HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.28.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
May 28, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egul ar mee ting will conve ne at 6:00pm on M ay 28, 2020 via
te le confe r e nce . To par tic ipate , pl e ase c opy and paste the webli nk into your
browse r : https://bit.l y/2 RbS q U x
If you'r e atte nding the live eve nt on the we b, use a me dia-sour ce exte nsion
(M S E ) - e nable d web br owser l ike C hrome, F ire fox, or E dge . S afar i is not
c ur re ntly suppor ted.
To partic ipate by phone :
C all in number : 512-672-8405
C onfe re nc e I D : 305 091 196#
P ublic c omment wi ll be allowe d vi a the above c onfer e nc e c all number or the
“ask a que stion” func tion on the vi de o confe re nc e opti on; no in-pe rson input
will be all owe d.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c o nvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purp o s e
authorized b y the O pen Meetings Ac t, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.)
A (Instructi ons for joini ng m eeting attached)
D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
B T he Histo ric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission, appointed by the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final actio n o n applic ations , b y is s uing C ertificates o f Ap p ro p riatenes s
based upo n the C ity C o uncil ad o p ted Downto wn Design G uid elines and Unified Develo p ment C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P ro cedures :
· S taff P res entation
· Applic ant P resentatio n (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the C o mmis s io n.)
· Q ues tions from C o mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
· C o mments from C itizens *
· Applic ant R espons e
· C o mmis s io n Delib erative P roc es s
· C o mmis s io n Ac tion
Page 1 of 85
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed ques tions from the C o mmis s io ners, the C hair of the
C ommissio n will open the pub lic hearing. If a member of the pub lic would like to provid e c o mments o n
the agenda item under disc ussion, the c hair will as k if anyo ne wo uld like to s peak. To s p eak, unmute
yo urself b y p res s ing *6 on yo ur pho ne and s tate your name and addres s . O nce the C hair has the names
of everyo ne who wo uld like to speak, the C hair will c all the names in order, and when your name is c alled
yo u will have up to 3 minutes . A s p eaker may allo t their time to another s p eaker for a maximum o f 6
minutes . I f a memb er of the pub lic wished to allo t their time to ano ther s p eaker, they may d o so when their
name is called b y the C hair. P lease rememb er that all c o mments and q ues tio ns mus t be addressed to the
C ommissio n, and please b e patient while we organize the speakers during the pub lic hearing p o rtion.
• T he pub lic als o has the opportunity to provid e comments thro ugh the Q &A s ection o f the Live
Meeting, loc ated o n the right-hand side o f yo ur c o mp uter s creen. P lease provid e your full name and
address for the rec o rd , and your c o mment will b e read b y S taff.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s p eak has s poken, the C hair will close the pub lic hearing and provid e a
few minutes o f rebuttal time to the ap p lic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the May 14, 2020 regular meeting of the
Histo ric and Architec tural R eview C o mmis s ion. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
D P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 4’-10”
setb ack enc ro ac hment into the required 6’ s id e (no rth) setb ack to allow a res idential ad d ition 1’-2” fro m
the s id e (north) p ro p erty line; a 4'-4" s etb ac k encroac hment into the required 15' s id e street (s o uth)
setb ack to allo w a residential ad d ition 10'-8" fro m the s id e street (s o uth) property line; and a new fence,
railing o r wall that is incons is tent with the o verlay district's c harac teristic s and applic ab le guidelines at the
property loc ated at 1307 Myrtle S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n 0.13 ac res o ut of p art o f Blo ck B o f
the Hughes S ec o nd Additio n. – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new
fence, railing or wall that is incons is tent with the o verlay district's c harac teris tic s and applic ab le guidelines
at the p roperty lo cated at 1407 Elm S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n of 0.262 acres o ut of the
southwest p art o f Blo ck 7 of the Hughes Additio n. – Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner ques tions , and c o mments . - S ofia Nels o n, P lanning Direc tor
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 85
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 28, 2020
S UB J E C T:
(Instructions for joi ning meeti ng attached)
D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
IT E M S UMMARY:
Attached is a s et o f meeting ins tructio ns and proc ed ures to as s is t in jo ining and participating in the meeting.
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
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ins tructions on How to Participate Cover Memo
Page 3 of 85
Participating in a Public Meeting
Commissioners and Public
4.2.2020 Draft (we will continuing update to improve- if you have suggestions for improvement after use
please email sofia.nelson@georgetown.org so the sheet can be updated)
Each agenda will have the following link to access the meeting. Agenda links can be found at
www.agendas.georgetown.org :
• WEBSITE
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated link will be posted with each agenda
• CALL IN NUMBER
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated phone number and conference id will be
posted with each agenda
EXAMPLE:
FAQs for Participating in a Meeting.
• If I log into the meeting on my computer can you see me? NO. Logging into the meeting via the
computer is the equivalent of watching the meeting on your TV. We cannot see you and we
cannot hear you. If you want to participate in public comment or as a commissioner in voting
and discussion you need to follow both the phone and /or web instructions below.
• If I do not have a computer to log into the meeting can I still participate via phone? YES. Please
use the dial in number and listen along to the meeting and speak as directed by the Chair of the
commission.
• If I would like to sign up to speak during public comment- how do I do that on this platform?
Please join the meeting (via below instructions15 minutes in advance of the start of the meeting
and announce your name and the agenda item you would like to speak on. The chair will
announce the public hearing for that item at the appropriate time. You will need to share your
name and address and the time limits associated with a physical meeting still apply.
see instructions below
Commission name
Date and Time of Meeting
Website to
access
meeting
Call In # &
Conference
ID #
Please MUTE when
NOT speaking!
Page 4 of 85
Steps for joining the meeting
• Step 1- Join by copying and pasting the weblink into your browser.
If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-enabled web
browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• Step 2: The below screen will come up:
Click watch on the web instead (circled in red below)
• Step 3: You will enter the meeting and see this screen. Wait here until the event starts. If you
intend on participating in the meeting (public comment/ commissioner deliberations), please
take this time to also call in via the dial in number above.
Turn down your volume on your computer and listen via phone. There will be a 20-40 second lag-
we are working on it.
Page 5 of 85
• Step 4: Prepping for the Meeting - mute your mic until you need to speak. To unmute yourself
when you are on the phone, press the unmute button on your screen & PRESS *6 in your
key pad.
To mute your device-
To unmute- press the screen unmute button AND then *6 ( WE WILL NOT HEAR
YOU IF YOU DO NOT PRESS *6) you should keep your keypad on your phone
up/open and be ready to respond on the phone. Then mute when you are done talking, to
avoid external noises coming into the meeting
• Step 5 Meeting Starts. Orientation to meeting screen
This is the meeting screen.
Meeting title
Ask a question Function--IF you attend late please announce yourself
using this function.
If you would like to submit written comments during public hearing for
the commission please alert the recording secretary using this box
Q&A selection
button
Page 6 of 85
Quick Tips
You do NOT need to download Microsoft Teams-
• If you are watching the meeting in the web browser on your computer, any click on your
screen may make the meeting pause momentarily. The video will then be a few seconds
behind. If this happens, click “LIVE” at the bottom right of the screen to jump to the live
recording.
• If you already have TEAMS, please sign out completely from the Microsoft suite &join
anonymously on the web.
• If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-
enabled web browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• If participating by web browser and phone, be sure to turn down the volume of your
computer to avoid an echo.
Page 7 of 85
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 28, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the May 14, 2020 regular meeting o f the
His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommiss io n. - 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 Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 8 of 85
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 5
Meeting: May 14, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 14, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/39DVbV2
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on May 14, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/39DVbV2
To participate by phone: Call in number: +1 512-672-8405 Conference ID#: 141493630#.
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; Art Browner; Faustine Curry; Pam
Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Karalei Nunn; Robert McCabe
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Britin Bostick, Historic Planner
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:03 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
*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
Page 9 of 85
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 5
Meeting: May 14, 2020
speak, unmute yourself by pressing *6 on your phone and state your name and address. Once the
Chair has the names of everyone who would like to speak, the Chair will call the names in order, and
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 questions must be addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the
speakers during the public hearing portion.
• The public also has the opportunity to provide comments through the Q&A section of the Live
Meeting, located on the right-hand side of your computer screen. Please provide your full name and
address for the record, and your comment will be read by Staff.
•After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and
provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 23, 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 Nunn.
Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for a 0.3' setback encroachment into the required 6' side (east) setback to allow a
residential structure 5.9' from the side (east) property line; and a 1'-0" setback encroachment into
the required 6' side (west) setback to allow the construction of a detached carport 5'-0" from the
side (west) property line at the property located at 303 E. 19th Street, bearing the legal
description of Lot 1, Block 2 of the Peterson Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic
Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The subject property is located along the southern border of
the Old Town Overlay District, on the north side of E. 19th Street. It is listed as a low priority
structure on the Historic Resource Survey, which notes that the property lacks significance. The
structure is estimated to have been constructed in 1960 and is a rectangular residential structure
with a simple gable roof, asbestos siding, vinyl windows and asphalt shingle roof. The applicant
is requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the rear of the main
structure, alterations to the exterior, and the addition of a detached carport. The existing
residential structure encroaches 0.3’ into the required 6’ side (east) setback, and as the proposed
10’ wide rear addition continues the line of the building that encroaches into the side setback,
the applicant is requesting a setback modification for the existing structure so that the addition
can be constructed. The applicant is also requesting a 1’ setback encroachment into the required
6’ side (rear) setback for the construction of a detached, pre-fabricated metal carport 5’ from the
west property line. The carport is proposed to be set back from the façade of the main structure.
Its dimensions are 21’ long by 12’ wide by 8’ high, and the roof is proposed to be a color similar
Page 10 of 85
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 5
Meeting: May 14, 2020
to that of the asphalt shingle roof. HARC is the review authority for requested setback
modifications.
As the subject structure is listed as a Low Priority Structure on the Historic Resource Survey,
the proposed additions and modifications to the exterior are reviewed by the HPO, including
the design of the carport addition. The proposed changes include the removal of the existing
asbestos siding and replacement with composite fiber lapped siding with a manufactured stone
wainscot on the front façade, as well as the installation of new double-paned, white vinyl
windows in the addition to match the existing windows. The proposed addition to the rear
would change the rear-facing roof slope of the existing gable roof to a lower slope to extend
over the addition, while the existing front-facing roof slope would be retained.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing, as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item D (2020-13-COA) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Approved (7-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for an addition that adds to or creates a new street-facing façade, and a 4'-6" setback
encroachment into the side (east) setback to allow the construction of a detached carport 1'-6"
from the side (east) property line at the property located at 507 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.32 acres out of a portion of lots 2-7 in Block 35 of the Glasscock Addition. - Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The main structure on the subject property is listed as a medium
priority structure on the Historic Resource Survey, with an estimated construction date of 1890.
The 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows that the main structure was one of only two houses
on the block at that time, and the house directly east, which is featured on the 1916 map, is also
estimated to have been constructed in 1890, although the two houses are of different architectural
styles. The simple form of the subject property’s main structure and its situation on such a large
lot indicate that it may be the oldest structure on the block, and it can be seen in a 1934 photo in
which the house is not obscured by any front yard trees. The original siding and windows have
been replaced, as has the address, which was noted as 602 E. 7th St. on the Sanborn Map.
The applicant is proposing to install two prefabricated metal carport structures on their existing
driveway, situated at the front right corner of the historic main structure as viewed from E.
7th Street. The carport structure would be detached from the main structure, with metal columns
and curved metal roofs. The two carport structures are proposed to cover the applicant’s two
vehicles, with a 6” space in between. The carport structures are two different sizes to
accommodate the needs of the family and the vehicle uses, with the carport located closer to the
house being 11.9’ wide and 16.5’ deep and the carport proposed to encroach 4’-6” into the 6’ side
(east) setback being 9.5’ wide and 16.4’ deep. Both carports are just under 8’ tall. The carports are
proposed to be located at the front of the main structure to make use of the existing driveway and
leave the existing front yard and privacy fences in place.
Page 11 of 85
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 5
Meeting: May 14, 2020
The applicant, Roger Davis addressed the Commission. He explained his request, and discussed
a budgetary concern with bringing everything up to compliance. He is requesting the setback
encroachment to allow for better parking.
There was discussion by Commission members about the use of materials and ensuring there is
consistency with meeting guidelines and criteria.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing, as no one signed up to speak.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde asked the applicant if he has considered a different type of
carport. The applicant explained he has but cost has been a factor in decision making of materials
and carport for the request. Commissioner Browner commented that cost should not be the
Commission’s concern. Rather, the Commission should make decisions based on whether the
guidelines and criteria are met. Chair Parr agreed with Commissioner Browner.
Motion to accept Item E (2020-16-COA) as presented with staff’s recommendation by
Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Approved with conditions as
written by staff (7-0).
F. 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 for the property located at 815 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of Lot
6B1, Block 52, Amending Plat Lot 6, Block 52 City of Georgetown. – Britin Bostick, Downtown &
Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The new structure at 815 S. Main Street, called the “Watkins
Building”, was approved by HARC in 2017 and is now nearing completion. The first floor has a
restaurant and bar lease space on the s outh part of the building, which is occupied by Kork
Wine Bar. The north part of the first floor and the second floor are owner-occupied by the
Watkins Insurance Group. The applicant is proposing a building sign package that includes
signage for both tenants, which includes the installation of illuminated flush-mounted primary
signage, illuminated above-canopy signage, and vinyl window signs.
Representatives for Watkins Insurance Group and Kork Wine Bar addressed the Commission ,
providing more detail for the request and design of signage.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item F (2020-15-COA) by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Second by
Commission Nunn. Approved (6-0) with Commissioner Johnston abstained.
G. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson invited the Commission to listen to the Historic Planner’s weekly webinars on Monday
afternoon’s. Also, future HARC meetings will move to Zoom platform.
Adjournment
Page 12 of 85
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 5
Meeting: May 14, 2020
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Browner. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Meeting adjourned at 7:28pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 13 of 85
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 28, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r a 4’-10”
s etbac k enc roac hment into the req uired 6’ s ide (north) s etbac k to allo w a res id ential additio n 1’-2” fro m
the side (north) property line; a 4'-4" setb ack enc ro achment into the required 15' s ide s treet (south) setb ac k
to allo w a resid ential additio n 10'-8" fro m the s ide s treet (south) property line; and a new fenc e, railing or
wall that is inc o ns is tent with the o verlay distric t's c haracteris tic s and applic able guid elines at the property
lo cated at 1307 Myrtle S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n 0.13 ac res out of p art o f Blo ck B of the Hughes
S econd Ad ditio n. – Britin Bostick, Do wntown & His to ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he exis ting struc ture is situated within both the s id e and s id e s treet setb acks fo r the R es idential S ingle
F amily (R S ) zo ning dis trict, and the ap p licant is req ues ting HAR C ap p ro val o f two setbac k mo d ifications .
T he firs t s etbac k mo d ificatio n reques t is for a 4’-10” s etbac k enc ro achment into the required 6’ s ide
(north) s etb ac k to enclose the exis ting c arp o rt and convert it to an enc lo s ed garage. T he proposed garage
conversion would no t extend the b uilding further into the s etb ack, ho wever as the north wall o f the
s tructure and carport is currently 1’-2” from the no rth p ro p erty line, the p ro p o s ed ad d ition o f a concrete
s lab in the garage and the enclosure of the garage are partially within the req uired 6’ s ide setb ack, and
req uire a s etb ac k modific atio n. T he sec o nd s etb ack mo d ificatio n reques t is fo r a 4'-4" setb ac k
enc ro achment into the required 15' s id e s treet (s o uth) setb ack to allo w the additio n of a porc h 10'-8" from
the s id e s treet (s outh) p ro p erty line. T he porc h is aligned with the exis ting b uilding and does no t extend
further toward the s outh p ro p erty line than d o es the exis ting build ing, b ut as the proposed p o rch ad d itio n
would b e c o nstruc ted partially within the side s treet s etbac k, ap p ro val o f a setb ack mo d ificatio n is
req uired.
T he applic ant is also req uesting HAR C ap p ro val o f a front and s id e yard fenc e designed s o that the
p o rtion of the fenc e alo ng Myrtle S treet is 3’-0” in height with less than the min. 50% transparenc y
recommend ed in the Des ign G uid elines , and the portion of the fenc e alo ng E. 14th S treet is proposed to be
4’-6” in height with the s ame s tyle as the front fence.
T he pro p o s ed additio ns and alterations to the street-fac ing facades are reviewed by the HP O , whic h
inc lude the conversion of the attac hed c arport to an enclosed garage, the additio n o f a rear porc h and
alteratio ns to the front porc h, the ad d ition o f the fro nt d o rmer feature, the rep lacement of the aluminum
s id ing with fib er comp o s ite siding, a c hange in the roof pitch and rep lacement o f the hip ro o f s tyle with a
gable roof and s outh gable with wind o w, the rep lacement of the asphalt shingle roof with a s tand ing s eam
metal roof, the additio n of exterio r light fixtures , and a rear additio n with s treet-fac ing wind o ws and rear
gable. Although the propos ed dormer and gable features are designed with windows , the struc ture is
d es igned to remain a s ingle-sto ry s tructure, and a s ec o nd-floor area is not p art o f the d es ign.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Page 14 of 85
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription 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 Res ource Survey Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 15 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: May 28, 2020
File Number: 2020-14-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 4’-10” setback
encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback to allow a residential addition 1’-2” from the side
(north) property line; a 4'-4" setback encroachment into the required 15' side street (south) setback to
allow a residential addition 10'-8" from the side street (south) property line; and a new fence, railing or
wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the
property located at 1307 Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description 0.13 acres out of part of Block B of
the Hughes Second Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1307 Myrtle Street
Applicant: Cory Shaw (Damon Marie Co.)
Property Owner: Goldshaw Capital LLC Trustee of the Myrtle Street Trust
Property Address: 1307 Myrtle Street
Legal Description: 0.13 acres out of part of Block B of the Hughes Second Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1950 (HRS), but 1964 aerial photo does not show house
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: Included in University -Elm National Register Historic
District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modifications
A new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines
HPO:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (low priority structure)
Addition of a porch, patio or dec k (low priority structure)
Page 16 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 2 of 9
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property is a single-family structure with a carport addition on the north side of the structure
and a rear addition on the east side. The Historic Resource Survey (HRS) notes a construction date of
1950; however, further research has determined the house was more likely constructed between 1965 and
1974. The 1964 aerial photo of Georgetown does not show any structures on the current lot, and deed
records indicate that the present lot was once the back part of the original large lot for the property at
1312 Elm Street, which was sold as a rectangular lot facing Myrtle Street in 1964, then divided into the
two smaller rectangular lots that exist today. The house was likely constructed by Barbara Norment after
she purchased the lot in 1965, and she owned the property until 1973. The HRS further notes aluminum
siding and replaced windows in the existing structure and notes the style as “minimal ranch”, although
ranch style homes are typically constructed on concrete slab foundations, and this structure has a pier
and beam foundation, more typical of a minimal traditional style. The residence directly to the north
bears several similarities, including the attached carport and front door and window locations and
configuration.
The existing structure is situated within both the side and side street setbacks for the Residential Single
Family (RS) zoning district, and the applicant is requesting HARC approval of two setback modifications.
The first setback modification request is for a 4’-10” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side
(north) setback to enclose the existing carport and convert it to an enclosed garage. The proposed garage
conversion would not extend the building further into the setback, however as the north wall of the
structure and carport is currently 1’-2” from the north property line, the proposed addition of a concrete
slab in the garage and the enclosure of the garage are partially within the required 6’ side setback, and
require a setback modification. The second setback modification request is for a 4'-4" setback
encroachment into the required 15' side street (south) setback to allow the addition of a porch 10'-8" from
the side street (south) property line . The porch is aligned with the existing building and does not extend
further toward the south property line than does the existing building, but as the proposed porch
addition would be constructed partially within the side street setback, approval of a setback modification
is required.
The applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a front and side yard fence designed so that the
portion of the fence along Myrtle Street is 3’-0” in height with less than the min. 50% transparency
recommended in the Design Guidelines, and the portion of the fence along E. 14th Street is proposed to
be 4’-6” in height with the sam e style as the front fence.
The proposed additions and alterations to the street-facing facades are reviewed by the HPO, which
include the conversion of the attached carport to an enclosed garage, the addition of a rear porch and
alterations to the front porch, the addition of the front dormer feature, the replacement of the aluminum
siding with fiber composite siding, a change in the roof pitch and replacement of the hip roof style with
a gable roof and south gable with window, the replacement of the asphalt shingle roof with a standing
seam metal roof, the addition of exterior light fixtures, and a rear addition with street-facing windows
and rear gable. Although the proposed dormer and gable features are designed with windows, the
structure is designed to remain a single-story structure, and a second-floor area is not part of the design.
Page 17 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 3 of 9
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 8 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.25 A new fence may be considered in transitional
areas with a residential context.
• A fence that defines a front yard should be low
to the ground and “transparent” in na ture.
• A front yard fence should not exceed three feet
in height.
Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views
into front yards and are inappropriate.
Chain link, concrete block, unfaced concrete,
plastic, solid metal panel, fiberglass, plywood,
and mesh construction fences are not
appropriate.
A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its
front yard counterpart may be considered.
See UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards.
Partially Complies
Although the proposed fence is not a solid
fence, it does not provide the 50% see-
through visibility considered “transparent”.
Part of the front yard fence (the portion of
the fence along E. 14th Street) is proposed to
be 4’-6” in height rather than the 3’-0”
prescribed for front yard fences – fences
positioned to the front of a structure. The
current front and side yard fence is chain
link approximately 4’ in height, and the
proposed fence design is an improvement
in appearance compared to the current
chain link fence.
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL 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
Replacement of aluminum siding with fiber
composite siding is consistent with Design
Guidelines.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the abil-
ity 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
inappropriate.
Complies
Although listed on the Historic Resource
Survey, the subject structure is not as old as
previously believed and lacks historic
features that might establish a period of
design significance. The proposed additions
and alterations, including the roof changes
and gable additions, do alter the simple
character of the existing structure; however,
staff finds that the proposed alterations do
not substantially alter the form of the
Page 18 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 4 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL AND ADDITIONS
IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
structure, and the door and window
openings on the street facing facades are
retained in their existing locations and sizes.
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.
Partially Complies
The proposed gable, dormer and rear porch
additions do not remove the original design
features of the front and side facades and
are proposed to be of a scale and materials
that are compatible with the existing
structure. However, the additions do alter
the perception of the character of the
structure by adding architectural features to
the current simple design.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
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 addi-
tion.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by
the National Park Service.
Complies
The proposed additions do not remove the
original features that help define the
character, and proposed enclosure of the
carport for a garage retains the function of
the space in the same location.
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 additional square footage is to the
rear of the existing structure .
Page 19 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 5 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL AND ADDITIONS
IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
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 build-
ing in mass, scale, and form. It should be
designed to remain subordinate to the main
structure.
While a smaller addition is visually prefer-
able, if a residential addition would be sig-
nificantly larger than the original building,
one option is to separate it from the primary
building, when 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.
Complies
The proposed additions, which include roof
additions, alter the perception of the simple
character and architectural style of the
existing structure by adding architectural
features. However, staff finds that the
proposed additions and alterations are
compatible with the existing structure and
use traditional elements such as dormers
and porches to add visual interest. The
addition of character-defining features does
not obscure or remove the original form or
remaining features of the structure, with the
exception of the enlargement of the front
porch, which is proposed to be of a similar
style.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any
primary, character-defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
Proposed additional square footage is to the
rear of the existing structure , and proposed
features do not obscure the primary facade.
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
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the
addition should be similar.
Partially Complies
The existing hip roof style and low slope are
proposed to be changed to a gable roof with
a steeper slope to accommodate the gable
ends but are still compatible with a
residential structure and with the style of
the existing building.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
Page 20 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 6 of 9
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 deemed the application complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project requires setback
modifications, and proposed fence is both
taller and less transparent that required by
the UDC.
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
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.”
Although listed on the historic resource
survey, the survey entry for this property
notes a lack of historic integrity, and the
structure is not as old as was previously
believed. The proposed alterations and
additions do not destroy the historic aspects
that characterize the property, but the scale
and proportions of the structure are
proposed to be changed with the roof
alterations.
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
Complies or partially complies with
applicable Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The HRS notes that the property lacks
integrity, and the prosed alterations do not
further diminish the integrity.
Page 21 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 7 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed additions elevate the style of
the existing structure, which was
constructed at a period of time when
portions of large lots facing Elm Street and
S. Church Street were sold for the
construction of new, smaller and more
simple homes that are typical of the 1960s
and 1970s in Old Town. The proposed rear
addition is consistent with surrounding
properties, some of which also have rear
additions, and the addition of architectural
features such as gables with windows is
compatible in that it retains a single-story
structure on a street with primarily single-
story structures.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The character of the Old Town Overlay
District is not diminished.
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;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is
for an addition that continues the wall of
a building that is already located within
the setback.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
The existing building is already
encroaching into the setback and the
addition is does not further encroach.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is
consistent with the existing
encroachment and other structures on
Page 22 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 8 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
the same block. Surrounding structure s
also encroach into side setbacks.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed addition does not further
encroach toward the street and the front
setback is not requested to be modified.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures are proposed to be
replaced.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same foo tprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
No structures have been removed from
this property.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Not Applicable
No structures have been removed from
this property.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
The proposed garage addition is within
the existing footprint of the structure
and the proposed porch addition is small
relative to the existing footprint.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The size of the structure with proposed
additions is similar to or smaller than
other structures within the same block.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
Proposed setback modifications are not
greater than existing encroachments.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
Proposed setback modifications are not
greater than existing encroachments and
do not limit maintenance of adjacent
structures.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No trees or landscape features are
proposed to be preserved by the
encroachment.
Page 23 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -14-COA – 1307 Myrtle Street Page 9 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for both setback
modifications and the fence design.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 24 of 85
Location
2020-14-COA
Exhibit #1
ASH
S
T
ELM
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 15TH ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E UNIVERSITY AVE
E 16TH ST
E 16TH ST
W UNIVERSITY AVE
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 13TH ST
E 14TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 25 of 85
Letter of Intent
Re: 1307 Myrtle St
The following letter spells out our intent to remodel the property at 1307 Myrtle St, which is in
the Historic Overlay District.
We would like to change the current low roof-line to a combination of 9/12 and 4/12 pitch with a
cross section at the ridge and gables on four sides. This will give the home more of a craftsman
style feel to it which is in alignment with the desired “appeal” for the downtown area. We will
clad the roof with a standing-seam metal, which is very popular for the area.
The current footprint is about 1250 square feet of living space. We would like to extend the back
of the house 10’ which would add approximately 450sf of additional living space to the home.
The 10’ extension allows us to remain in compliance with the rear setback of 10’.
A carport currently exists and we would like to turn this into an attached garage. We would do
this by pouring an appropriate concrete slab and reframe the exterior and demising wall to bring
them up to code, then add a single-car garage door according to the architectural plans.
We would like to update the siding throughout the exterior with Hardieplank smooth lap siding
below the roof edge and vertical Hardie board and batton siding in the gables.
This corner lot is also in need of an updated fence. A chain link fence exists but we would like to
remove this and update it with a horizontal wood fence (according to the plans) which will
conform to the requirement of 3’ high at the front of the property.
Finally, the current footprint is a non-conforming building as it lies within the side/rear setback of
15’. Our desire is to build a wrap-around porch from the front door around to the back side of the
house. According to the survey the house is 11’4” from the property line. We are proposing a 6’
wide porch. Our desire to build a wrap around porch is to add aesthetic appeal on both Myrtle St
and 14th St. Being a corner lot, we’d like to make both street facing elevation as appealing as
possible - a wrap around porch would help us achieve this goal.
Thank you,
Lisa Shaw
Page 26 of 85
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
S
E
L
M
S
T
SITE LOCATION N
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1307 S MYRTLE ST
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC
Page 27 of 85
Page 28 of 85
26
'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
62
'
-
0
"
20 20 40
1" = 20'-0"
0
FEETSCALE
EXISTING 1-STORY HOME
PROPOSED ADDITION
PROPOSED
GARAGE
ADDITION
PORCH ADDITION
60' - 0"
94
'
-
0
"
2' - 6"
11' - 7"34' - 3"
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
S MYRTLE STREET
E
14
T
H
S
T
15' SIDE/REAR STREET SETBACK
NORTH
4'6" (h) WOOD
FENCE ON E 14TH;
REF. RENDERINGS
3'0" (h) WOOD
FENCE ON S MYRTLE ST;
REF. RENDERINGS
25' STREET FACING
GARAGE SETBACK
6' SIDE SETBACK
10' REAR SETBACK
BUILDING RIDGE
HEIGHT @ 18'-9";
REF. ELEV
10' - 8"
1' - 2"
17
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
26
'
-
0
"
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Lot Area: 5,640 sf
Zoning District: Residential Single-Family
Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Area: Single-Family
Residential
Existing Residence Area: 1271 sq.ft.
Existing Garage Area: Carport -262 sq.ft.
Existing FAR: 0.23
Proposed Addition Area: 630 sq.ft.
Proposed FAR: 0.34
Impervious Cover: 2560 = 45%
Driveway will remain gravel
1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN
Page 29 of 85
18
' - 9"
7' - 8 1/2"
9' - 10
"
2' - 10"
3' - 6"
8' - 0"
10 10 20
1" = 10'-0"
0
FEETSCALE
17
' - 4 1/2"
3' - 10
"
2' - 10"
10 10 20
1" = 10'-0"
0
FEETSCALE
17
' - 4"
412
18
' - 9"
NEW 4/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF OVER
EXISTING STRUCTURE
SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL
SIDING ON NEW COLUMNS
NEW HARDIEPLANK
SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON
EXISTING STRUCTURE
NEW 34”x42” SINGLE
HUNG WINDOWS; TYP.
VINYL, DUAL PANE,
SAME AS EXISTING
MATERIAL
NEW 4/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF OVER
EXISTING STRUCTURE
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN
NEW HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON
EXISTING STRUCTURE
EXISTING WINDOWS
TO REMAIN
NEW AUTOMATIC SECTIONAL
GARAGE DOOR; 8’(w) X 7’(h)NEW 36”x80”
CRAFTSMAN
STYLE DOOR
NEW 9/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF OVER
EXISTING STRUCTURE
NEW DOUBLE HUNG
34”x43” WINDOW
9
12
NEW 36”x80”
CRAFTSMAN
STYLE DOOR
NEW 36”x80”
CRAFTSMAN
STYLE DOOR
2/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
ON NEW PORCH
2/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
ON NEW PORCH
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN
NEW GOOSENECK
OUTDOOR SCONCE
ABOVE GARAGE
NEW DOUBLE HUNG
34”x43” WINDOW
NEW WOOD 3’6”
RAILING; WHITE
NEW DOUBLE HUNG
34”x43” WINDOW
9
12
NEW EXTERIOR SCONCES, TBD.
NEW HARDIEPLANK
SMOOTH LAP SIDING
ON EXISTING STRUCTURE
NEW 34”x42” SINGLE
HUNG WINDOWS; TYP.
NEW 3’-6” WOOD
RAILING; WHITE
2/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
OVER NEW PORCH
NEW GOOSENECK
OUTDOOR SCONCE
ABOVE GARAGE
NEW 4/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF OVER
EXISTING STRUCTURE
NEW 9/12 SLOPE 1-3/4”
TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF OVER
EXISTING STRUCTURE
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SO
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EA
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
WE
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
Page 30 of 85
HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH
LAP SIDING ON NEW
ENCLOSED GARAGE
NEW HARDIEPLANK
SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON
EXISTING STRUCTURE
HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH
LAP SIDING
SMOOTH VERTICAL SIDING
BOARDS + SMOOTH HARDIE
BATTEN STRIPS
SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING
SMOOTH HARDIE BATTEN STRIPS
1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF SYSTEM;
4/12 SLOPE ROOF
WEST ELEVATION ALONG MYRTLE ST
1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF SYSTEM
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1307 S MYRTLE ST
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC
Page 31 of 85
SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING
ON NEW COLUMNS
SMOOTH HARDIE VERTICAL
SIDING ON COLUMNS
1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF SYSTEM;
4/12 SLOPE ROOF
WEST ELEVATION ALONG MYRTLE ST
1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF SYSTEM
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1307 S MYRTLE ST
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC
NEW HARDIEPLANK
SMOOTH LAP SIDING ON
EXISTING STRUCTURE
Page 32 of 85
18
'
-
9
"
1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION
CORNER OF MYRTLE AND 14TH ST
RIDGE HEIGHT @ 18’-9”
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1307 S MYRTLE ST
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC
Page 33 of 85
SOUTH ELEVATION ALONG 14TH ST
4’6” WHITE WOOD FENCE
ON 14TH ST
1-3/4” TALL STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF SYSTEM;
4/12 SLOPE ROOF
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1307 S MYRTLE ST
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC
Page 34 of 85
WEST ELEVATION ALONG MYRTLE ST
3’-0” WHITE WOOD FENCE
W/GATE ON MYRTLE ST
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1307 S MYRTLE ST
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
HARC SUBMITTAL FOR CDC
Page 35 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address DAYTON, LARRY R & TREVA K, 177 THE OAKS BLVD, , ELGIN,TX 78621-5986
Latitude:30.631751 Longitude -97.674765
Addition/Subdivision:S3809 - Hughes 2nd Addition
WCAD ID:R042841Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK B(PT), ACRES .13
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Southeast
Page 36 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story Minimal Ranch style house clad in aluminum siding with a hipped roof and a shed roof addition at the rear; it
has a rectangular plan, attached carport, and an entry stoop with a shed roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Siding replaced, windows replaced, addition at rear
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Aluminum siding
Vinyl
Metal Posts
Metal hand rail
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Ranch
Page 37 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: aluminum windows and siding; side carport)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:883
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 38 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1307 Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:125863
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 39 of 85
1307 Myrtle Street
2020-14-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
May 28, 2020
1Page 40 of 85
Item Under Consideration
2020-14-COA –1307 Myrtle Street
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 4’-
10” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback to allow a residential
addition 1’-2” from the side (north) property line; a 4'-4" setback encroachment into the
required 15' side street (south) setback to allow a residential addition 10'-8" from the side
street (south) property line; and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the
overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1307
Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description 0.13 acres out of part of Block B of the Hughes
Second Addition.
2Page 41 of 85
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Setback modifications
•A new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics
and applicable guidelines
HPO:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (low priority
structure)
•Addition of a porch, patio or deck (low priority structure)
3Page 42 of 85
Item Under Consideration
4Page 43 of 85
Tony & Luigi’s
First United
Methodist
5Page 44 of 85
Current Context
6Page 45 of 85
1964 Aerial Photo
7Page 46 of 85
1307 Myrtle Street –Current Photos
8Page 47 of 85
1307 Myrtle Street –Current Photos
9Page 48 of 85
1307 Myrtle Street –Project Drawings
10Page 49 of 85
1307 Myrtle Street –Project Drawings
11Page 50 of 85
1307 Myrtle Street –Project Drawings
12Page 51 of 85
Current Context
13Page 52 of 85
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;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 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 14Page 53 of 85
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;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
15Page 54 of 85
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;N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
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.N/A
16Page 55 of 85
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-nine (39) letters mailed
•No comments received
17Page 56 of 85
Recommendation
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the
request for both setback modifications and the fence design.
18Page 57 of 85
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
19Page 58 of 85
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 28, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r a new
fenc e, railing o r wall that is inc o nsistent with the overlay d is tric t's characteris tic s and ap p licable guid elines
at the property loc ated at 1407 Elm S treet, bearing the legal desc rip tion of 0.262 ac res out o f the s o uthwes t
p art o f Blo ck 7 o f the Hughes Additio n. – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p licant is req ues ting HAR C ap p ro val for a new wood fenc e in the s ide s treet setb ack that wo uld be
6’ in height, not p ro vide trans p arenc y and which wo uld have ho rizo ntally-oriented fenc e boards. T here is a
p rivac y fenc e exis ting in the s id e street s etbac k.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription 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 Res ource Survey Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 59 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -25-COA – 1407 Elm Street Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: May 28, 2020
File Number: 2020-25-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new fence,
railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at
the property located at 1407 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of 0.262 acres out of the southwest
part of Block 7 of the Hughes Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Sivan Silver Project
Applicant: Tony Perez (Sagamore Fence & Deck)
Property Owner: Stephen Hablinski & Sivan Silver
Property Address: 1407 Elm Street
Legal Description: 0.262 acres out of the southwest part of Block 7 of the Hughes Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1970 (HRS) (structure appears in 1964 aerial photo)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
A new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property is listed on the Historic Resource Survey with a construction date of 1970, but the
1964 aerial photo of Georgetown shows that the Ranch style house had been constructed by that time .
The photo does not indicate a privacy fence in the side yard in the original site design, but a wood privacy
fence currently exists on the site within the side street setback.
Per the Unified Development Code (UDC), fences in side street setbacks (the required side street setback
for properties in Residential Single Family (RS) zoning is 15’) for properties in the Old Town Overlay
District are required to be 3’ maximum in height and min. 50% transparency, unless HARC approves an
alternate fence design. Fences that are installed at least 15’ back from the side street property line and
Page 60 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -25-COA – 1407 Elm Street Page 2 of 3
flush with or set back from the front face of the structure are permitted to be 6’ tall with no transparency.
The proposed side yard fence is 6’ in height, constructed of horizontal wood fence boards and installed
along the south (side) property line. As there is an existing wood privacy fence in that location, the
primary difference between the existing a new fence would be the design of the new fence.
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 8 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.25 A new fence may be considered in transitional
areas with a residential context.
A fence that defines a front yard should be low
to the ground and “transparent” in na ture.
A front yard fence should not exceed three feet
in height.
Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views
into front yards and are inappropriate.
Chain link, concrete block, unfaced concrete,
plastic, solid metal panel, fiberglass, plywood,
and mesh construction fences are not
appropriate.
A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its
front yard counterpart may be considered. See
UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards.
Complies
While this Guideline primarily addresses
front yard fences, side yards along a city
street have a similar condition. A wood
privacy fence is consistent with the style of
the main structure, and the horizontal
orientation of the fence boards is compatible
with the Ranch architectural style. Staff
notes that in this case there is an existing 6’
wood privacy fence.
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 UDC requires fences in the side street
setback to be a maximum of 3’ high and
50% transparent. The proposed materials
comply with the UDC.
Page 61 of 85
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -25-COA – 1407 Elm Street Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatmen t of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
A wood privacy fence would have been
typical of suburban housing types, but the
1964 aerial map does not indicate a privacy
fence was original to the property.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Complies with applicable Guideline.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
Proposed fence does not alter the integrity
of the site and does not impact the
structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
Proposed project is for a fence only.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed fence does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the reasons stated
above.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 62 of 85
Location
2020-25-COA
Exhibit #1
E 15TH ST
S C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
ASH
S
T
ELM
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 16TH ST
E16THST
E 13TH ST
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
GEO
R
G
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 63 of 85
Letter of Intent
4-3-2020
Tony Perez
Owner
Sagamore, LLC dba Sagamore Fence & Deck
To Whom It May Concern,
The owner at 1407 S. Elm St. in Georgetown, TX has contracted our company for
the installation of a new privacy fence that will replace her current privacy fence.
The fence we will install will be of horizontal design (See Design Diagram), which
is different than the current vertical privacy Fence.
It is our understanding that our design is out of design requirements for this
historical district, however, feel that it will add to the aesthetic of the property and
will also meet the safety guidelines of the pool that will be installed. This fence will
NOT be a front yard fence as it will not go further than the front elevation of the
home (See Layout).
Additionally, this fence will be 6’ in height on both the front-facing and side street
facing portions, but Mrs. Silver will seek to request permission from rear and side
neighbor to have this fence design installed at 8’ on those portions.
Page 64 of 85
Page 65 of 85
I have reviewed and agree with the above Work Diagram and the work which
is to be performed.
Signature: _____________________ Date: _____________________
Wor k Dia g ram
Page 66 of 85
Page 67 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123887
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address WARE, ROBERT L & KIMBERLY BITTING, 207 LA MESA LN, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78628
Latitude:30.631014 Longitude -97.673827
Addition/Subdivision:S3810 - Hughes Addition
WCAD ID:R042795Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES ADDITION, BLOCK 7(SW/PT), ACRES 0.262
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1970
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Southeast
Page 68 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123887
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, L-plan, ranch style house clad in stone and wood siding with a cross-gabled roof, attached garage, and an
entry stoop with a shed canopy and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Windows replaced, door replaced, shutters removed, garage door replaced
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Gabled
Vinyl
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 69 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123887
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:Not Recorded
2007 Survey Priority:Not Recorded 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 70 of 85
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123887
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 71 of 85
1407 Elm Street Fence
2020-25-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
May 28, 2020
1Page 72 of 85
Item Under Consideration
2020-25-COA –1407 Elm Street Fence
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines at the property located at 1407 Elm Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.262 acres out of the southwest part of Block 7 of the Hughes Addition.
2Page 73 of 85
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•A new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics
and applicable guidelines
3Page 74 of 85
Item Under Consideration
4Page 75 of 85
5Page 76 of 85
Current Context
6Page 77 of 85
1964 Aerial Photo
7Page 78 of 85
1407 Elm Street Proposed Fence
8Page 79 of 85
Current Context
9Page 80 of 85
Current Context
10Page 81 of 85
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;Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and 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 11Page 82 of 85
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•No comments received
12Page 83 of 85
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of the request.
13Page 84 of 85
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
14Page 85 of 85