
applicant is therefore requesting HARC approval to remove a section of the stone on the west
façade above the roof of the c. 1930 addition so that a painted aluminum louver can be installed
that would permit increased air flow into the attic space to supply the new system. Locating the
louver on the west façade provides the least visual impact to the structure as well as places the
louver on the side of the structure in which other mechanical units and equipment are already
installed. Although an alteration to the street-facing façade, the louver is anticipated to only be
visible from the second block to the west along University Ave due to the addition. The stone is
proposed to be removed in sections and supported by a steel angle above the opening, and the
louver installed in the opening with flashing around the louver unit so that it will be water tight
and so that any water that does infiltrate the stone wall can “weep” out or move back to th e
exterior of the wall, rather than stay in the stone or in the interior of the space. The aluminum
louver is proposed to be painted “Ivory” to match the stone and be as inobtrusive as possible.
Included in this project is the installation of new rooftop condenser units with screening, which
is reviewed by the HPO.
Chair Parr opened the public hearing.
Debbie Bray commented that due to size and historical nature of interior of church, this seems
like the least obtrusive way to accomplish what is needed to provide comfortable conditions
inside the building.
Alfred Brice, the Project Architect, concurred with the information provided by staff.
Chair Parr closed the public hearing.
Motion to approve Item G (2020-30-COA) as presented by Commissioner Johnston. Second
by Commissioner Nunn. Approved (7-0).
H. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Alternate Commissioner Mitchell.
Meeting adjourned at 7:52pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 10 of 69
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
an addition to a s treet fac ing faç ade;
a 5’-4” setback encroac hment into the required 25’ street-fac ing garage s etbac k to allow a residential
s tructure 19’-8” from the side s treet (south) property line;
a 4’-6” setback encroac hment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
s tructure 5’-6” from the rear (wes t) property line;
a 2’-9” setback encroac hment into the required 6’ s ide (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential
s tructure 3’-3” from the lot line; and
an 8’-0” building height modific ation to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (wes t)
s etbac k, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (wes t) s etbac k
at the property located at 1610 S . C hurch S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of Lot 5 and the south part
of Lot 4 of Bloc k 4 of the Logan Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val fo r the additio n o f a c arp o rt and rear sto rage with sec ond
floor living area to the exis ting medium priority his toric main s tructure, to be connec ted by a long
breezeway. T he proposed additio n is to replac e the exis ting no n-his toric 361 s q . ft. c arport and 237.5 s q.
ft. sto rage with a new struc ture that includ es a 576 sq. ft. carport with 384 s q . ft. of s torage at the rear, and
a s econd floor 720 s q. ft. game room ab o ve the rear sto rage area that o verlaps the c arport portio n o f the
firs t floor b y 6’. T he proposed lo catio n on the s ite and height at the rear s etbac k req uire s etbac k and
building height modific ations .
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
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
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 11 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 1 of 11
Meeting Date: August 13, 2020
File Number: 2020-34-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
• an addition to a street facing façade;
• a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
• a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
• a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a
residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line; and
• an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear
(west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback
at the property located at 1610 S. Church Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 5 and the south
part of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1610 S. Church Street Garage
Applicant: John Lawton (Green Earth Builders)
Property Owner: Laura Cook, Trustee of SGM Trust & Steven G. Mayer, Trustee of LAC Trust
Property Address: 1610 S. Church Street
Legal Description: Lot 5 and the south part of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1920 (2016 HRS, 1984 HRS provides a date of 1913)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a medium priority
structure;
• a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
Page 12 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 2 of 11
• a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
• a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a
residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line; and
• an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear
(west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback.
In addition to the request items listed above, the proposed project would also require an 8’-0” building
height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (north) setback, to allow a
building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) setback. This additional building height modification was
not included in the public notice, and is therefore not part of the public hearing or discussion for the
regular HARC meeting for August 13, but will be noticed and placed on the agenda for the regular
HARC meeting on August 27.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Proposed Project
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of a carport and rear storage with second
floor living area to the existing medium priority historic main structure, to be connected by a breezeway.
The proposed addition is to replace the existing non-historic 361 sq. ft. carport and 237.5 sq. ft. storage
with a new structure that includes a 576 sq. ft. carport with 384 sq. ft. of storage at the rear, and a second
floor 720 sq. ft. game room above the rear storage area that overlaps the carport portion of the first floor
by 6’. The proposed location on the site and height at the rear (west) setback require setback and building
height modifications.
Historic Information
The house at 1610 S. Church Street is known as the John & Susie Sherman House, and their son, Elmo,
provided information during the 1984 Historic Resource Survey that he was born in the house in 1913
and that the family moved away from Georgetown in 1920. He further stated that the house cost $1,300
to build and that there was a sleeping porch at the back. In the 1984 HRS the house is noted to be
constructed in 1913; however, the 2016 HRS provides a construction date of 1920.
According to public records, J. C. Sherman, Jr. purchased lots 3-5 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition on
July 27th, 1912 from a group of people including A. H. Glasscock. Albert Horton Glasscock was the son
of Georgetown founder George Washington Glasscock. Sherman paid $225 for the three lots, then he and
his wife Susie sold Lot 3 and the north half of Lot 4 to C. S. Griffith, owner of the Griffith Lumber
Company on February 11, 1913 for $250. A Mechanic’s Lien release dated November 18, 1914 shows that
the Griffith Lumber Company did construct the house in 1913, and the promissory notes (loan) dated
February 11, 1913 were for a total of $1,350. The Shermans sold their house to B. Mayfield on May 19th,
1920 for $3,750 and the payment of the property taxes.
The house appears on the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map with a small accessory structure
that was likely the garage or shed that can be seen in the 2017 HRS photos. The drawing of the house
Page 13 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 3 of 11
indicates front and rear porches. The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos shows the hip roof style with interior
chimneys, as well as the accessory structure, and 1981 photos taken by the Texas Historical Commission
show what appears to be the original design of the house, with large windows, beveled horizontal siding
and wood shingle siding around the front porch. The second-floor addition and dormers were added
between 1984 and 2007, although the exact date is not currently known. Presently, the house retains many
of the original features, and despite some alterations to the appearance, is of a style and character that
contribute to the character of the Old Town Overlay District.
Project Analysis
The addition is proposed to be in the same location as the original and current garage/shed/carport,
which requires setback modifications for the street facing garage, side street and rear setbacks due to the
current setback requirements for the Residential Single-Family zoning district. The third setback
modification required for the proposed project, the 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side
(north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line, is due to the location of a
lot line within the property boundary. When the Shermans had the house built, they owned Lot 5 and
part of Lot 4 of the Logan Addition, which gave them a larger yard or property than they would have
with just a single lot. At the time buildings were constructed across lot lines, and there were no setbacks
since zoning had not been established as a city power. Today, the City of Georgetown Unified
Development Code applies setbacks to lot lines, even when those lot lines are within current property
ownership boundaries, which is why this setback modification is part of the project request. This interior
setback modification also reduces the setback modification needed for the street-facing carport.
The Unified Development Code also requires a building height of 15’ at the required setbacks within the
Old Town Overlay District, and the proposed height of the second floor of the addition – which is
measured as the average of the ridge and eave height – at the rear property line setback is 23’ and requires
an 8’ building height modification.
The Unified Development Code limits the size of accessory structures, or structures detached and
separate from the main structure, to 25% of the square footage of the main structure, although garages
may be up to 600 square feet. The applicant is proposing to connect the addition to the main house via a
breezeway so that it is not an accessory structure and the additional square footage for the storage and
living areas is allowed. In this case the distance between the deck at the rear of the house and the carport
is 36’, which creates a long breezeway to connect the side door of the house with the carport. According
to the applicant, the location of the new addition at that distance from the house or main structure and
the breezeway is proposed to accommodate two existing site conditions. The first condition is to use the
existing driveway curb cut and maintain the carport footprint as it currently exists. The second is to not
encroach too closely to three existing trees, two large trees outside the property’s fence and in the City’s
right-of-way along E. 17th Street, and one smaller tree within the property. Although the large trees in
the right-of-way might be spaced far enough apart that a driveway could be constructed between the
trees without harming the root systems, there is also a manhole cover in the right-of-way between the
trees that prevents that from being a feasible driveway location to provide access to a carport situated
closer to the main structure. It is staff’s evaluation that the addition could be placed close enough to the
Page 14 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 4 of 11
west right-of-way tree that the project would not require the encroachment into the rear (west) 10’
setback, however the driveway may need to be configured at an angle toward the carport if pavement
cannot be installed for the driveway surface closer to the tree’s root system. If the rear setback
modification were not required because the addition was placed closer to the main structure, the
proposed height of the structure at the rear 10’ setback would still require approval of a building height
modification.
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
14.10 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
Proposed siding material is a fiber composite
board and batten siding, which has a similar
appearance to traditional siding materials.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier pe-
riod than that of the building are inappropri-
ate.
Complies
Proposed addition does not alter or remove
historic features and is proposed to have
minimal impact on the historic structure.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The addition is proposed to be to the rear of
the main building with compatible
materials and a simpler architectural style.
It is proposed to be two stories like the main
structure but separated from it by a
breezeway connection. The main house is
approximately 2,953 sq. ft. including the
covered front porch and the proposed
addition is 1,680 sq. ft. with a 342 sq. ft.
breezeway, or 68% of the size of the existing
house.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
Complies
Page 15 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 5 of 11
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to the
building.
An addition should be distinguishable from
the original building, even in subtle ways,
such that the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the
original and new structures may help to define
an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the con-
nection point between the addition and the
original structure can help define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the
National Park Service.
Proposed addition does not diminish or
obscure the character of the historic
structure and is proposed to have a
separation that is distinguishable as a later
addition.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back to the rear of
the historic structure, which will remain
prominent from the main street view, and
the addition is separated from the main
structure from the side street view.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove
original architectural details and materials of the
primary structure.
When preserving original details and materi-
als, follow the guidelines presented in this
document.
Complies
The addition is proposed to have minimal
impact on the historic structure.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
Partially Complies
Proposed addition is compatible with the
main building, simple in design and sets the
second floor back from the front of the
carport to reduce the height along the street
façade of the structure. Additionally, is it
connected to the main structure via a
linking structure. However, the link is via
an approximately 36’ long breezeway
between the main house and the
Page 16 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 6 of 11
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
carport/storage/living structure, and the
length of the breezeway creates an addition
that is not as compatible with the character
of the main building as a shorter connection
would be.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are ap-
propriate for residential additions. Flat roofs
may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetri-
cally proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Complies
The roof style of the addition is proposed to
be a gable roof with two separate portions,
one over the carport and one over the
second floor living space. The main house
originally had a hip roof, but the later
additions created gabled dormers when the
second floor was added. The proposed roof
of the addition as well as the breezeway are
traditional roof styles with slopes that are
compatible with the historic main structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed project requires three setback
modifications and two building height
modifications.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
Page 17 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 7 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The proposed addition does create a change
to the property, and the breezeway
connection of approximately 36’ is a long
connection, although a preferred method of
connecting an addition as it requires
minimal alterations to the historic main
structure. The proposed carport/storage/
living area addition is compatible with and
differentiated from the historic structure.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed addition has minimal impact
to the integrity of the historic main
structure as the breezeway connection to
the main structure is proposed to be located
at a rear side door. The main part of the
addition is also proposed to be in a location
in which there has been a shed or garage
structure since at least 1925. However, the
length of the proposed breezeway is not
consistent with the historic character of the
site.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed addition is compatible with
surrounding properties. Although the
surrounding properties are primarily a
single story in height, the proposed
addition sets the second-floor portion back
from the street façade of the carport to
minimize the impact of the second floor
from the street view.
Page 18 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 8 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Partially Complies
The proposed addition does not diminish
the character of the Old Town Overlay
District, with the exception of the long
breezeway connection, which is longer than
other connections that have been
constructed to facilitate residential
additions.
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 setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is
solely a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
Three setback modifications are proposed
as part of this project. The setback for the
interior lot line is due to the lot lines for the
property and complies with this criterion.
The setback encroachment for the south
property line along E. 17th Street is to place
the proposed structure in a location on the
site that does not cross the interior lot line
and complies with this criterion. The
setback encroachment into the rear (west)
setback is a matter of convenience and
based on the location of the driveway curb
cut and existing carport.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow
the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The proposed addition would not have
room on the site without the 25’ garage
setback and 6’ side setback encroachments
(south property line and interior lot line),
but there is adequate room on the site
without the 10’ rear (west) setback
encroachment.
Page 19 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 9 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
consistent and compatible with
surrounding properties within the same
block.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure
will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;
Complies
The proposed carport portion of the
addition would be set closer to the street
than the carport on the adjacent property to
the west, however it would be the same
distance to the street as the existing carport.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
The proposed structure would be replacing
the existing non-historic structure.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively
the same footprint and encroachment as
proposed;
Not Applicable
The proposed structure would be replacing
the existing structure, which has a smaller
footprint but similar encroachment as the
proposed structure.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that
is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the
original;
Partially Complies
The proposed encroachments are for a
structure that is proposed to have a 576 sq.
ft. carport and 384 sq. ft. storage area on the
ground level and a 720 sq. ft. living area
above, for a total of 1,680 sq. ft. The existing
carport is 361 sq. ft. and the storage area is
237.5 sq. ft. for a total of 598.5 sq. ft. The
proposed structure is nearly three times
larger than the existing structure, however
the encroachment into the south and west
setbacks is the same as the existing
encroachment.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Partially Complies
The main house is approximately 2,953 sq.
ft. including the covered front porch and
the proposed addition is 1,680 sq. ft. with a
342 sq. ft. breezeway, or 68% of the size of
the existing house. While large in
comparison to the existing house, the
addition is also separated by the proposed
breezeway.
Page 20 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 10 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to
similar structures within the same block;
Does Not Comply
The proposed addition is two stories in
height, and the surrounding properties in
the same block have single story structures,
except for the adjacent property to the west,
which has a two-story portion. With the
proposed addition, this structure would be
larger than most surrounding structures,
and include a longer breezeway connection
than has been constructed on other
properties.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed addition is not anticipated to
negatively impact adjoining properties,
including the ability to maintain existing
buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of
the proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments leave
adequate space for maintenance.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing
large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Partially Complies
The rear setback encroachment is the only
proposed encroachment to which this
criteria would apply, and while the
encroachment does not enable the
preservation of a large tree on the property,
it does prevent driveway encroachment into
the critical root zone of a large pecan tree
within the city’s right-of-way.
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
The proposed height of the addition does
not block views to and from the Courthouse.
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 not located within the
Downtown Overlay District or Town Square
District.
Page 21 of 69
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 11 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the
existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and
Partially Complies
The main structure on the subject property
is two stories in height and the proposed
addition is also two stories in height,
however the structures in the immediate
vicinity are one story in height.
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 not located within the
Downtown Overlay District or Town Square
District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic
buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
Proposed project is not located within the
Downtown Overlay District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the addition, 5’-4”
setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a residential structure
19’-8” from the side street (south) property line, 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side
(north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line, and 8’-0” building height
modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a
building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback; and DENIAL of the request for a 4’-6” setback
encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential structure 5’-6” from the
rear (west) property line. Requiring the addition to be constructed without the rear setback
encroachment would move the addition 4’-6” closer to the main structure, reducing the length of the
breezeway and still sufficiently distanced from the large tree in the City’s right-of-way. It would also
reduce the needed building height modification from 8’-0” to 5’-0” at the rear setback.
As of the date of this report, staff has received one (1) written comment in favor of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
Exhibit 5 – Public Comment
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 22 of 69
Location
2020-34-COA
Exhibit #1
W 17TH ST
E 15TH ST
KN
I
G
H
T
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
ASH
S
T
ELM
S
T
SMYRTLE
ST
E 17TH ST
E 17TH 1/2 ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E 17TH 1/
2
S
T
CYRUS AV
E
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
E 16TH ST
EU
B
A
N
K
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
CYRUS AV
E
W 16TH ST
GEO
R
G
E
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 23 of 69
Green Earth Builders, LLC
2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626
Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100
Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: Jennifererin.jl@gmail.com
Letter of Intent
1610 S Church Street
1610 S Church St is a corner lot with E 17th St. Existing now is a gravel
driveway with a gravel carport and a storage room behind. Owners would like to
improve this area.
Owners would like to have a concrete drive and carport to accommodate
two vehicles. Enlarge the storage room in the back and add a game room
above.
The original structure for carport is 19’X19’ with gravel base and the
storage room at 12’6”X19’ in the back of the structure.
New dimensions for structure will be 24’X24’ for carport and 24’X16’ for
storage room. Second floor game room will be 24’X30’.
With this added space there also will be a breezeway crossing the back
yard covering approximately 36’X6’ attaching the carport to the structure of the
house. The walkway will be made of stepping stone. The cover will match the
existing house.
Page 24 of 69
Page 25 of 69
Site Plan
Page 26 of 69
South (17th Street) Elevation
Page 27 of 69
East Elevation (Facing House)
Page 28 of 69
1. County
City/Rural Georgetown
2. Name John & Susie Sherman HQII_Se
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No 519 Williamson
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Wi 11 I am7on wM 5. USGS Quad No. i097-313 Site No 519
City/Rural Georgetown GE UTM Sector 6`)7-3389
2. Name John Snsi e Sherman .R House 6 Date: Factual 1913 Est
Address 161n Church 7 Architect/Builder
ContractorGri ffi th Ltimher Co
3. Owner Young Est r/n Ernest C Younc, 8 Style/Type
Address Pt_ 2, Inks Dam, Burn-et , TX -Z.S6J19. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot T oan/R1 it G./Int 5, p 4 Present Use resi denti al
10. Description One—story wood frame dwelling; exterior walls w/ beveled wood siding; hip roof w/
bell—cast hip roof wJ composition shingles: front elev. faces E.: two interior brick
c hi mnpyQ cnrhpi pd rap wood sash rinuhl e—hung wi ndows w/ 1 /1 lights & crown mol di ng,s;
single doer ee-t r w1 sidelights• three—bay porch within F cl aw ; nor; r col limns Other
11. Present Condition end
12. Significance Primary a rea of si gni fi ranra • architecture_ A gond example of an early twentieth
century dwelling.
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe)
14. Bibliography Tax rol 1 s, Mechani r s T.i ens, 15. Informant
GNS filp, canhnrn Maps 16. Recorder A .. Tayl or /T-THM Date y 1954
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TN RIS No THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME N R: q Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic q Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
41
G.Q 4c) 5
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
No
#10. Description (cont'd): noteworthy features include symmetrical three-bay facade; wood
shingle foundation skirt which tapers upward. Outbuildings include wood frame
double garage.
Page 29 of 69
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:1610 Church St 2016 Survey ID:123891
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R043045Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1920
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: shingles non-original (see '84 photos); dormer non-original)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:780
ID:519
*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:123891 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.629391 Longitude -97.675149
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: West
Page 30 of 69
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:1610 Church St 2016 Survey ID:123891
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Shed
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Page 31 of 69
1610 S. Church Street Garage
2020-34-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
August 13, 2020
1Page 32 of 69
Item Under Consideration
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Garage
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
•an addition to a street facing façade;
•a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
•a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
•a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line; and
•an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback
at the property located at 1610 S. Church Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 5 and the south part of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition.
2Page 33 of 69
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a medium
priority structure;
•a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to
allow a residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
•a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a
residential structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
•a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow
a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line; and
•an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at
the rear (west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback
3Page 34 of 69
Item Under Consideration
4Page 35 of 69
5Page 36 of 69
Current Context
6Page 37 of 69
1925 Sanborn Map
7Page 38 of 69
1964 Aerial Photo
8Page 39 of 69
1974 Aerial Photo
9Page 40 of 69
1981 Texas Historical Commission Photo
10Page 41 of 69
1981 Texas Historical Commission Photo
11
Page 42 of 69
Current Photo
12
Page 43 of 69
Current Photo
13
Page 44 of 69
Current Photo
14
Page 45 of 69
Current Photos
15
Page 46 of 69
Current Photo
16
Page 47 of 69
Current Photo
17Page 48 of 69
Site Survey
18Page 49 of 69
Proposed Addition -Plan
19Page 50 of 69
Proposed Addition –South & East Elevations
20Page 51 of 69
Current Context
21Page 52 of 69
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 22Page 53 of 69
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
23Page 54 of 69
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;
Partially
Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Partially
Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Does Not
Comply
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Partially
Complies 24Page 55 of 69
Building Height Modification Approval Criteria
–UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and N/A
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Partially Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.N/A
25Page 56 of 69
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Forty (40) letters mailed
•One (1) comment in favor
26Page 57 of 69
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the addition, 5’-4”
setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage
setback to allow a residential structure 19’-8” from the side street
(south) property line, 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’
side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from
the lot line, and 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’
maximum building height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a building
height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback; and DENIAL of the request
for a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west)
setback, to allow a residential structure 5’-6” from the rear (west)
property line.
27Page 58 of 69
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
28Page 59 of 69
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 13, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of potential items for C ommission Training - Britin Bostick, Downtown and
His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Bac kground:
S taff will provide a short pres entation with a lis t of topics for the C ommis s ioner to dis cus s and provide
feedback to staff. P os s ible training topic s for dis cus s ion by the C ommission include but are not limited to:
National R egis ter Dis tric ts/Individual Listing & R ec orded Texas His toric Landmarks (RT HLs )
S ecretary of the Interior's S tandards
His toric Materials - R epair vs. R eplac e
Des ign G uidelines (update)
Demolitions & Infill
New Des ign G uidelines
New C ommis s ioner O rientation
C ommercial S ignage
His toric Information R es ourc es
Are there topic s the C ommis s ion would like to add or modify?
Are there topic s staff needs to prioritize?
In addition to training opportunities, staff is als o seeking feedbac k from the C ommis s ion on the materials
used by the C ommission in their deliberation (staff reports , exhibits and pres entations ).
F or staff reports and exhibits , s taff is seeking feedbac k:
W hat application materials bes t help you to make dec is ions?
W hat application materials are most helpful to unders tand the request?
W hat application materials need improvement?
W hat changes c an we make to the applic ation materials ?
F or the C ommis s ion’s deliberation proc es s :
W hat are the key parts of your dec is ion making?
W here is more work or understanding needed?
W hat options /c hanges/tweeks s hould we c onsider?
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
Page 60 of 69
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 61 of 69
HARC Annual Work Plan
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
August 13, 2020
1Page 62 of 69
Training topics for discussion
•National Register Districts/Individual Listing & Recorded
Texas Historic Landmarks
•Secretary of the Interior's Standards
•Historic Materials -Repair vs. Replace
•Design Guidelines (update)
•Demolitions & Infill
•New Design Guidelines
•New Commissioner Orientation
•Commercial Signage
•Historic Information Resources
2Page 63 of 69
Feedback we are seeking:
❑Are there topics the Commission would like to add or modify?
❑Are there topics we need to prioritize?
3Page 64 of 69
Staff reports, exhibitsStaff presentations
Tools
4Page 65 of 69
Feedback we are seeking:
❑What application materials best help you to make decisions?
❑What application materials are most helpful to understand the
request?
❑What application materials need improvement?
❑What changes can we make to the application materials?
5Page 66 of 69
Processes
6
Chair and/or commission can ask questions, clarifications of Staff, Applicant and/or Representative
Motion and 2nd
Public Hearing
The Commission asks questions of both Staff and applicant/representative
Chair invites Applicant and/or Representative to address the Commission
Staff makes presentation to Commission
Page 67 of 69
Feedback we are seeking:
❑What are the key parts of your decision making?
❑Where is more work or understanding needed?
❑What options/changes/tweaks should we consider?
7Page 68 of 69
Next Steps
•Review feedback, prioritize work focusing on immediate
improvements
•Return to HARC with list of improvements in September
8Page 69 of 69