HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.22.2016Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
September 22, 2016 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Co mmis s ion may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene an Executive S es s io n at the reques t
of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Direc to r or legal counsel fo r any p urp o s e autho rized by the Op en
Meetings Ac t, Texas Government Code C hapter 551.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff P res entation
Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.)
Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
Comments fro m Citizens *
Applic ant Res p o nse
Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s
Commis s ion Ac tion
* Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing
sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the
Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes o f the August 25, 2016 regular meeting.
C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) fo r exterior
alterations to a s treet fac ing fac ad e fo r the property lo cated at 1600 Elm Street, bearing the legal
desc rip tio n o f S o uthside Ad d n, (resub Blk Pt 1), Lot 1,3, 0.374 acres
D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le action o n a req uest for a Certific ate o f Appropriateness (COA) fo r a
residential additio n for the property loc ated at 1605 S o uth Church Street bearing the legal d es c riptio n of
So uthside Additio n, Bloc k 1 (W/PT), 0.15 ac res
Page 1 of 65
E Co mments o r Ques tions by Co mmis s ioners -in-Training.
F Up d ates on Do wntown Projec ts and Events
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 65
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 22, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes of the Augus t 25, 2016 regular meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
na
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HARC Minutes 08.25.2016 Backup Material
Page 3 of 65
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: August 25, 2016
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain, Chair; Nancy Knight, Vice-Chair; Justin Bohls; Patty Eason; Shawn Hood,
Richard Mee and Lawrence Romero.
Commissioners in Training present: Michael Friends and Lynn Williams
Commissioners absent: CIT, Jan Daum
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
Call to Order by Chair Bain at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures.
Regular Session
A. Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2016 regular meeting.
Motion by Knight to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Mee. Approved 7 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
exterior alterations to the street facing façade for the property located at 1600 Elm Street, bearing
the legal description of Southside Addition, (resub Blk Pt 1), Lot s 1 and 3, o.374 acres.
The applicant asked that this item be postponed to the next meeting.
Motion by Knight, second by Romero to postpone action on this item until the next meeting,
September 22, 2016. Approved 7 – 0.
D. Conceptual Review for the proposed Smith Performance Center – Gary Wang, AIA
Sofia Nelson presented the policies that the commissioners should consider when reviewing this
project and offering comments to the applicant. Those comments should be based on building
materials, massing and compatibility with the District. They were not supposed to consider the
economic reasons and use of the building.
Michael Davis, Committee Chair for the Palace introduced the architect. He stated the board is
very excited about the new building, stating that over 6000 children have attended classes at the
Palace in the last year and 11 of the 13 classes offered over the summer were booked before they
were publicized. They are appreciative of the new space.
Gary Wang, architect presented the design of the building, explaining that they want to make
children feel welcome, but also safe and secure. He oriented the building’s face toward Blue Hole
for the good view. He explained that the owners needed 21,000 square feet, but with the small
lot, the most he could get was 14,000 square feet, so the plan is a condensed floor plan using every
available space. The exterior building materials are Minaret, which is a type of concrete, and
corrugated metal. There might be some masonry on the first floor. They are proposing an open
lettered blade sign on the west side of the building.
Page 4 of 65
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: August 25, 2016
Commissioners offered comments. Chair Bain started the conversation by giving specific
Guidelines that he felt were not being met. Other Commissioners added comments to the
discussion.
Guideline 13.1: Locate a new building at the front property line. Wang says this is not done
because of the front sidewalk, accessibility ramp and parking area.
Guideline 13.2: Where a portion of a building must be set back, define the edge of the property
with landscape elements. Commissioners noted that there was not any landscape shown, or areas
to put it later. Wang stated he was trying to maximize the size of each floor so the building is 40
feet tall. With the 15 foot rear setback requirement, he felt there was no room for any landscape
elements.
Guideline 13.3: A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as expressed by variations in
the façade. Commissioners expressed concern over the big box style of the structure and the lack
of material variations. They even suggested stone. Wang stated he needed the theatre side to be
a solid wall, the east side. And that the committee he was working with did not prefer stone,
stating they did not have a preference of the stone or the Minaret material.
Guideline 13.4: Building heights of larger projects should provide variety. Wang stated he could
not change the façade height or dimensions without affecting the classroom size. Sofia Nelson
stated the articulation would be reviewed by staff as part of the technical analysis.
Guideline 13.8: Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred. Knight commented
that it seems like the inside of the structure was designed before the outside and that the
guidelines were disregarded. Wang insisted the building was more about urbanism and that the
new materials downtown would be typical of buildings in bigger cities. Eason commented that
the building should be compatible with Georgetown’s downtown, not other cities. She feels the
current design is cold and sterile and does not match the vision of the city. Wang presented
another drawing of the building which included stone and brick as material options. He stated
the committee still did not respond with a preference. Mee stated the proposed metal panels
were out of character and not to human scale.
Guideline 13.9: A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of wall plane. (Matte
or non-reflective).
Guideline 13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and stone are encouraged.
Hood commented that he appreciates the open-air balcony and the view of Blue Hole, but has
issues with the materials, mass and compatibility. He prefers the square run metal versus the
wavy metal on the second and third floors. He suggested something more organic on the first
floor, regional limestone would be more appropriate. He suggested the compatibility is not as
critical since this is a “special place” but still things it should be designed more contextually.
Romero, Mee, Eason, and Knight agree with Hood about the limestone suggestion.
Eason suggested a mural on the west side for interest. Wang said he looked at that as an option.
Sam Pfeister, the owner of the property directly behind this building, suggested that limestone be
used on the first and second floor, to be consistent and in character with the approved townhome
design on the same block. The metal can be used on the third floor as an accent and not along the
pedestrian levels. Commissioners liked that idea. Wang thanked everyone for their comments.
Page 5 of 65
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: August 25, 2016
E. Comments or Questions by Commissioners-in-Training
No comments.
F. Updates on current projects and future meetings.
Adjournment
Motion by Hood, second by Eason to adjourn at 7:28 p.m. Approved 7 – 0.
___________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Lee Bain, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 6 of 65
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 22, 2016
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion o n a reques t fo r a Certific ate of Appro p riatenes s (C OA) fo r exterior
alteratio ns to a s treet fac ing fac ad e for the pro p erty loc ated at 1600 Elm Street, bearing the legal desc rip tio n
o f S o uthside Addn, (res ub Blk Pt 1), Lot 1,3, 0.374 ac res
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of an applic ation for a Certific ate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s for a new p o rc h
fo r the res id ential s tructure lo cated at 1600 Elm S treet.
The proposed projec t has an ad vers e effec t o n the his toric integrity o f the struc ture, due to the res ulting
lo s s o f the c harac ter defining p o rch and c o nstruc tion o f a mo d ern c o njec tural p o rc h. Ho wever, the Des ign
Guidelines allo w for s ome flexib ility for Lo w P rio rity s tructures. T he 2016 his toric resourc e survey
evaluation lo wered the p rio rity for the s tructure d ue to prior inap p ro p riate changes that s ignificantly
imp acted the his toric integrity o f the struc ture. Based up o n thes e circ umstanc es , s taff is offering the
fo llo wing o ptio ns fo r the HARC:
Ap p ro val as s ubmitted The proposed p ro ject fails to comply with the
design guid elines as o utlined ab o ve.
Ap p ro ve with c o nditio ns The design may be altered to incorp o rate s o me of
the d emo lis hed features .
P o s tponement o f the item (with applic ant’s
c o nsent)
P o s tponement wo uld allow the ap p licant time to
wo rk on the design to incorporate s o me o f the
removed features.
Denial o f the reques t Denial would prevent the applic ant from returning
for 12 months , unles s a new d es ign is s ubmitted.
A majority vo te o f the full HARC is req uired for ap p ro val.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
COA-2016-025 Staff Report Backup Material
COA-2016-025 Exhibit 1 - Plans Backup Material
COA-2016-025 Exhibit 2 - 1984 His toric Res ource Survey Form Backup Material
COA-2016-025 Exhibit 3 - Photographic Documentation Backup Material
Page 7 of 65
COA-2016-025 Exhibit 4 - Applicant's Documentation Backup Material
Page 8 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-025 1600 Elm Street Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: August 25, 2016
File Number: COA-2016-025
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior
alterations to a street facing facade for the property located at 1600 Elm Street, bearing the legal
description of Southside Addn, (resub Blk Pt 1), Lot 1,3, 0.374 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Wilkins Residence porch addition
Applicant: Scott Wilkins
Property Owner: Scott Wilkins
Property Address: 1600 Elm Street
Legal Description: Southside Addn, (resub Blk Pt 1), Lot 1,3, 0.374 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first review for this case.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca. 1935
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low
2007 - Medium
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove an existing porch and replace it with
a larger porch matching the design of the non-historic porches on the Elm Street façade. The project is
currently suspended by a Stop Work Order from the City of Georgetown.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
4.1 Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail. Does not comply
4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements. Does not comply
6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing. Does not comply
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Does not comply
Page 9 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-025 1600 Elm Street Page 2 of 6
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of an existing historic
porch, replacing it with a new porch designed to match the porch on the east side of the structure. The
application was initiated after Code Enforcement issued a Stop Work Order for the project. The historic
porch along the north façade was removed, and partial construction of the new porch was in progress.
The submitted photo documents the current condition of the site. A 2011 Google Street View image is
included as well, highlighting the historic porch.
The 1984 Historic Resource Survey lists the property address as 310 East 16th Street, and states that the
front elevation faces north with a single door entrance and a gabled porch with turned posts. The
architectural detail of the door, including the sidelights and detail work, indicate that this served as the
primary entrance to the structure. The report indicates a construction date of ca. 1925.
The applicant provided information regarding previous structures on the site, documented by a
newspaper article dated April 6, 1934, regarding the sale and pending demolition of the structure. The
article indicates that the salvageable materials will be used in new structures on or close to the site. This
information places the date of construction ca 1935, so the replacement structure has also attained
historic age. The 1984 survey form evaluated the current structure for its significance, determining it to
be a Low priority structure. The property was reevaluated in 2007, with the priority upgraded to
Medium priority. A survey form was not produced in conjunction with the 2007 evaluation. The draft
results of the 2016 historic resource survey reduced the priority from Medium to Low due to the non-
historic alterations along the east façade.
The structure was significantly altered in 2012 with the construction of two porches on the east façade
of the structure. The 2012 City of Georgetown aerial photos document the construction a new slab for
an accessory structure, and slabs for the porches. In addition, the March 2011 Google Street View
images document the construction of the new porches. The Craftsman style columns match those of the
2006 accessory building in design and materials. Therefore, the east porches are not historic
components of the structure.
The project at 1600 Elm Street was not reviewed by staff prior to commencing work. If staff had been
able to review the proposal before the applicant started work on the porch staff’s recommendation
would have been that a flat roofed porch, extending to the left of the historic porch, would have been
the appropriate treatment for the structure. The design would have accomplished the applicant’s goal
while highlighting the historic details of the structure. Staff’s recommendation for the project would
have included a design with a flat roof that highlighted the historic character defining porch, while
creating the required differentiation for new construction.
The proposed project does not comply with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines because
it results in the removal of a character defining feature, loss of a significant stylistic element and creates
a new feature that is inconsistent with the structure. The HARC has the authority to request that the
Page 10 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-025 1600 Elm Street Page 3 of 6
applicant reconstruct the lost character defining feature and request a design that incorporates that
feature in to an expanded porch.
Although reconstruction is not the preferred method of historic preservation, it is appropriate in
circumstances where sufficient photographic or other documentation is available. The Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the treatment of Historic Properties defines Reconstruction as “the act or
process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving
site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific
period of time and in its historic location.” Reconstruction Standard #4 states “Reconstruction will be
based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or
physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other
historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic
property in materials, design, color, and texture.” Multiple images of the historic porch are available,
allowing for an accurate reconstruction of the porch. Unlike the construction of a new conjectural
feature, the reconstruction of a documented character defining feature does not create a false sense of
history for the structure.
The proposed porch is not currently differentiated from the existing structure and the applicant intends
to match the style of the non-historic east facing porch. Staff does not support this proposed design
based upon the requirements established in the UDC and the Design Guidelines. Should the applicant
be allowed to proceed with the proposed design, the new porch columns should consist of basic porch
columns, differentiating them from the non-historic columns on the east porch. The differentiation
could be accomplished through the use of posts or other simplified designs.
Similar cases were reviewed in the past, with different outcomes. In 2013, a front porch was removed
from a Medium Priority structure at 1003 Ash Street, with the intention to reconstruct the porch. The
project was suspended until the HARC approved the new porch design. The new porch matched the
original porch in design and form, so it was determined that the project had no adverse effect on the
structure. In 2014, exterior alterations were made to 4 structures at 606 South Myrtle Street without an
approved CoA. The alterations included removal of historic porch columns, and replacement windows
and doors. The HARC approved CoA included the conditions to reconstruct the historic porch
columns, screen the vinyl windows to reduce their visibility and replace the doors with a style
appropriate for the period of significance for the structures.
In summary, the proposed project results in the loss of a character defining feature and the creation of a
false sense of history, and fails to comply with the criteria outlined in the Unified Development Code
and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
Page 11 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-025 1600 Elm Street Page 4 of 6
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
A. The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
The application is deemed complete.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards of the underlying
Residential Single Family (RS) zoning
district.
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,
specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay
District;
The project does not comply with the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as detailed in the staff analysis.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The removal of a character defining feature
from a street facing façade creates an
adverse effect on the integrity of the historic
structure. In addition, the construction of an
undifferentiated non-historic porch also
adversely effects the integrity by creating a
false sense of history for the structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The new addition is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project adversely impacts the
overall character of the district by reducing
the integrity of the historic structure through
the loss of a character defining feature and
construction of a new porch that creates a
false sense of history for the structure.
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted
design standards, and are not in character with
the site or landmarks within the Historic or
applicable Overlay District in question will not be
permitted.
No signage is proposed with this project.
H. The following may also be considered by the
HARC when determining whether to approve a
Certificate of Appropriateness:
The proposed porch creates an adverse
effect on the structure by creating a false
sense of history and removing a character
Page 12 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-025 1600 Elm Street Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
defining feature. Utilizing identical
materials also limits the ability to assess the
historic integrity of the structure, further
impacting the integrity. Although this
project has limited impact on the district
overall, it significantly reduces the historic
integrity of the structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed project has an adverse effect on the historic integrity of the structure, due to the resulting
loss of the character defining porch and construction of a modern conjectural porch. However, the
Design Guidelines allow for some flexibility for Low Priority structures. The 2016 historic resource
survey evaluation lowered the priority for the structure due to prior inappropriate changes that
significantly impacted the historic integrity of the structure. Based upon these circumstances, staff is
offering the following options for the HARC:
Approval as submitted The proposed project fails to comply with the
design guidelines as outlined above.
Approve with conditions The design may be altered to incorporate some of
the demolished features.
Postponement of the item (with applicant’s
consent)
Postponement would allow the applicant time to
work on the design to incorporate some of the
removed features.
Denial of the request Denial would prevent the applicant from
returning for 12 months, unless a new design is
submitted.
Page 13 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-025 1600 Elm Street Page 6 of 6
As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this application.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 2 – 1984 Historic Resource Survey Form
Exhibit 3 – Photographic history of the structure
Exhibit 4 – Applicant’s documentation of the structure
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 14 of 65
Scott Wilkins
1600 Elm Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
512-639-9551
July 11, 2016
Letter of Intent
This project is an extension of an existing porch, increasing the width from 11 ft. to 27 ft. The old
porch was of a different pitch and design than the house. The new porch will use a craftsman style with
braced gable supports, exposed rafters at the eaves, and a cedar shake clad gable. There are 3
supporting posts with a brick base topped with tapered posts. The design keeps with the architecture of
neighborhood homes of similar vintage.
Sincerely,
Scott Wilkins
Page 15 of 65
Page 16 of 65
Page 17 of 65
Page 18 of 65
Page 19 of 65
Page 20 of 65
Page 21 of 65
Page 22 of 65
Page 23 of 65
Page 24 of 65
Page 25 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
1925 City of Georgetown Sanborn Map
The accessory building and new porches are shown in the aerial. In addiƟon, the roof
of the original north porch is visible.
Page 26 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2006 City of Georgetown Aerial
The slabs for the new porches and the accessory
building are visible.
Page 27 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2012 City of Georgetown Aerial
The accessory building and new porches are
shown in the aerial.
Page 28 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2016 City of Georgetown Aerial
The accessory building and new porches are
shown in the aerial. In addiƟon, the roof of the
original north porch is visible.
Page 29 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2008 Google Street View—Elm Street Façade
The 2008 Google Street View documents the structure prior to the construcƟon of the new porches.
Page 30 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2011 Google Street View—Elm Street Façade
The non‐historic porches along Elm Street are under construcƟon in this March 2011 Google Street View image.
Page 31 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2008 Google Street View—16th Street Façade
The historic porch and details are documented in this February 2008 Google Street View image.
Page 32 of 65
COA‐2016‐025 1600 Elm Street
2011 Google Street View—16th Street Façade
The historic porch and details are documented in this June 2011 Google Street View image.
Page 33 of 65
Page 34 of 65
Page 35 of 65
Page 36 of 65
Page 37 of 65
Page 38 of 65
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 22, 2016
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Ap p ro p riatenes s (C OA) fo r a
res id ential additio n for the property loc ated at 1605 S o uth Church Street bearing the legal desc rip tion of
Souths id e Ad d ition, Blo ck 1 (W/PT), 0.15 ac res
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is in receipt of a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s ap p lic atio n fo r an additio n to the
histo ric s tructure loc ated at 1605 S o uth Churc h S treet.
Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t as s ubmitted.
A majority vo te o f the full Commission is required for ap p ro val o f the req ues t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
COA-2016-029 Staff Report Backup Material
COA-2016-029 Plans and Specifications Backup Material
Page 39 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-029 1605 South Church Street Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: September 22, 2016
File Number: COA-2016-029
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential addition for the property located at 1605 South Church Street bearing the legal description
of Southside Addition, Block 1 (W/PT), 0.15 acres
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Mackie residence addition
Applicant: Danny Haryicki
Property Owner: Steven and Giselle Mackie
Property Address: 1605 South Church Street
Legal Description: Southside Addition, Block 1 (W/PT), 0.15 acres
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: ca 1945
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Not listed
2007 – Medium Priority
National Register Designation: None
Texas Historical Commission Designation: None
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 360 square foot addition to the south
façade of the Medium Priority historic 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:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority Historic
Structure should be preserved and their historic character retained.
Complies
7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impacts.
Complies
Page 40 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-029 1605 South Church Street Page 2 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and
materials of the primary structure.
Complies
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main
building.
Complies
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary
building.
Complies
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing the construction of a 360 square foot addition to the south façade of the
Medium Priority structure. The existing structure is 1,290 square feet, making the new addition
approximately 28% of the current size. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines recommend
that additions be small in scale, to minimize the impact on the historic structure. The Guidelines also
recommend locating an addition at the rear of the building, or setting it back from the primary façade
of the existing structure. The proposed addition is set back approximately 20 feet from the existing
primary façade, and is located on the southeast corner, minimizing the impact of the overall project.
The construction of the addition will result in the removal of approximately 24 feet of existing wall. The
removal of the wall will not create an adverse impact on the property, due to the lack of character
defining features along that wall. The materials of the wall are consistent with the remainder of the
existing structure, so the removal of the materials will not have an adverse impact on the historic
integrity of the structure.
Overall, the massing, placement and materials of the addition make it subordinate to the primary
structure, minimizing the visual impact to the existing historic home and limiting the impact upon its
historic significance. The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
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
A. The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
The application is deemed complete by staff.
B. Compliance with any design standards of the
Unified Development Code;
The proposed project complies with the
design standards of the Residential Single
Family (RS) zoning district.
Page 41 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-029 1605 South Church Street Page 3 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time,
specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay
District;
The proposed project complies with the
Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines as outlined in the staff analysis.
D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is
preserved.
The proposed project does not have an
adverse effect on the historic integrity of the
structure.
E. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding historic properties.
The proposed addition is subordinate to the
existing historic structure and does not
create an adverse effect to the surrounding
historic properties.
F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable
Overlay District is protected.
The proposed project does not negatively
impact the Old Town Overlay District.
G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted
design standards, and are not in character with
the site or landmarks within the Historic or
applicable Overlay District in question will not be
permitted.
No signage is proposed with this project.
H. The following may also be considered by the
HARC when determining whether to approve a
Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. The effect of the proposed change upon the
general historic, cultural, and architectural
nature of the site, landmark, or District.
2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural
features, including parking and loading
spaces, which can be seen from a public street,
alley, or walkway.
3. The general design, arrangement, texture,
material, and color of the building or structure
and the relation of such factors to similar
features of buildings or structures in the
District, contrast or other relation of such
factors to other landmarks built at or during
the same period, as well as the uniqueness of
such features, considering the remaining
examples of architectural, historical, and
cultural values.
The proposed project adheres to the
requirements of the Design Guidelines,
minimizing the impact upon the historic
structure, adjacent properties and the Old
Town Overlay District. The applicant’s
design utilizes materials and massing that
are compatible with the structure, and
places the addition to the rear, limiting the
impact to the historic structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Page 42 of 65
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
COA-2016-029 1605 South Church Street Page 4 of 4
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request as submitted.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments regarding this request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 43 of 65
Page 44 of 65
Page 45 of 65
Page 46 of 65
Page 47 of 65
Page 48 of 65
Page 49 of 65
Page 50 of 65
Page 51 of 65
Page 52 of 65
Page 53 of 65
Page 54 of 65
Page 55 of 65
Page 56 of 65
Page 57 of 65
Page 58 of 65
Page 59 of 65
Page 60 of 65
Page 61 of 65
Page 62 of 65
Page 63 of 65
Page 64 of 65
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 22, 2016
SUBJECT:
Updates on Downto wn P ro jects and Events
ITEM SUMMARY:
1. Aus tin Avenue Bridges
2. His toric Res ourc e Survey
3. Tab le on Main - Oc tober 2
4. Do wntown Lo wdown - Oc tober 19
5. Oc tober 27, 2016 HARC Meeting
6. Breakfas t Bites - Novemb er 16
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatsc hk, His toric P lanner
Page 65 of 65