HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_07.25.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
July 25, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at City Council Chambers, 510 W. 9th St., Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The H i stor ic and A rc hi tec tur al R evie w C ommi ssion, appointe d by the
M ayor and the C ity C ounci l, is re sponsible for hear ing and taki ng final
ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C er tific ates of A ppr opr i ate ne ss base d upon
the C ity Counc il adopte d Downtown D esign Guidelines and Unifie d
De ve lopme nt Code.
Welcome and M e eting P r oce dure s:
· S taff P re se ntation
· A pplicant P re se ntation (L imite d to te n minute s unless stated othe rwise
by the Commission.)
· Q ue stions fr om Commission to S taff and Applic ant
· C omments from C itize ns *
· A pplicant R esponse
· C ommission De libe rative P roc ess
· C ommission A ction
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker for m, locate d at the back of the
r oom, to the re cor di ng sec re tary before the ite m the y wi sh to addre ss be gins.
E ach speaker wi ll be pe r mitte d to addre ss the C ommissi on one ti me onl y for
a maximum of thre e minute s.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 27, 2019 and July 11, 2019
regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management
Analyst
B P ublic Hearing and possible ac tion o n a req ues t fo r a C ertific ate o f Appropriatenes s for: 1) 15’ s etbac k
encroac hment along the p ro p erty line adjac ent to S Myrtle S treet, into the req uired 25' s etb ack, allowing
for detached garage s tructure 10’ from the property line p er the Unified Develo p ment C o d e (UDC )
S ec tion 4.08d.080.D; 2)street facing facade garage additio n, for the property lo c ated at 304 E University,
bearing the legal d es criptio n of 0.66 ac res o f the Hughes 2nd Additio n, Blo ck A (W /P T ) (2019-35-C O A).
C hels ea Irby, S enior P lanner
C P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s for the replac ement
Page 1 of 82
of five windows for the property loc ated at 1607 S C hurch S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.15
ac res of the S ouths ide Addition, Bloc k 1 (S W /P T ) (2019-40-C O A). C hels ea Irby, S enior P lanner
D P resentation and d is cus s io n o f a req uest for a C ommerc ial Ad d ition and R eno vatio n fo r the property
loc ated at 101 E. 7th S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n of 0.14 ac . G eo rgeto wn, C ity of, Bloc k 39, Lot
2-39 (W /P T S ), (C O A-2018-046). Nat Waggoner, AI C P, P MP, Long R ange P lanner
E Updates , C ommis s ioner questions and comments. 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 _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the June 27, 2019 and July 11, 2019 regular
meeting of the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes of the 6.27.2019 Meeting Exhibit
Minutes of the 7.11.2019 Meeting Exhibit
Page 3 of 82
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 2
Meeting: June 27, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
June 27, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Amanda Parr; Lawrence
Romero; Josh Schroeder; Pam Mitchell
Absent: Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-Hyde
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner; Mirna
Garcia, Management Analyst
Call to order by the Vice-Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Residential Addition and Alteration at the property located at 1011 S. College Street, bearing the
legal description of Dimmit Addition, BLOCK 86 (PTS), ACRES 0.27, (2019-25-COA). – Chelsea
Irby, Senior Planner
Irby presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing a remodel and three additions. The
scope of works includes replacement of roof and windows, removal of a street-facing porch ½
wall, demolition of a non-historic addition and the demolition of a non-historic garage. The
specific work proposed by the applicant includes: street-facing wall removal (masonry porch ½
wall); removal and replacement of windows; street-facing addition (garage and studio). Staff
also reviewed requests for demolition of rear addition (non-historical) and non-street facing
addition (non-historical). Staff finds that the proposed replacement of all windows and removal
of the masonry porch ½ wall meet the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The
materials proposed for the replacement of the windows are similar materials, which is allowed
by the UDC for low and medium priority structures. The design respects the historic integrity of
the existing structure and does not have a significant visual impact on the structure. Staff
recommends approval of the street-facing ½ wall removal, the replacement of all windows and
the addition of two street facing facades at the rear of the property. The creation of two ( 2) new
street facing facades are compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building
and surrounding properties in the historic overlay district.
At 6:08 P.M., Commissioner Mitchell recused herself because the applicant is her neighbor. At
that time, Commissioner Johnston took her place on the dais.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward and Chair Schroeder closed
the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Romero to approve (2019-25-COA, second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (7-0).
B. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Page 4 of 82
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 2
Meeting: June 27, 2019
Waggoner introduced Chelsea Irby to the Commission. She will be working on historic cases
until the Historic Planner position is filled.
Commissioner Parr had a question regarding the hiring process. Waggoner explained the
position has been posted, and there may be interviews starting July. The interview panel will
consist of other staff outside the Planning Department. The top applicants will be screened, and
the top three candidates will be interviewed. Waggoner provided additional explanation of the
position, and what staff are seeking in the potential candidate to fill the role.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero, second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (7-0).
Meeting adjourned at 6:14 P.M.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Page 5 of 82
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: July 11, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
July 11, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn; Lawrence Romero; Josh
Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-Hyde
Absent: Amanda Parr; Pam Mitchell
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Call to order by the Vice-Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 13, 2019 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by
Commissioner Romero. Approved (7-0).
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the New
Construction of a Single-Family Residence at the property located at 805 E 8th Street, bearing the
legal description of Clamp’s Addition (Revised), Block H (E/PT). (2019-41-COA) – Chelsea Irby,
Senior Planner
Staff report presented by Irby. The applicant is requesting to construct a 3,792 sq. ft. single-
family structure on a vacant lot in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure will
have two street facing facades – East 8th Street and Holly Street. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified
Development Code, HARC is the decision-making body for all new construction (infill
development) in the Old Town Overlay District. The proposed structure complies with the
zoning standards of the Residential Single-Family (RS) district and the Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines. The proposed design has both horizontal and vertical articulation, the
use of various roof pitches, as well as multiple roof lines and building materials. The primary
building material is Hardiplank lap siding with brick and metal accents. The roof material is
composition asphalt shingles. The proposed windows are vinyl, two over two divided light,
two paned, and vertically-oriented. Other architectural features include window awnings,
covered front porch, trim elements, and a chimney.
There were no questions by the Commission members.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. Chair Schroeder closed the
Public Hearing.
Motion to approve agenda item B (2019-41-COA) as presented by Commissioner Romero.
Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
Page 6 of 82
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: July 11, 2019
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
Residential Alteration at the property located at 313 E 7th St. bearing the legal description
Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 16, Lot 3-4, 2 (PT), ACRES 0.45 (2019-32-COA). – Chelsea Irby,
Senior Planner
Irby presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking to make alterations to the attic space by
adding 1,051 sq. ft. of habitable space. This addition would create a change in the east and north
gables of the roof. The applicant is also proposing to modify windows on the end of the gables.
Per the applicant, the Fire Code requires operable windows due to the addition of habitable
attic space, Fire Code requires operable windows. The proposed changes effect two street-facing
façades – south along 7th Street and east along Elm Street. The changes to the north and east
gables will create changes to the south and east street-facing façades, respectively. According to
the applicant, the proposed alterations will retain the existing colors and materials, including
the wood siding, the wood shingles on the gables, the wooden details under the eaves, the
asphalt roof shingles, and the wood eaves and trim. The north and east gables are proposed to
increase in size and height, but are in scale with the structure. The roof pitches will be
maintained. The alterations create a ridgeline of 35’. However, this is in compliance with the
building height requirements of the UDC and the Design Guidelines as the height is measured
using the average height between the eaves and the ridgelines. The structure has a consistent
eave height of 14’-9 ¾” above finished grade. As measured by the UDC, the overall building
height is proposed to increase 2’-2 ¼”. The proposed windows, according to the applicant are
needed to satisfy Fire Code, are proposed as 3’x5’ single-hung wood windows. The proposed
windows will differ from the original windows. The removal of the windows and the
replacement with a different style does not meet the criteria of Chapter 14 of the Design
Guidelines in regard to preserving historical features. The original windows are character
defining in their style. The applicant has stated the replacement windows will be salvaged
wood windows and that many options for the windows were considered during the design
process. Incorporating the windows into another part of the house may not meet the Design
Guidelines, because it would create new window openings. The applicant plans to keep the
windows on-site, in case the addition is ever reversed. The applicant feels that the replacement
of the windows helps to stay in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards by
differentiating the addition/change in a subtle and reversible way.
The applicant addressed the Commissioners and provided a brief history of the house as well as
additional information regarding their request.
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde had a question about which windows would be replaced. The
applicant provided further explanation of the windows to be replaced and alterations.
Commissioner Nunn had a question regarding replacement of the decorative elements. The
applicant stated that those elements will stay.
Chair Schroeder asked Irby about the Commission’s voting options and whether certain
conditions affect fire code. Irby informed the Commission that she communicated with the
assistant building official regarding fire code and the changes the applicant is requesting to
make. Because a bedroom is being planned, the window is required to be operable.
Page 7 of 82
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: July 11, 2019
The Commission did not have additional questions.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward; Chair Schroeder closed the
Public Hearing.
Motion to approve item C (2019-32-COA) by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Nunn. Approved (6-0), with Commissioner Browner opposed.
D. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
There are no updates at this time.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero, second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
Meeting adjourned at 6:29pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Page 8 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion o n a req uest for a C ertificate of Ap p ro p riatenes s fo r: 1) 15’ s etbac k
enc roachment along the property line adjacent to S Myrtle S treet, into the required 25' s etbac k, allowing for
detac hed garage struc ture 10’ fro m the p ro p erty line per the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) S ection
4.08d.080.D; 2)s treet facing facade garage ad d ition, for the property loc ated at 304 E University, bearing
the legal desc rip tion o f 0.66 acres of the Hughes 2nd Additio n, Bloc k A (W /P T ) (2019-35-C O A). C helsea
Irby, S enior P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of the Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is requesting to c onstruc t a detached garage in the same location of the original garage. P er
UDC S ec tion 3.13, HAR C has review and approval authority for the following elements of this request:
1. Addition of a street facing façade (detac hed garage)
2. S etbac k modification (15’ into the 25’ s etbac k)
Public Comment
To date, no public comment has been received.
Findings
Addition of a S treet F acing F açade (Detac hed G arage)
T he proposed s tructure would be 14’ at the s etbac k, whic h is an allowable building height. T he applicant
propos es to us e the s ame roof and s iding materials as the main struc ture, which is in conformanc e with the
Downtown and O ld Town Des ign G uidelines . T he proposed s tructure would be a single-gabled roof. T he
s treet fac ing fac ade would have two faux dormers, two panel garage doors, and one faux panel garage
door. C ons tructing the garage to match the materials of the primary s tructure would maintain the character
of the high-priority primary s tructure.
S etbac k Modific ation
T he loc ation of the proposed s tructure would require a s etbac k modification. T he original struc ture was
10’ from the property line, whic h enc roached 15’ into the 25’ garage-fac ing setback. T he original s tructure
was demolis hed and the driveway apron remained. T he applic ant proposes to cons truct a new detached
garage in the s ame loc ation. T here is room on the lot to move the struc ture bac k to res pect the 25’ setback;
however, there are two trees that would be encroac hed upon. Additionally, there would not be a negative
impact to the s urrounding properties. T here are also other detached garages nearby with similar s etbac ks.
C onstruc ting the garage in the original location would maintain the character of the high-priority primary
s tructure.
S taff rec ommend s ap p ro val of the reques t as the p ro p o s ed s tructure will b e in s ame lo catio n as the original
and is in c o ntext with other p ro p erties on the b lo ck, be b uilt o f s imilar materials as the p rimary struc ture,
and will not enc ro ach o n exis ting trees . O verall, maintaining the c o ntext o f the o riginal d etac hed garage
helps to maintain the c harac ter of the high priority primary struc ture on the property.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid all required fees .
Page 9 of 82
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - Materials Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - His toric Resource Survey Backup Material
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 10 of 82
ASH S
T
PINE
S
T
EL
M ST
S M
AI
N
S
T
MAP
LE
S
TE 15TH ST
E 7TH S TSCENIC DR
S CHUR
CH ST
S AUS
TIN AVE
E 13TH S T
S
C
O
LLE
G
E
S
T
E 6TH ST
ROCK S
T
W 17TH ST
W 8TH ST
W 10TH S T
S MY
RTLE
S
T
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
E 5 TH S T
E 1 8 T H S T
RAILROAD AVE
OLIV
E
ST
W 6 T H S T
WEST ST
FORE
S
T
S
T
W 11TH S T
W 1 8 TH S T
W UNIV E RSI T Y AV E
W 1 6 TH S T
E 1 9 T H S T
W 7TH ST
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
E 11TH S T
E 10TH S T
HART ST
E 1 6 TH S T
TIMBER
S
T
VINE ST
E 14TH ST
WALNUT
ST
W 15 TH S T
E 8 T H S T
LAURE
L ST
LEANDER ST
ALLE
Y E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
H
O
G
G
S
T
SOUTHWESTERNBLVD
W 5TH ST
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
BRIDGE
S
T
W 14 TH S T
SO ULE DR
W 1 3 T H S T
W 9TH S T
S E R VI C E R D
W 1 9 T H S T
C
A
N
D
E
E
S
T
JA
ME
S
ST
E 1 7 TH S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
RUCK
E
R
ST
A N N I E P U R L D V
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
M C K ENZIE DR
GEORGE ST
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
E 9TH 1/2 ST
P
AI
G
E
S
T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
STONE CIR
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
MO
N
TG
OM
E
RY
S
T
E 1 8 T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
WALNUT
ST
E 9 T H S T
MAR
TIN LUT
HER K
IN
G JR S
T
H
O
LLY
ST
E 17TH ST
E 8TH S T
E 9TH STW 9TH S T
PI
N
E
S
T
E 14TH S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
V
I
N
E
S
T
W16TH ST
E 16TH ST
W 1 4 TH S T
E 11TH ST
WALNUT
ST
W 7 T H ST
E 1 9 T H S TBRIDGE ST
E 8 T H S T
FORE
S
T S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 10TH ST
W 18TH ST
W 5 T H S T
L
A
U
REL
S
T
E 17TH S T
HART S
T
E 16TH ST
A
L
L
E
Y
E 16TH ST
E 1 4 T H S T
W 1 9 T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
2019-35-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 11 of 82
Byron Reese
304 E.University Ave
Georgetown,TX 78626
11 April2019
To Whom it May Concern:
My wife and I are the owners of the home at 304 E.University
Ave.We are trying to build a garage with a storage room where
our previous garage sat,facing Myrtle Street.
We never intend to use the structure as a habitation.
ByrReese
Page 12 of 82
the undersigned Notary Public,pejson&ly appeared
I 1)\Ifl)Y\P1I.
I
0 Proved to me on the oath of
o Personally known to me -
roved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenceI(C,S’VLv U’i C2’r ce.
(Description of ID)
to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument,and acknowledged that he/she/they executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Seal
ki,t VMJA
My commission expires
(Signature of t’tary Public)(I2-1
For Bank Purposes Only
Description of Attached Document
Type or Title of Document
I ecrb4 ct-hi &&P1.1 iD-L’w -.,I’.RAIV —jUjIJI I(I I IIT1
Document Date Number of Pagesw\
Signer(s)Other Than Named Above
I ft-bP\i.
h
FOOl -OOOOODSG.i-O1
Optional:A thumbprint is
only needed if state statutes
require a thumbprint.
WELLS
FARGO Acknowledgment by Individual
StateoL—County of
I \IJ\0t’YY\cc&’C\
On this Av t ,20 .beforeme,A2etii Viidayof
__________________________________________________
Name of éidtary Public
Name of signer(s)
REBECAVARGAS
**NOTARYPUBUC STATEOF TEXAS
MY COMM.EXP.08/08/2021
4OF1 NOTARY ID 12952007.1
Right Ihumbprint
of Signer
Top of thumb here
D5G5350 (Rev 02-05/17)
Page 13 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —LETTER OF INTENT
We intend to build a new 36’x20’enclosed garage and storage room with design and materials
to compliment the residence.
We request setback exception to rebuild the new larger footprint garage on or near the same
setback position where the previous 26.5’x24.4’garage was located.
We ask for a MODIFICATION OF SETBACK STANDARDS /SETBACK EXCEPTION for the following
reasons:
a.Location of previous structure [Jan 2019 demolition]setback met space limitations for
automotive access to entrance of garage,thus REPLACING a structure [photo attached]
removed in the last year and replacing a structure that previously existed with a similar
footprint and encroachment;
b.Other similar and newer outbuildings on same block [garage associated with residence
at corner of E Univ Ave and S Elm Str —garage on E 13th StrJ are at same setback or
lesser setback as proposed design of new garage [photo attached];neighbor’s garage
face is 18 feet from curb,as is metal fence and stone walls;
c.The proposed structure will not negatively impact any adjoining properties;
U.The proposed structure and the encroachment will enable two (2)large native pecan
trees to be preserved undisturbed [photo attachedi
£%t3t Sr
Page 14 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —SITE DESIGN PLAN
May 20,2019
SCALE
BEARINGS BASED ON DEED 927/73D.R.W..
(A.K.A.E.ST STAE ‘2—.
7 RC-D A—
S
____
LEGEND•1/2’IRON PIN FOUND WiTh NO CAP
_____
(UNLESS OThERWISE NOTED)o 1/2w IRON PIN SET
______
w/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP “CCC4835”•FENCE POST
O UTILITY POLEeWATERVALVE
WATER METER
XX CHAIN LINK FENCE
—E —ELECTRIC LINES
—T —TELEPHONE LINES
‘KITE:1
the Hughes Addition Is on unrecordedddftiontotheCityofGeorgetown.TheegaIdescriptionforthistractisbasec
>n one—half of Block A,Hughes\dditlon.Said block appears and IsrnnototedontheplotofCody’s
3ubdivlslon,recorded In Cob.A,SI.110,.R.W.C.This tract was reconstructedislngthevaluesshownonsoldplot andhemonumentatlonfoundonthe
idjoining Brye tract (V.927.P.73).
L SINGLE STORY
‘-FRAME GARAGE
CONCRETE
0.66 AC
28806 f
CONCRETE
WAL
/
ASPHALT ROAD WITH CONCRETE CURB
13TH STREETIAJ(&QALkLT’1 Tir’
1irt APWETcU1Nri
NOT TO SCALE///
WOOD STEPS
1s1.AJ 12M
)4 3 ‘
A
FENCE liES (F.T.)‘MTh ±‘REPRESENT FENCE ‘MThIN SUBJECT
PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND FENCE liEs (F.TJ WITHREPRESENTFENCEOUTSIDEOFSUBJECTPROPERTY.
>1
=gL114c TAr 1i
lin=39.2ft
Project Information:
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning District —ResidentIal Single-Family fRS)Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential /Existing Residence Area —2120 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pre-existing FAR —(.
Proposed Garage Rebuild Area —720 sqft
Proposed FAR -.,êPage 15 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —SITE DESIGN PLAN
May 20,2019
I
I t:zizE
___i +-t-
•,L1
I 1
\
I I I
lin=16ft
N
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning Ofstrict —Rc!sidcntial Single-Family (RS)Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residentiat I Existing Residence Area —4014 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pre-existing FAR —6.18
Proposed Garage RebuHd Area —720 sqft
Proposed FAR —6.08Page 16 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —SITE DESIGN PLAN
May 20,2019
•F--
--
_____
—
a1ou%LY e/j;77tJh i’AizA4i
A)Z/9
Project Information:
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning District —Residential Single-Family fRS)Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential I Existing Residence Area —4014 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pre-existing FAR —6.18
Proposed Garage Rebuild Area—720-sqft
Proposed FAR —6.03Page 17 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —SITE DESIGN PLAN
May 20,2019 7%
_________________________
Project Information:
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning District —Residential Single-Family (RS)Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential I Existing Residence Area —4014 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pre-existing FAR —6.18
N Proposed Garage Rebuild Area —720 sqft
Proposed FAR —6.08Page 18 of 82
30
4
E
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
e
n
u
e
—
Ga
r
a
g
e
Re
b
u
i
l
d
—
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
I
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
Ma
y
20
,
20
1
9
FR
O
N
T
!
ST
R
E
E
T
FA
C
I
N
G
JY
if
l
r
—
h’
%
s
t
tC
t
t
1
w
fi
i
‘‘
4
J
it
)
7
-
I
jj
j
j
j
i
1
t
YT
L
L
__
_
_
_
__
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
__
Zt
__
_
_
ml
:
_
Lt
4
T
I
N
Lt
tt
T
h
L
L
41
it
iz
/
‘‘
‘
/
/7
/
/
-
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
:
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
—
28
,
8
0
6
sq
f
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
—
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
(R
S
)
/
Ol
d
To
w
n
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Us
e
—
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
—
21
2
0
sq
f
t
Pr
e
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
Ar
e
a
—
64
7
sq
f
t
De
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
20
1
9
Pr
e
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
FA
R
—
4.
I
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ga
r
a
g
e
Re
b
u
i
l
d
Ar
e
a
—
72
0
sq
f
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
FA
R
-
L.
-
M/
i
?
J
•
I
I
I
j
I
I
Il
:
ZL
—-
-
I
LE
LI
‘I
I
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
I
E]
j•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-:
:
-
:7
;
;
/
1L
‘
S-
1
‘F
W
L
iS
tt
2
_
.
EZ
E
1
li
n
=
3
.
6
f
t
-
cu
>
?
q
(Y
A
t
€
L
&z
Z
1
1
;
7’
t
t
_-
Page 19 of 82
30
4
E
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Av
e
n
u
e
—
Ga
r
a
g
e
Re
b
u
i
l
d
—
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
/
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
Ma
y
20
,
20
1
9
RE
A
R
/
EA
S
T
.
rJ
T
T
f
l
1
T
T
(
i
zz
zz
z
z
z
r
z
z
:
:
z
z
:
:
z
z
_
z
.
z
z
z
r
z
:
-
HE
*
:r
Z
E
E
E
Z
E
:
ZZ
L
1
..
EJ
Z
:
-
/
f,
/
/
/
/
y
;
//
‘/
/
Z
f
,
/
/
,,
/_
7
,
,
)
‘/
f
f
/
/
f
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
:
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
—2
8
,
8
0
6
sq
f
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
—
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
(R
S
)
/
Ol
d
To
w
n
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Us
e
—
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
Ar
e
a
—2
1
2
0
sq
f
t
Pr
e
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
Ar
e
a
—
64
7
sq
f
t
De
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
20
1
9
Pr
e
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
FA
R
—4
.
I
,
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ga
r
a
g
e
Re
b
u
i
l
d
Ar
e
a
—
72
0
sq
f
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
FA
R
-
.0
I
li
n
=
3
.
6
f
t
N-
P
Page 20 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS /ELEVATIONS
May 20,2019 NORTH SIDE /LEFT
i £III—L.IQIL
N
Project Information:
t.ot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning District—Residential Single-Family (RS)/Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential
Existing Residence Area —2120 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pro-existing FAR —I
Proposed Garage Rebuild Area —720 sqft
Proposed FAR-,,08Page 21 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS I ELEVATIONS
May 20,2019 SOUTH SIDE I RIGHT
J<M*rr4
Project Information:
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning District —Residential Single-Family (RS)I Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential
Existing Residence Area —2120 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pre-existing FAR —
Proposed Garage Rebuild Area —720 sqft
Proposed FAR -Page 22 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS I ELEVATIONS
May 20,2019 FLOORPLAN LAYOUT
c 7 “EL i%—iW’MP
I in=4.5ft
__-=
Project Information:
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
Zoning District —Residential Single-Family (RS)I Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential
Existing Residence Area —2120 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
Pre-existing FAR —4:;.
Proposed Garage Rebuild Area —720 sqft
ProposedFAR-Page 23 of 82
304 E University Avenue —Garage Rebuild —ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS /ELEVATIONS
May 20,2019 RESIDENCE STYLE/COLOR MATCHING
Project Information:
Lot Area —28,806 sqft
_________________________
Zoning District —Residential Single-Family (RS)/Old Town Overlay District
Existing and Proposed Use —Single-Family Residential
Existing Residence Area —2120 sqft
Pre-existing Garage Area —647 sqft Demolished January 2019
N Pre-existing FAR —6.18
Proposed Garage Rebuild Area —720 sqft
Proposed FAR —6.08Page 24 of 82
Page 25 of 82
Page 26 of 82
Page 27 of 82
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:304 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:124077
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042840Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1897
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:Architect (per 2007 survey): Dr. Robert Stewart-Hyer (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:299
ID:204
*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 Cody-Hughes Home/None
ID:124077 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.632867 Longitude -97.674747
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: South
Page 28 of 82
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:304 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:124077
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Page 29 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: July 25, 2019
File Number: 2019-32-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) 15’ setback
encroachment along the property line adjacent to S Myrtle Street, into the required 25' setback, allowing
for detached garage structure 10’ from the property line per the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Section 4.08d.080.D; 2)street facing facade garage addition, for the property located at 304 E University,
bearing the legal description of 0.66 acres of the Hughes 2nd Addition, Block A (W/PT) (2019-35-COA).
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : 304 E University - Garage
Applicant: Michael Godwin (Mike of All Trades)
Property Owner: Byron & Sharon Reese
Property Address: 304 E University Ave.
Legal Description: HUGHES 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK A(W/PT), ACRES .66
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: Detached garage (non-historic) demolished in 2019; Permit #2019-48637
HISTORIC CONTEXT
The information below is for the primary structure on the property.
Date of Construction: 1897 (estimated)
Historic Name: Code-Hughes Home
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 – High
2016 – High
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: Yes
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to construct a detached garage in the same location of the original garage.
Per UDC Section 3.13, HARC has review and approval authority for the following elements of this
request:
1. Addition of a street facing façade (detached garage)
2. Setback modification (15’ into the 25’ setback)
Page 30 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 2 of 7
STAFF ANALYSIS
Addition of a Street Facing Façade (Detached Garage)
The proposed structure would be 14’ at the setback, which is an allowable building height. The
applicant proposes to use the same roof and siding materials as the main structure, which is in
conformance with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The proposed structure would be
a single-gabled roof. The street facing facade would have two faux dormers, two panel garage doors,
and one faux panel garage door. Constructing the garage to match the materials of the primary
structure would maintain the character of the high-priority primary structure.
Setback Modification
The location of the proposed structure requires a setback modification. The original structure, which
was approved for demolition in January 2019, was 10’ from the property line; encroaching 15’ into the
25’ garage-facing setback. The applicant proposes to construct a new detached garage in the same
location. There is room on the lot to move the structure back to the required 25’ setback, however, there
are two trees which would be encroached. Within the block of this request is a garage of similar setback
and encroachment. Constructing the garage in the original location would maintain the character of the
high-priority primary structure.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL
CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN
OVERLAY DISTRICT
STAFF ANALYSIS
14.01 - Locate a new building using a residential setback.
Align the new non-residential building front at a setback
that is in context with the area properties.
× New residential buildings should meet the minimum
front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased
setback if the block has historically developed with an
extended setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to the front
facing façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that
aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Does Not Comply
The proposed detached garage
is proposed in the same
location as the original, which
is a 15’ encroachment into the
setback. The applicant has also
requested a setback
modification to address the
encroachment into the setback.
There are other detached
garages on the block with a
similar setback.
14.08 - Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are
preferred.
Brick and stone are preferred for new construction.
Complies
The applicant is proposing to
use the same building materials
Page 31 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 3 of 7
New materials should appear similar in character to those
used traditionally. For example, wooden siding, brick, and
stone
should be detailed to provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated durability in
the Central Texas climate. For example, some façade
materials used in new construction are more susceptible
to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or
brick.
of the high priority primary
structure on the property.
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
New construction; in kind
materials are acceptable for low
and medium priority
properties.
14.12 – An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character 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.
An addition to the front of the building is usually
inappropriate.
Complies
The applicant is proposing to
use a structure of similar size to
the previous structure. The
prosed structure is subordinate
to the historic structure in size.
The proposed structure will
make use of similar materials
and roof form.
14.23 - Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character
of the building and neighborhood.
The primary goal should be preserving the original
residential character, appearance, and scale of the
structure.
Building uses that are closely related to the original use
are preferred. Avoid radical alterations to either the
interior or exterior of the structure.
Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors.
Complies
The structure will be used for a
detached garage, which was the
use of the original structure.
In accordance with UDC Section 3.13.030.B of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider
the following criteria:
Page 32 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 4 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.B CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 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
In accordance with UDC Section 3.13.030.D of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider
the following criteria for a setback medication request:
SECTION 3.13.030.D CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate
of Appropriateness, per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the
setback standards of the underlying base zoning district for residential
properties located within the Old Town Overlay District.
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of
convenience;
Partially
Complies
The proposed
setback
modification
will allow a
detached
garage to be
built in the
same location
as the original
structure.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition
or new structure without encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
Page 33 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D CRITERIA FINDINGS
The proposed
setback allows
the applicant
to utilize the
existing
driveway
apron.
Allowing and
not encroach
on an area of
trees. The
setback
modification is
consistent
with the
location of the
original
structure.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the
block in which the subject property is located;
Complies
The proposed
structure will
not be out of
scale with
other detached
garages on the
block
(example E
13th Street).
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the
street than other units within the block;
Complies
The proposed
structure will
not be out of
scale with
other detached
garages on the
block
(example E
13th Street).
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within
the past year;
Complies
Page 34 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D CRITERIA FINDINGS
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously
existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Complies
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another
structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the
original;
Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition
compared to the original house;
Complies
i. Reserved.
j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within
the same block;
Complies
There are
other
properties
along the
block that
have a two-car
carport or
garage of
similar size
and scale.
k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact
adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing
buildings;
Complies
The proposed
location of this
structure will
not negatively
impact the
adjoining
property. The
setback
distance for
the adjacent
property is
being met.
l. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition
or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
There is
adequate
maintenance
space.
m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant
features of the lot to be preserved.
Complies
Page 35 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-35-COA – 304 E University Avenue Page 7 of 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request as the proposed structure will be in same location as the
original and is in context with other properties on the block, be built of similar materials as the primary
structure, and will not encroach on existing trees. Overall, maintaining the context of the original
detached garage helps to maintain the character of the high priority primary structure on the property.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 4 – Materials
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 36 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of
five windows for the property loc ated at 1607 S C hurch S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.15 ac res
of the S outhside Addition, Block 1 (S W /P T ) (2019-40-C O A). C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of the Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is requesting to replac e five (5) windows on a medium priority struc ture in the O ld Town
O verlay Dis tric t. P er S ection 3.13 of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), HAR C has review and
approval authority for the replacement of his toric features with non-historic features .
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been rec eived.
Findings
As noted on the Historic R es ourc e S urvey, the s tructure is a one-story Minimal Traditional s tyle house
clad in wood s iding with an irregular plan and a c ros s -hipped roof. T he struc ture as a non-his toric addition
in the rear. T he Historic R es ourc e S urvey also notes that the s tructure retains a relatively high degree of
integrity.
T he window grouping propos ed for replacement are fixed c as ement metal, located on the s treet-facing
façade, to the left of the entryway on an artic ulated wall. T he windows are grouped together and create a
character defining element of the s tructure. T he existing c onfiguration is a large s ingle-paned window
flanked with five (5) paned vertic al windows on either s ide. T here are two (2) additional windows parallel to
the faç ade of the home with a s imilar c onfiguration of five (5) panes whic h the applic ant also intends to
replace. T he window trim and muntins are black on the exterior and white on the interior.
T he applic ant proposes to replace the windows and maintain the s ame material, s ize, location, c olor, and
configuration (5 panes ). However, the propos ed replac ements will not retain their functionality. T he
replacement windows will not swing open. T he operation of the window is not a c harac ter defining feature.
R ecent UDC c hanges s upport the replacement of his toric materials with in kind materials for low and
medium priority struc tures .
S taff recommends approval of the reques t.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Page 37 of 82
Exhibit 4- Materials Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - His toric Resource Survey Backup Material
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 38 of 82
A
SH S
T
PINE ST
S
M
A
IN
ST
ELM S
T
E 15T H ST
E 13T H ST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 1 8 T H S T
S AUS
T
IN AVE
E 1 9 T H S T
MA
P
LE
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
W 17TH ST
E UNI VE R S ITY AVE
W 1 6T H S T
W 1 8T H S T
E 1 6T H S T
TIM
B
ER
ST E 14TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
H
A
R
T
S
T
E 2 0 T H S T
H
O
G
G
S
T
W UN I VE R S I T Y AVE
S M
YRT
LE
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
PAI
G
E
S
T
W 1 4T H S T
C Y R U S A V E
B
R
U
SHY S
T
A
L
L
E
Y
E 1 7T H S T
E 1 9 T H 1 /2 S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
W 1 9 T H S T
GE
ORG
E S
T
E 1 7T H 1 /2 S T
C
O
F
F
E
E
S
TE21STST
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 1 4 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T
E 17TH ST
E 16T H ST E 1 6TH ST
E 1 4T H ST
W 18T H S T
E 17TH ST
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
2019-40-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Feet
Page 39 of 82
Page 40 of 82
Page 41 of 82
Page 42 of 82
Page 43 of 82
Page 44 of 82
Page 45 of 82
Page 46 of 82
Page 47 of 82
Homero. Cavazos
1607. S church. St
Georgetown. Tx. 78626
512 658. 1457
18
18
70
18
18
62
62
Black
White.
Outside
Inside
1
2 3 4
5
Restoration replacement windows
#1. 2. 4 5. HORZ. GRID. External. Gri
Do. WHITE. INSIDE. BLACK. OUTSIDEs
Color. ALL. WINDOWS. BLACK. COLOR. OUTSIDE. WHITE. INSIDE
# 1. 2 4. 5. PUT HORZ. GRIDS
HORZ. Grids. Black outside. White inside
Casements. With.
External. Grids
External. Grids
Casements
Picture
Casements
# 1. 2. 4. 5. Casements with. Four
External.
HORZ
Grids
Casements
Job. #70526
4 hoz
#1 2. 4. 5. Casements.
Page 48 of 82
Page 49 of 82
Page 50 of 82
Page 51 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1607 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:124578
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address CAVAZOS, HOMERO, JR, 1607 S CHURCH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78628
Latitude:30.629472 Longitude -97.674692
Addition/Subdivision:S4676 - Southside Addition
WCAD ID:R047729Legal Description (Lot/Block):S4676 - Southside Addition, BLOCK 1sw/pt, ACRES 0.15
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:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1945
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: East
Page 52 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1607 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:124578
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story Minimal Traditional style house clad in wood siding with an irregular plan, cross-hipped roof, and a partial-
width, inset porch with rounded entry steps and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Addition at the 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:1; Unknown
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Hipped
Metal
Metal Posts
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 53 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1607 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:124578
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
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: None)
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 retains a relatively high degree of
integrity; property is significant and
contributes to neighborhood character
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:781
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 54 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1607 S Church St 2016 Survey ID:124578
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 55 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-40-COA – 1607 S Church Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: July 25, 2019
File Number: 2019-40-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement
of five windows for the property located at 1607 S Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.15
acres of the Southside Addition, Block 1 (SW/PT) (2019-40-COA). Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Cavazos Windows
Applicant: Statewide Remodeling
Property Owner: Kristi & Homero Cavazos
Property Address: 1607 S Church Street
Legal Description: Southside Addition, Block 1 (SW/PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: No notable case history
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of Construction: 1945 (estimated)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A
2007 – Medium
2016 – Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to replace five (5) windows on a medium priority structure in the Old Town
Overlay District. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and
approval authority for the replacement of historic features with non-historic features.
STAFF ANALYSIS
As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure is a one-story Minimal Traditional style house
clad in wood siding with an irregular plan and a cross-hipped roof. The structure has a non-historic
addition in the rear. The Historic Resource Survey also notes that the structure retains a relatively high
degree of integrity.
The window grouping proposed for replacement are fixed casement metal, located on the street-facing
façade, to the left of the entryway on an articulated wall. The windows are grouped together and create
a character defining element of the structure. The existing configuration is a large single-paned
window flanked with five (5) paned vertical windows on either side. There are two (2) additional
Page 56 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-40-COA – 1607 S Church Page 2 of 6
windows parallel to the façade of the home with a similar configuration of five (5) panes which the
applicant also intends to replace. The window trim and muntins are black on the exterior and white on
the interior.
Photo from Historic Resource Survey
Photo Provided by the Applicant
Page 57 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-40-COA – 1607 S Church Page 3 of 6
The applicant proposes to replace the windows and maintain the same material, size, location, color,
and configuration (5 panes). However, the proposed replacements will not retain their functionality.
The replacement windows will not swing open. The operation of the window is not a character
defining feature. Recent UDC changes support the replacement of historic materials with in kind
materials for low and medium priority structures.
The Downtown and Old Town Guidelines state that HARC should consider the following when
evaluating proposals to replace windows.
1. Historic windows and doors are not necessarily decorative, so their functionality as well as
appropriate design should be considered.
2. Whether the repair of the historic windows and/or doors is technically not feasible.
3. The window and door openings should not be altered to accommodate windows or doors of
different sizes, proportions, views, or configurations.
4. If the windows and doors are visible to the public they should not be removed, enclosed, or
obscured.
5. Windows and doors visible to the public view should be retained in the original location.
6. Whether the appearance matches the details such as window or door size, shape, operation,
glass configuration, material, and finish. The appearance of the sash, opening size, and
decorative detail should look like the historic window or door.
7. Whether the operation of the replacement window or door is the same; for example, double-
hung or casement windows that open inward.
8. Whether the muntin style, configuration, detailing, and installation is the same for the
replacement window or door as the historic window or door.
9. Whether the sash and frame materials are the same materials, match the historic detailing, style,
complexity, and profile.
Page 58 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-40-COA – 1607 S Church Page 4 of 6
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL
BUILDING ELEMENTS STAFF ANALYSIS
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of
historic windows and doors in a building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining
facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening.
Do not close down an original opening to accommodate a
smaller window. Restoring original openings which have
been altered over time is encouraged.
Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The
proportions of these windows contribute to the character of
each residence and commercial storefront.
Complies
The proposed window
replacement retains the
position, number, size, and
arrangement of the windows.
Openings are not being
proposed or closed.
6.14 Maintenance of windows.
× Wash windows.
× Clean debris from windows.
× Replace loose or broken glass in kind. This will reduce air
leaks.
× Replace damaged muntins, moldings, or glazing
compound with material that matches the original in
shape, size, and material.
× Repair window hardware or replace with materials that
match the original in scale and design. If the replacement
hardware does not match the original design it should be
simple, unobtrusive, and compatible with the style and
building’s period of significance.
× Install weather-stripping. This will enhance energy
conservation significantly.
Maintain the interior views, so that either merchandise or
furniture can be seen.
Does Not Comply
Replacement is being proposed,
over maintenance.
6.15 Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating,
or otherwise reinforcing the wood.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-
windows.htm
Does Not Comply
Replacement is being proposed,
over maintenance.
6.20 When window or door replacement is necessary, match the
replacement to the original design as closely as possible.
× Preserve the original casing, when feasible.
If the original is double-hung, then the replacement
window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum,
Partially Complies
The proposed window
replacement retains the overall
design for windows that are a
prominent feature of the
Page 59 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-40-COA – 1607 S Church Page 5 of 6
appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number
and position of glass panes.
Very ornate windows or doors that are not appropriate to
the building’s architectural style are inappropriate.
Using the same material as the original is preferred.
A new screen door added to the front of a visible door
should be “full view” design or with minimal structural
dividers to retain the visibility of the historic door behind
it.
A screen door should be sized to fit the original entrance
opening and the design should be of the appropriate style
and period of the building.
Security doors are non-historic additions. If installed, they
should follow the guidelines for screen doors.
structure. The functionality of
the windows is also proposed
to change. The tall vertical
windows currently swing open.
The proposed window
replacement does retain the
overall size, location, materials,
and colors.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 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; 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
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Page 60 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-40-COA – 1607 S Church Page 6 of 6
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 4 – Materials
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 61 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and d is cus s io n of a req ues t for a C o mmercial Additio n and R eno vatio n for the property
located at 101 E. 7th S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.14 ac . G eorgetown, C ity of, Bloc k 39, Lot
2-39 (W /P T S ), (C O A-2018-046). Nat Waggoner, AI C P, P MP, Long R ange P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is propos ing to add a sec ond s tory to the existing single-story s tructure. T here are also s ome
minor alterations along the existing street facing facades to convert windows to doors.
HAR C R eview
· R eplac ing a historic architec tural feature with a non-his toric arc hitectural feature, s treet fac ing,
contributing s tructure: Modific ations made to the exis ting s tructure.
· C reate or add to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ade, contributing s tructure: S econd story addition and first
floor expansion.
HP O R eview
C reate or add to an existing non-street facing façade, c ontributing struc ture: S ec ond s tory addition and firs t
floor expansion.
S taff is s eeking feed b ack on material selec tion for 2nd and 3rd floors, modification o f 1st floor windows ,
addition of 1st floor service door.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
All fees have been paid.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Historic Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 62 of 82
EL
M
S
T
R
OC
K
S
T
SCENIC DR
S
MA
I
N
S
T
A
S
H
S
T
E 7 T H S T
E 5 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 4 T H S T
E 2 N D S T
WE
S
T
S
T
E 6 T H S T
W 8 TH ST
PI
N
E
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
W 1 0 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
ST
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11TH ST
WALNUT ST
FO
R
E
ST
S
T
H
O
L
LY
S
T
W 7TH ST
W 3RD S T
E 1 0T H S T
E 11T H S T
E 3 R D S T
MAR
T
IN
LU
T
H
E
R
K
IN
G
J
R
S
T
E U N IV E R S I T Y AV E
W 5 T H S T
W 2ND ST
W 9THST
RAILROAD AVE
E 9 T H S T
R
U
C
K
E
R
S
T
E 9 T H 1 /2 S T
TI
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
RIVEROAK
S
C
V
MONTGOMERY ST
E 9 T H S T
W 5 T H S T
E 1 0T H S T
W 9 T H S T
E 3 R D S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
PI
NE
S
T
FO
R
E
ST
S
T
E 11T H S T
W
ES
T
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 2 N D S T
E 9 T H S T
COA-2018-046Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 63 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address CITY OF GEORGETOWN, PO BOX 409, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78627-0409
Latitude:30.637746 Longitude -97.676823
Addition/Subdivision:S3667 - Georgetown City Of
WCAD ID:R391754Legal Description (Lot/Block):GEORGETOWN CITY OF, BLOCK 39, LOT 2-3(W/PTS),
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 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:"UF Hopes to Give Library $2000," The
Sunday Sun, September 15, 1974, 14.
Construction Date:1970
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Downtown District
Current/Historic Name:Georgetown Municipal Court and Council Chambers/Georgetown Library
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 64 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, commercial building clad in rusticated stone blocks with a corner entrance located in a domed,
stucco-clad tower; fixed, storefront windows with clerestories; rounded, wrap-around canopy supported by tension rods.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
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:
Not visible
Vinyl
Canopy
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 65 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
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:The building underwent a major exterior renovation c2000.
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:121
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 66 of 82
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:101 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:126506
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NorthPhoto Direction
Page 67 of 82
Page 68 of 82
FINISH FLOOR
ELEV = 100'-0"
T.O. DOME
ELEV = 133'-8"
FINISH FLOOR
ELEV = 100'-0"
T.O. MASONRYELEV = 118'-6"
F.F. 2ND FLOOR
ELEV = 114'-8"
T.O. OPENING
ELEV = 108'-0"
T.O. CANOPY
ELEV = 109'-0"
FINISH FLOOR
ELEV = 100'-0"
C.O. BRACKET
ELEV = 114'-4"
T.O. OPENING
ELEV = 108'-0"
T.O. CANOPYELEV = 109'-0"
B.O. OPENINGELEV = 110'-6"
T.O. OPENINGELEV = 112'-6"
T.O. DOME
ELEV = 133'-8"
T.O. DOME
ELEV = 133'-8"
FINISH FLOOR
ELEV = 100'-0"
C.O. BRACKET
ELEV = 114'-4"
T.O. OPENING
ELEV = 108'-0"
T.O. CANOPYELEV = 109'-0"
B.O. OPENINGELEV = 110'-6"
T.O. OPENINGELEV = 112'-6"
T.O. DOME
ELEV = 133'-8"
B.O. OPENING
ELEV = 106'-0"
Page 69 of 82
Page 70 of 82
Page 71 of 82
1
JAB ENGINEERING, LLC.4500 Williams Drive, Ste. 212-121
Georgetown, TX 78633
512-779-7414
josh.baran@jabeng.com
July 12, 2019
City of Georgetown
Planning Dept.
Nathaniel Wagner
RE: Letter of Intent for 101 E 7th Street
To Whom It May Concern,
We are applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition to two street facing facades.
Owner of the facility is the City of Georgetown, and application is made on behalf of the developer,
Benchmark Properties. The property is located at 101 E. 7th Street in Georgetown, TX. The proposed
improvements include the addition of a second story to the existing. The existing wall structures and
rotunda are proposed to remain as-is, with the exception of the replacement of two sets of windows with
entry doors.
A previous Certificate of Appropriateness was approved in January of 2019 for the subject
property that included additional building expansion and a fence. These two items are modified and not
requested under this application. The new application removes the pitched roof, which was approved,
but a discussion point during the previous CoA. Similar material and colors are proposed in the new
application.
The following items are proposed for the additions:
·Cast limestone wall cap to match existing turret profile
·2nd floor – Copper colored metal wall panel of varying widths with standing seam profile
·2nd floor – Grey colored metal wall panel
·TPO roof at low slope (<1:12) roof
·Metal rails – painted blue
·Steel trellis – painted blue (vertical) / white (horizontal)
Page 72 of 82
2
Including in our submittal are the following:
A.Site Design (Plot) Plan – Prepared by developer’s Civil consultant.
B.Architectural Elevations – Two street-facing sides; prepared by developer’s architectural
consultant.
C.Specifications and Details – These will be provided after the completeness review
D.Photographs/Renderings – Current Photos of Structure
E.Material Samples – These will be provided after the completeness review
F.Fee – Due Upon Submittal $265
Best wishes,
Joshua A. Baran, P.E.
JAB Engineering, LLC
Page 73 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: July 25, 2019
File Number: 2019-47-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Presentation and discussion of a request for a Commercial Addition and Renovation for the property
located at 101 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.14 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 39, Lot 2-
39 (W/PTS), (COA-2018-046). Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Commercial Renovation and Addition
Applicant: Josh Baran, P.E., JAB Engineering, LLC
Property Owner: City of Georgetown
Property Address: 101 E. 7th St.
Legal Description: .14 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 39, Lot 2-3
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay; Area 1
Case History: 9/27/2018 Conceptual HARC Review, 1/24/2019 HARC Public Hearing
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1970, major renovation in the 2000’s.
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not Recorded
2007 - Low
2016 - Low
National Register Designation: No, Located in the Williamson County Courthouse
National Register District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to add a second story to the existing single-story structure. There are
also some minor alterations along the existing street facing facades to convert windows to doors.
HARC Review
• Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature, street facing,
contributing structure: Modifications made to the existing structure.
• Create or add to an existing street facing façade, contributing structure: Second story addition
and first floor expansion.
HPO Review
• Create or add to an existing non-street facing façade, contributing structure: Second story
addition and first floor expansion.
Page 74 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 2 of 9
HARC Conceptual Review Summary
At the 9/27/2018 conceptual review, focused on two Design Guidelines, 7.3 and 7.5 regarding
compatibility of materials with the character of the main building, and design specifications relating to
roof additions, respectively. The Commission expressed concerns for the proposed siding material on
the new addition and its compatibility with the stone material used on the 1st floor of the existing
structure. The windows proposed for the new second story were requested to be changed to reflect the
window style found on the first floor as the divided light windows in the proposed design were not
seen as compatible. There was also concern by HARC for the number and expanse of windows, the
extent of transparency on the second floor was reflective of modern design. There was also discussion
on the proposed height of the structure with the center gable being taller than the existing domed
tower.
HARC Public Hearing Summary
At the 1/24/2019 HARC public hearing, the Commission discussed the changes made from the
conceptual review: the addition will be at the back of the building and the east side of the building to
step down to the parking lot area. The applicant lowered the height of the roofline to be less than the
dome and made the upper story more transparent with the inclusion of more windows. Some of the
first floor windows were proposed as doors. The Commission ultimately approved the design on the
condition that the 2nd floor cladding be changed to a colored metal that is commonly seen on historic
commercial buildings such as the window frames on the existing structure and/or the two domes that
are in Area 1
STAFF ANALYSIS
Design Goals for Area 1
The design goals for Area 1 are:
• To rehabilitate existing historic commercial buildings;
• To continue the use of traditional building materials found in the area;
• To maintain the traditional mass, size, and form of buildings seen along the street (i.e., a
building should be a rectangular mass that is one- to three-stories in height.);
• To design commercial buildings with storefront elements similar to those seen traditionally (i.e.,
a commercial building should include: recessed entries, display windows, kick plates,
transom windows, midbelt cornices, cornices or pediments, and vertically oriented upper-
story windows.);
• To design a project that reinforces the retail oriented function of the street and enhances its
pedestrian character;
• To promote friendly, walkable streets (i.e., projects that support pedestrian activity and
contribute to the quality of life are encouraged.); and
• To provide site amenities—such as benches, lights, waste receptacles, landscaping, etc.— to
enhance the pedestrian clean, uncluttered experience.
Page 75 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 3 of 9
The subject structure is a one-story, rectangular commercial building located on a corner lot,
adjacent to S. Main St. and E. 7th St off of the historic square, within the Williamson County Courthouse
National Register District. The structure has a corner entry with stone block cladding and multiple
storefront windows with a domed tower rising above the corner entry way. The building was
identified on the 2007 and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys as a low priority structure. It was
constructed in 1970, undergoing major renovations in 2000. The applicant proposes to utilize the
existing historic structure, making some minor alterations to the exterior street-facing facades a first
floor expansion and the addition of a second-story.
Alterations
The applicant is proposing alterations to the existing structure’s street facing facades. Along the E.
7th Street façade and S. Main facade, the applicant is proposing dentils along the existing cornice. Based
on research provided by the applicant, the original plans included these architectural features which
are appropriate for this style of architecture. On the E. 7th Street (south) façade the applicant is
requesting to add a steel framed door and thin wood slats and paint the existing awning. The addition
of fenestration to this façade is appropriate, as most historic commercial buildings had a high ratio of
door and windows on the first floor. The use of steel and unpainted wood creates a modern design, this
helps to identify it as a new element to the existing façade. The proposed changes to the S. Main St.
(west) façade include converting three of the existing window sections to partial doors, maintaining the
same size and location, but introducing the functionality of window openings and creating additional
outdoor seating opportunities. The applicant is also proposing to convert a window to the main entry
door. The proposed door will be the same height as the other existing windows and doors. These
proposed changes to the windows, addition of doors meet the guidelines by retaining the existing
openings, locations and transparency and retaining character of the existing structure but do alter the
functionality of the existing windows.
Additions
The applicant is also proposing four additions, totaling 6,096 sf as 2nd and 3rd floors. The additions
in January totaled 6,005 sf.
The proposed first floor addition is approximately 87 sf to allow for a tenant storage and will be
recessed into the lot but still visible along the Main St. façade. The proposed expansion to the north is a
ground-level addition that involves expanding the footprint of the existing structure and is proposed at
the rear of the building.
The proposed second story addition will be slightly recessed along the Main St (west façade) and
recessed at a depth greater than the existing rotunda on the 7th St. (south façade) at the front of the
building. The guidelines reference substantially setting back a new addition. A majority of the
structures around the square are two stories and the creation of a second floor on this structure, visible
and prominent.
The Design Guidelines, page 75 provides commentary related to commercial additions:
Page 76 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 4 of 9
“Two distinct types of additions are considered to be appropriate by HARC: ground-level or roof-
top. First, a ground-level addition that involves expanding the footprint of a structure may be
considered. Such an addition should be to the rear or side of a building. This will have the least
impact on the character of a building, but there may only be limited opportunities to do this.
Second, an addition to the roof may be designed that is simple in character and set back
substantially from the front of a building. The materials, window sizes and alignment of trim
elements on the addition should be compatible to those of the existing structure, but also visually
subordinate in character so as to avoid calling attention alteration to the addition. Another option,
which will only be considered on a case-by-case basis, is to design an addition to the front wall
plane of the existing building. This option may only be considered on a “newer” or more
contemporary building that was originally constructed set back from the front property line or
sidewalk edge.”
Materials
The proposed materials include horizontal ribbed metal panels, vertical seamed metal wall
panels and a painted awning structure.
Traditional second floor commercial buildings include one over one or two over two panes (see
picture below). The applicant has also altered the proposed windows on the second story from the
version approved in January to include more vertically oriented windows with no division of light.
The existing structure’s roofline is flat, however the proposed second story will have a mix of
roof styles and heights. There will be a shed (or half- gable) roof along the west elevation measuring
approximately 30’, and a flat roof on the 3rd floor at 38’. Policy 7.5 states that “The roofs of additions should
not interfere with the original roof form by changing its basic shape and should have a roof form compatible with
the original building.” The majority of rooflines of the structures along the Square (picture above) have
flat roofs, as this was the typical roof style for a second floor addition. The proposed mixture of
rooflines help to visually break up the dominant effect that a single roofline would have and identify
the addition as new.
Overall, the proposed second and third floors are more modern in design and style. The proposed
materials, mix of roof types, and window styles are not seen in the existing structure or typical of
commercial structures in Area 1. An addition should be designed so that it is distinguishable as new, but
respectful of the existing historic structure and those in its vicinity. Using modern interpretations are
encouraged if they are balanced with elements that are commonly seen in historic commercial building
Page 77 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 5 of 9
style and design. This addition uses rooflines that are distinguishable, cladding which is modern in
material and color. This design could increase its compatibility with other structures around the historic
square if it were to utilize a more historic cladding. The applicant discussed the difficulty in structural
concerns if using a heavier material such as stone. Metal siding material is not a typical siding material
seen historically. However, metal was historically used for architectural features such as domes. There
are two domes on the Square that use a similar color metal.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
4.2 Avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the
original building.
For example, details such as decorative millwork or
cornices should not be added to a building if they were
not an original feature of that structure.
Complies
The proposed changes to add
dentils along a cornice is typical
of other historic structures along
the Square and was included in
the initial 1970 design as
discovered by the applicant .
4.11 Avoid adding decorative elements, unless thorough
research indicates that the building once had them.
Conjectural “historic” designs for replacement parts that
cannot be substantiated by documented evidence are
inappropriate.
Dressing up a building with pieces of ornamentation that
are out of character with the architectural style gives the
building a false “history” it never had, and is
inappropriate.
Complies
This structure is not historic, but
has incorporated elements that
were compatible with the
adjacent historic structures.
Page 78 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 6 of 9
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING
ELEMENTS
6.7 Preserve the character of the cornice line.
An original cornice moulding should be preserved.
Most historic commercial buildings have cornices to cap
their facades. Their repetition along the street contributes
to the visual continuity on the block.
Many cornices are made of sheet metal. Areas that have
rusted through can be patched with pieces of new metal.
Complies
The existing cornice will be
enhanced with dentils.
6.8 Reconstruct a missing cornice when historic evidence is
available.
Use historic photographs to determine design details of
the original cornice.
Replacement elements should match the original in every
detail, especially in overall size and profile. Keep sheet
metal ornamentation well painted.
The substitution of another old cornice for the original
may be considered, provided that the substitute is similar
to the original.
Complies
The existing cornice will be
enhanced with dentils. The
existing structure is not historic,
however this architectural
feature can be seen on other
structures around the Square.
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and arrangement of
historic windows and doors in a building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-defining
facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new opening.
Do not close down an original opening to accommodate
a smaller window. Restoring original openings which
have been altered over time is encouraged.
Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The
proportions of these windows contribute to the character
of each residence and commercial storefront.
Partially Complies
This structure was built in the
1970’s and does not represent a
specific stylistic influence. The
applicant is retaining the
majority of the two street-facing
façades and is proposing to add
a door to west elevation and
modify the functionality of 3
existing full windows. The
applicant is proposing to add a
service door along 7th Street.
6.21 Maintain the historic ratio of window and storefront
openings to solid wall.
Significantly increasing (or decreasing) the amount of
glass will negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
On traditional storefronts, first floors should be more
transparent than upper floors.
− Upper floors should appear more solid than first floors.
N/A
Complies
The proposed changes to the
facades will convert an existing
set of windows to doors and add
a small door. The south façade
will also have a door added.
Again, the structure itself is not
historic, but the surrounding
buildings are. The existing ratio
Page 79 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 7 of 9
Avoid a blank wall appearance that does not provide
interest to pedestrians. Note, however, that the side wall
of a historic building located on a corner will have fewer
openings.
− Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate on residential
structures and on the upper floors and sides of
commercial buildings. N/A
− If necessary, divide large glass surfaces into smaller
windows that are in scale with those seen traditionally.
N/A
of windows to doors will be
respectful of what is existing.
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS
& ALTERATIONS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed second and 3rd
story additions do not impact
the existing structure.
7.3 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 inappropriate.
However, where a building in the Downtown Overlay is
set back from the front property line and the structure
does not have historic significance, the first consideration
for the placement of an addition should be to fill the gap
between the existing building and sidewalk. This will
maintain the consistent “street wall” desired in the
downtown.
- For example, mounting a sign panel in a manner that
causes decorative moldings to be chipped or removed
would be inappropriate. N/A
Partially Complies
The mass of the proposed rear
addition and second story is
appropriate and the new
second-story facades are slightly
recessed as along the Main
Street facade. The majority of
the siding material is proposed
to be a ribbed/seamed metal.
This is not a typical siding
material is present on domes in
downtown. The proposed
windows on the 2nd floor reflect
a style of window that is
complementary to what is
typically seen on the second
stories around the square.
7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a cornice line should be
avoided.
Complies
The new additions do not
damage any features of the
existing structure.
7.5 An addition may be made to the roof of a commercial building
if it does the following:
Partially Complies
The new second story addition
is slightly recessed from the
façade of the existing structure
Page 80 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 8 of 9
An addition should be set back from the primary,
character-defining facade, to preserve the perception of
the historic scale of the building.
• Its design should be modest in character, so it will not
attract attention from the historic facade.
• The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a
subtle way.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the
original roof form by changing its basic shape and should
have a roof form compatible with the original building.
along Main Stret. The new
additions are distinguishable
with a modern style and
elements that have been pulled
from a typical historic
commercial style. The design
proposes both pitched and flat
roof lines to provide a
complementary style to what is
typically seen, but to identify it
as a new addition.
CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-mounted
brackets, chains, and posts.
Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those
canopies seen historically.
Complies
The new metal awning will be
on the new second floor and will
have a contemporary feel.
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining
features.
It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be
found above the storefront and should not hide character-
defining features.
Its mounting should not damage significant features and
historic details.
Complies
The new awning will be on the
second floor over the some of
the windows on the west and
south elevations.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final
action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm
Complies,
Structure is
not historic
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
Page 81 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-46] – 101 E. 7th St. Page 9 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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;
Partially
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
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking feedback on material selection for 2nd and 3rd floors, modification of 1st floor windows,
addition of 1st floor service door.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3- Historic Resources Survey
Exhibit 4 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 5- Staff Report
SUBMITTED BY
Nat Waggoner AICP, Long Range Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 82 of 82