HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.08.2022Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
September 8, 2022 at 6:00 P M
at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 25th, 2022, regular meeting of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommittee - Jes s ica Lemanski, P lanning S pec ialis t
C P ublic Hearing and P ossible Ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new
signage that is inc onsistent with an approved Mas ter S ign P lan or applicable guidelines at the property
loc ated at 800 S outh Aus tin Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.22 ac res , being part of Lots 5 and 8
(E/P T ), Block 50, C ity of G eorgetown. (2022-47-C O A) – Maddis on O ’Kelley, P res ervation and
R edevelopment Manager
D P ublic Hearing and P ossible Ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new
signage that is inc onsistent with an approved Mas ter S ign P lan or applicable guidelines at the property
loc ated at 800 S outh Aus tin Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.22 ac res , being part of Lots 5 and 8
(E/P T ), Block 50, C ity of G eorgetown. (2022-47-C O A) – Maddis on O ’Kelley, P res ervation and
R edevelopment Manager
E Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Page 1 of 108
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 108
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 8, 2022
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Augus t 25th, 2022, regular meeting of
the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommittee - Jessic a Lemans ki, P lanning S pecialist
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Jes s ica Lemanski, P lanning S pec ialis t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Meeting Minutes Cover Memo
Page 3 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 1 of 11
August 25, 2022
Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Burns, Vice-Chair; Karalei Nunn;
Tom W. Davis; Alton Martin; Lawrence Romero; Alternate Pierce P. Maguire; Williams
“Jud” Harris
Members Absent: Jennifer Powell
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nathaniel Waggoner, Historic Program
Manager; Meredith Johnson, Historic Preservation Consultant; Maddison O’Kelley,
Historic Program Manager; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist
Meeting called to order by Chair Michael Walton at 6:00 pm.
Public Wishing to Address the Commission
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can
be found at the Commission meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which
you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting.
You will be called forward to speak when the Commission considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Commission
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the
Commission meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be
addressed with sufficient information to inform the Commission and the public. For
Commission Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Commission.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 11, 2022,
regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Jessica Lemanski, Planning
Specialist
Commissioner Davis requested that the language in the introductory remarks be changed from
“Board Members” and “The Board” to “Commissioners” and “the Commission”.
Commissioner Davis requested to change reference of “Commissioner Alton” to
“Commissioner Martin” and reference to “Alternate Williams” to “Alternate Harris”.
Page 4 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 2 of 11
August 25, 2022
Motion to amend the minutes by Commissioner Davis, changing “Board Members” and
“The Board” to “Commissioners” and “the Commission”, and any reference to
“Commissioner Alton” to “Commissioner Martin” and “Alternate Williams” to “Alternate
Harris”. Second by Alternate Macguire.
Motion approved (6-0, Commissioner Romero abstained)
C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade, and a 18’ -
0" encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage 7' - 0"
from the side street (west) property line for the property located at 1202 E. 13th Street, bearing
the legal description Lot 1, Block 1, Coffee Addition (2022-24-COA) - Nat Waggoner, Asst.
Planning Dir.- Long Range
Nat Waggoner presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting to
construct a one-story addition that will add two bedrooms, one bathroom, laundry room, and
one-car garage. The additions are proposed at the rear of the primary structure. The applicant
would like to add a master bathroom on to the existing home that will help connect the old
home with the new addition, using the current back porch as a connection, which will become a
hallway. Waggoner shared the history of the site as it relates to the 1925 and 1940 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps and displayed historic aerial photos of the property to display how the home
has changed over time. He also shared the proposed project drawings and materials and spoke
to the nature of the additions, noting that it will be situated 7’ from the Laurel Street side
property line and 11’ from the rear property line. The encroachment would not put this house
too much closer to the street than other houses on Laurel. The current house is 13.5’ from the
Laurel Street property line. The addition will measure 31’ by 24’ for an area of 809 sq. ft. and the
new master bathroom, to be added between the main house and the proposed addition, will
measure 13’ by 5’. The current house is 1,288 square feet. The addition will leave 36” between
the accessory building as a pathway.
Waggoner reviewed the design guidelines and established that staff has determined that the
proposed project complies with 19 of the 20 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines and 6
out of the 8 approval criteria in accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development
Code.
Waggoner noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness
request (35 notices), and 2 signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written
comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request.
Chair Walton opened the floor for questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Page 5 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 3 of 11
August 25, 2022
Applicant is here and wishes to address the Commission.
Julie Craig, Applicant, approached the podium to address the Commission and stated that this
is her third time proposing to the Commission after being denied due to initial plans having a
second story, which blocked the view of the accessory structure behind the main house. Her
proposal tonight is a one car garage as opposed to two-story, and the living space has two
bedrooms, one bathroom, and a laundry room that connects via a hallway.
Commissioner Davis inquired about the roof covering the master bath addition and connecting
hallway. He states that he has no problem with the look or size of the addition, but the plans do
not indicate how the gabled roof will slope towards the back wall of the master bath or connect
with the existing roof. Craig said the master bath will not be viewable by anyone and the
builder assures her that it will connect fine. Commissioner Davis reiterated that the
Commission needs to see specific plans for how everything will connect and meet design
guidelines before approving the COA.
Commissioner Davis also voiced concerns about the scales of the drawings provided by the
applicant and the closeness of the additions.
Craig voiced concerns about spending more money on plans the Commission may deny again.
Commissioner Davis reiterated that they need more detailed plans to approve.
Craig reminded the Commission that this is a medium priority structure, not high priority.
Commissioner Nunn stated that she understands the discrepancy in the scale of the drawings
and is not very worried about that. The building official will look at the roof before issuing a
permit, so she has no issues with the project.
Chair Walton asked when they came to the Commission for the first two hearings? Craig
confirmed 2020 or 2021.
Chair Walton clarified on the convenience criteria, and that the applicant did not comply.
Commissioner Burns asked about the justification of the setback encroachment and how that is
rationalized? Waggoner noted that the southwestern portion of the opposite block has
structures closer to the street than the applicant. There is about 14 feet between the back of curb
and the applicant’s property line, and another 7 feet from the property line to the face of the
garage. Vice-Chair Burns asked if the 25-foot setback requirement is from the curb or the
property line? Waggoner confirmed from the property line. Vice-Chair Burns asked if staff
looked North of 13th street? Waggoner said no. Vice-Chair Burns asked if staff only looks at the
block the property is on? Waggoner replied that in the past, yes, staff has only looked at the
block. On this particular project, staff looked at the surrounding block and the street it faces
Page 6 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 4 of 11
August 25, 2022
(Laurel), and staff found some similarity on the southwest side.
Romero clarified that the project will be under one composition roof. Craig said yes, a 3-cap
shingle roof.
Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth.
Craig pointed out that she included several projects with examples of driveways similar and
closer to the street than hers in her Letter of Intent.
Motion to approve Item C as presented by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Alternate
Macguire.
Motion approved unanimously (7-0).
D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to
an existing street facing façade and a 6’- 6” setback encroachment into the 20’- 0” front setback
to allow the addition of a porch 13’ - 6” from the front (west) property line for the property
located at 1501 S. College Street, bearing the legal description of 0 .275 acres in Block 97 and 98,
Dimmit Addition. (2022-37-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Meredith Johnson presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting to
add additional coverage to the newly added porch by constructing an extension to the roof,
which will begin at the existing ridge and extend out towards the street. The design of the new
roof feature will be a gable that opens facing the street, with three columns to be added to the
porch to give the impression of a supported roof. The applicant is also proposing a second gable
addition to the front facade. This second gable will be on the south side of the home, on the
portion that is already projected towards the street. The new gable addition will not add length
but instead will be used to “balance” the first gable addition. Both gables would sit “on top” of
the existing roof. Finally, the applicant is proposing to enclose an existing carport which is
attached to the primary house and is assembled under the same roof as the rest of the house,
which is stylistically appropriate. The applicant is proposing to infill the existing openings to
the carport with brick, garage doors, and windows. The windows are located on the north side
of the building, facing E 15th Street and will be relocated approximately 18” to the left. Johnson
also spoke to the location and history of the property.
Johnson went over feedback from the Commission that the applicant had received at the
7.28.2022 HARC meeting, including:
• Provide materials for the gables
• Provide accurate, dimensioned and scaled drawings including the columns, ridges, and
Page 7 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 5 of 11
August 25, 2022
gables to reflect current conditions
• Provide a roof sketch (if going forward with the gables)
• Provide additional information as to how the garage will be enclosed, including how
you intend to brick in the opening and move windows towards the back of the garage to
avoid setting them so far to the front.
• Provide additional information as to how you intend to add brick to the front and
middle column of the carport.
Johnson reviewed the proposed project drawings and materials.
Johnson reviewed the design guidelines and determined that the proposed project complies
with 22 of the 37 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines and 1 out of the 8 approval
criteria in accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code.
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of
the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness request (32 notices), and
number (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 1 written comment in favor
and 0 in opposition to the request.
Johnson noted that based on staff’s findings, they recommend approval of the request with the
condition that the proposed windows meet Design Guideline 3.5.G. for materiality and that the
proposed porch addition be designed in a manner that supports the Ranch style. Meredith also
noted that postponement of the item is not an option tonight as the previous public hearing was
held and action must be taken on the item.
The applicant is here to answer any questions the Commission may have but does not have a
presentation.
Chair Walton opened the floor for questions and comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Romero inquired on the Letter of Intent and asked if this project request would
not fall under approval criteria A (solely a matter of convenience)? Johnson said that because it
was built up to the setback, there was no other way to build without encroaching on the
setback. Chair Walton clarified that it is considered by staff to be a matter of convenience.
Commissioner Romero asked if they are extending the gable out. Johnson said yes.
Chair Walton asked the applicant to approach the podium to address Commissioner questions.
John Patch, Applicant, confirmed that they are extending the gable. The corner on the far right
of the home collects water internally and destroyed the foundation in the front, including the
beams, and the house has had a lot of flooding problems. The owners had originally planted
landscaping to mitigate the water, but it was not effective, and the porch was put in to mitigate
the flooding further. However, it is a western facing porch and they would like to cover it to be
Page 8 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 6 of 11
August 25, 2022
able to enjoy it as it gets very hot in the sun. The gable projection would be to balance it out and
break up the roofline.
Commissioner Romero asked if the garage door is lit? Patch clarified that a lighted door means
there’s windows on it in this context.
Vice-Chair Burns asked staff about the suggested condition to comply with Ranch style, and
what they meant by that. Waggoner said that in staff’s previous review, they did not dive deep
into the Ranch style aspect of the application, but upon a more recent review, they would like to
see a more stylistically appropriate design.
Chair Walton asked if the front concrete path had been recently added or repaired? Johnson
said yes, it is new. Chair Walton asked if there was landscaping before? Johnson said yes, there
was grass and vegetation along the perimeter and a planter, based on the 2016 HRS. Chair
Walton asked if the sidewalk was added to mitigate the flooding issue or in anticipation of a
porch addition? Patch said it was added to address the flooding issue, as there was no other
way to keep water out of the foundation at the front and side of the house. The brick is vented
there, and the owners ended up tearing out Oleanders in the area to protect their dogs and put
in the sidewalk to divert the water. Chair Walton asked if the gutters were new as well? Patch
said he did not think so.
Chair Walton said he would like to see the roof extension without adding the gable and be able
to solve the water issue and shade the porch, but he is unsure how to achieve that. Patch said it
would either be a gable or a hip roof, but the owners would like to avoid the hip roof. If the
board and baton nature of the design is throwing the Commission off, he could probably
eliminate that. Chair Walton suggested a back porch spanning the entire width of the house
with a shed roof. Patch said a shed roof would not contribute to the Ranch style either. Johnson
said a shed roof is common for adding onto historic homes, but it is most common to see one
gable on a ranch style home, not necessarily two.
Commissioner Nunn asked what the material the windows should be? Johnson said they are
vinyl right now, but they should be something more in line with design guidelines such as
wood.
Commissioner Davis commented that putting a new gable that does not align with historical
integrity of the Ranch style home concerns him. He does not have a problem with any other
design aspect.
Chair Walton opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth.
Applicant and owner asked that the Commission be specific about design criteria if denied.
Motion to approve as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Martin.
Page 9 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 7 of 11
August 25, 2022
Commissioner Davis amended the motion to approve the garage and deny the proposed roof
because it destroys the Ranch Style look of the home. Second by Vice-Chair Burns.
Amendment fails (3-4) (Opposed: Walton, Romero, Martin, Nunn).
The Motion to approve as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Martin stands.
Motion to approve as presented. Approved (4-3). (Opposed: Burns, Nunn, Davis).
Motion to take a 9-minute recess (7:21 pm-7:30 pm) by Chair Walton. Second by
Commissioner Romero. Approved unanimously (7-0).
Commissioners reconvened at 7:30 pm.
E Public hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for: a 15’-6” setback encroachment into the 20’-0” front setback to allow the addition of a
porch and stairs 4’ 6” from the front (west) property line; a 11’-0” setback encroachment into the
required 15’-0” side street (north) setback to allow a residential addition 4’-0” from the side
(north) property line; and a 10'-0” encroachment into the required 25'-0” street-facing garage
setback for the construction of a detached carport 15'-0” from the side (north) property line;
and new residential construction for the property located at 1903 S. Church, bearing the legal
description .165 acres, Block 4 (W/PT), Southside Addition. (2022-51-COA) – Nat Waggoner,
Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range
Meredith Johnson presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting to
build a new infill residential project, including modifications to front and side setbacks. The
subject property is located on the corner of South Church Street and 17th ½ Street and was
previously developed as a single-story, medium-priority residential structure approximately
1,200 square-feet in size and an approximate 270 square-foot detached garage. The exterior of
the house utilized asbestos shingle siding as the primary material. This property is generally
located on the southern entrance of the Old Town Overlay District and surrounded by single
story homes ranging from an estimated structure age of late 1890s to new build. The lot itself is
an irregular shape with about 17’ between the property line and the beginning of the Right of
Way pavement. Johnson reviewed the location of the property, current setback requirements,
and the proposed layout, drawings, and materials for the project, noting that the proposed 1,614
sq. ft. residence will contain three bedrooms and 2.5 baths. The overall dimensions of the house
are 30’ wide by 67’ wide, and the proposed house is similar to others on this block, including
1905 S. Church at 1,572 sq. ft, 1902 S Church at 1,704 sq. ft, and 1912 S Church at 1576 sq. ft. One
outlier is 1907 S Church at 896. The street-facing façade (west elevation) has an 18’ long porch
that encroaches into the 20’ front setback
Page 10 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 8 of 11
August 25, 2022
The existing 270 sq. ft. detached garage will be converted into a small guest house and will have
30 sq. ft. added to the rear. The current configuration of this structure encroaches the 6’ side
setback. The guest house is 10’ 11” tall as measured from finished grade to the peak of the roof.
Finally, a 288 sq. ft. carport will be added to behind the home to align with the existing
driveway off 17th ½ St. Again 1907 Church Street has a similar detached parking feature as do
both 1902 and 1906 Ash. The carport will be 12’ tall as measured from finished grade to the peak
of the roof. One similarity this new construction will have with surrounding historic properties
is the foundation – main structure will be pier and beam, the guest house will be slab on grade.
The different techniques will differentiate the two. The exterior materials of the primary
structure and the guest house are to be cement fiber siding (Hardie board) and cement fiber
trim around windows and doors. The proposed windows for both the house and the guest
house are 9 over 9 wood, single hung, throughout the house and the guest house. About 2’ of
cement will be visible between the finished floor and the finished grade. The proposed roof
material for all three structures is asphalt shingles.
Johnson established that staff had reviewed the proposal and found that the proposed request
meets 31 of the 37 applicable criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance with the
Historic District Design Guidelines. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the
request and setback modifications.
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of
the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness request (33 notices), and
2 signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in favor and 0 in
opposition to the request.
Chair Walton opened the floor to Commissioners for questions or comments.
Julie Weaver approached the podium to answer Commissioner questions.
Commissioner Nunn asked clarification on whether the house foundation is still in place.
Weaver said yes, the slab that the old garage was sitting on is still in place as well as additional
foundation that was added to the front to allow the addition to be built.no foundation on the
carport? Commissioner Nunn asked about the garage foundation. Weaver said yes, it is still in
place. Johnson clarified that the carport garage is new, and the guest house is existing. The
carport has no foundation.
Commissioner Martin asked if the setback requirements were already in place when the original
structure was constructed? Waggoner said the original structure was built in 1930 and he is
unsure if setback requirements were present. He guessed that they were not.
Commissioner Romero asked for further clarification on the front façade encroachment.
Johnson said the applicant is asking for a 15’6” encroachment into the required 20-foot setback,
leaving 4’6” between the proposed porch stairs and the setback. Johnson clarified that staff’s
Page 11 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 9 of 11
August 25, 2022
math is based off the furthest point in the setback, so the stairs, porch, and façade would all be
encroaching on the setback. In terms of materials, scale, mass, and design, it complies.
Commissioner Romero asked if there was another way to position the structures on the
property without requiring the encroachments? Weaver said there is probably a way to do so,
but she did not want to have to remove the piers, which would completely change the structure
and not allow for the addition she is wanting. They would also have to add additional piers to
the back of the house for them to add the addition. She said it is also a possibility that the stairs
could come off the side of the porch as opposed to straight off, as it would save a few feet in
terms of encroaching on the setback.
Commissioner Romero asked staff if there were any problems with the carport portion of the
project. Johnson said that from a location perspective, the carport encroaches upon the required
25-foot setback. In terms of materials, scale, mass, and design, the carport complies.
Vice-Chair Burns asked why we are considering setback encroachments and not an infill project
for the main residence? Waggoner said it is considered an infill, but they are requesting a
setback modification for the new construction.
Chair Walton asked for clarification on the approval criteria Items A and F in the staff
presentation (Slide 16 of Staff presentation):
A: “Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience: Does Not
Comply”
F: “Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with
relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed: Does Not Comply”
Johnson said that for Item A, staff found that the item is a matter of convenience and therefore
does not comply. The porch on the front is a design choice, not a requirement. For Item F, the
proposed footprint is larger than what previously existed since they are adding to the rear of
the home.
Chair Walton asked if the piers are all old or are there new piers that have been poured?
Weaver said no, there are new ones on the additions on the side and back. New ones are on the
additions on the side and the back. As for the convenience portion of the criteria, Weaver said it
is only convenient because she would like to use the existing foundation.
Chair Walton asked if the car port is moved back to comply with the setback requirement, is
there even 25 feet to allow that? Johnson said yes, there is room.
Commissioner Davis said that since the original structure was demolished without a COA, we
should archive the history of the medium priority house that was destroyed, and he would be
willing to overlook the encroachments if an effort was made to archive the historical property.
Weaver said the materials from the house are to be repurposed, but she does not know about an
archival package. Sofia Nelson advised that the Commission must review the proposed
Page 12 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 10 of 11
August 25, 2022
setbacks based on the approval criteria, and it cannot be traded for other conditions.
Chair Walton opened the public hearing.
Larry Olson, 9th Street, approached the podium to address the Commission and spoke to the
construction in old town and living within the setbacks. He questioned if granting these setback
encroachments could be perceived as a reward for illegally demolishing a medium priority
home? Olson suggests denial of the COA.
Commissioner Martin comments that the house had been allowed to deteriorate significantly
and recalls discussion of the dilapidation of the home. He suggested the applicant get in touch
with Liz Weaver for archival materials, and he agrees that it is distressing that the home was
demolished illegally. As far as setback requirements, the car port could probably comply with
the setback by moving it south 10-15 feet.
Commissioner Romero commented that the design should comply with requirements since
there is no existing structure on the property anymore.
Chair Walton commented that the carport could be pushed back to comply with the setback
requirements. There are adjustments that could be applied to comply with code.
Commissioner Romero asked why they did not totally demolish the structure, and why the
piers are remaining? Waggoner said that HARC denied demolition, but the applicant secured a
demolition permit due to danger of the structure. The Chief Building Official did not find the
piers to be a danger, so they were allowed to stay.
Motion to approve the COA with the condition that the carport be moved to comply with the
setback requirements by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Romero.
Commissioner Burns amended the motion to approve the setback modification of the guest
house, but not for the new home or carport based on the fact that it is merely a matter of
convenience. No second. Motion to amend fails.
Motion to approve the COA with the condition that the carport be moved to comply with the
setback requirements by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Romero stands
Motion to approve with stated conditions approved (4-3) (No: Burns, Walton, Davis).
F Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson introduced Maddison O’Kelley, the new Preservation and Redevelopment Manager, to
the Commission.
Page 13 of 108
Historic and Architectural Review Committee Page 11 of 11
August 25, 2022
Nelson updated Commissioners on the budget, which opens a new position to be working
under Maddison O’Kelley.
Chair Walton asked about City Council forming a Downtown Master Plan and UDC
adjustments. Is there anything that HARC could discuss? Nelson said that the Downtown
Master Plan will be considering height in the downtown area and codifying that in the UDC
update. Any updates to the UDC that HARC would like to see should be discussed at a future
meeting.
Chair Walton requests an item on the next agenda to discuss the UDC and Downtown Master
Plan and advises his fellow Commissioners to bring any UDC talking points to the next
meeting.
Adjournment
Commissioner Romero motioned to adjourn the meeting. Second by Alternate Macguire.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Michael Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary
Page 14 of 108
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 8, 2022
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and P os s ible Action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for new
s ignage that is incons is tent with an approved Master S ign P lan or applic able guidelines at the property
located at 800 S outh Austin Avenue, bearing the legal des cription of 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 and 8
(E/P T ), Bloc k 50, C ity of G eorgetown. (2022-47-C O A) – Maddison O ’Kelley, P reservation and
R edevelopment Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he ap p licant wo uld like to ins tall one internally illuminated hanging sign under the existing b uilding canopy.
T he s ign is proposed to be cons tructed o f metal components , with white ac rylic hous ing that would c reate
a halo lighting effect around the brus hed aluminum letters ap p lied to the face o f the s igns . T he s ign is
propos ed to b e 54” x 18” or 6.75 sq. ft. in size and hang from the exis ting metal cano p y s upports ,
providing a minimum 7’ of clearance above the sidewalk. T he s ign is located in Area 1 of the D owntown
O verlay and are proposed to be illuminated, it requires approval by H AR C .
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request complies with 4, partially complies with
3 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in UDC S ection 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in
the attac hed S taff R eport. 1 of the 8 c riteria were not applic able to the propos ed projec t.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), 1 sign was pos ted on-site. As of the public ation
date of this report, staff has rec eived 0 written c omments in favor and 0 in opposition to the reques t.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
2022-47-COA – HARC Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 15 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Administrative Review
2022-47-COA – 800 S. Austin Ave Page 1 of 6
Report Date: September 2, 2022
Case Number: 2022-47-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property
located at 800 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 and
8 (E/PT), Block 50, City of Georgetown. (2022-47-COA) – Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and
Redevelopment Manager
APPLICATION DETAILS
Project Name: Pillar Architecture Studio Illuminated hanging sign
Applicant: Georgetown Sign Company, c/o Michael Volling
Property Owner: Main One South LP
Property Address: 800 S. Austin Ave
Legal Description: 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 & 8, Block 50, City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District – Area 1
Case History:
Prior COA Denials:
Prior COA Approvals: 2021-51-COA, Halo illuminated, under-canopy hanging signs
Post-Approval Project Amendments (Date):
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1911 (HRS) – Original Structure 1870
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: Williamson County Courthouse NRHD
Texas Historical Commission Designation: Recorded Texas Historic Landmark – 1988
Notable Property Owners/Events: Steele Store – Makemson Hotel Building Addition
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
✓ Halo illuminated, under-canopy hanging signs
STAFF ANALYSIS
Present Property Description:
The property is location at the intersection of 8th and Austin Ave. According to the 2016 Historic Resource
Survey, the building was constructed in 1911 and is a high-priority asset.
From the RTHL Marker: “Built about 1870 by M.E. Steele on the site of an early log hotel, this is one of
Georgetown's oldest commercial structures. During Steele's ownership it housed a mercantile and a
Page 16 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Administrative Review
2022-47-COA – 800 S. Austin Ave Page 2 of 6
bank. Emma Dickman Makemson later operated a hotel here from the early 1900s until 1924. Exhibiting
influences of the Italianate style, the building features a truncated roof, corner entry, ornate frieze below
the roofline, and finely crafted stonework.” A detailed history of the building written by Dan K. Utley is
available at https://williamsoncountytexashistory.org/steele-store-makemson-hotel-building-historical-
marker-georgetown-williamson-county-texas/.
Requested Changes:
The applicant would like to install one internally illuminated hanging sign under the existing building
canopy. The sign is proposed to be constructed of metal components, with white acrylic housing that
would create a halo lighting effect around the brushed aluminum letters applied to the face of the signs.
The sign is proposed to be 54” x 18” or 6.75 sq. ft. in size and hang from the existing metal canopy
supports, providing a minimum 7’ of clearance above the sidewalk.
Justification for Requests:
New business is requesting HARC approval of one hanging sign in addition to two existing hanging
signs located under the existing building canopy. The applicant states the proposed sign is similar in
design, size, and material with the existing signage. Business signs for the Steele-Makemson Building
have not included façade signs in recent years, but rather have been attached to canopies and installed
on the windows. The proposed sign keeps with that precedent.
Technical Review:
The proposed hanging sign will measure 18” by 54” or 6.75 sq. ft. in size and will leave approximately 8’
of clearance underneath. The sign is proposed to be constructed of aluminum with acrylic lettering. The
sign is assembled in layers to give it dimension. The proposed internal illumination is found on the
second layer and is a ¼” hollow acrylic channel for LED lights. The proposed hanging sign meets the
size, materials and clearance requirements in the Design Guidelines, but as it is located in Area 1 of the
Downtown Overlay and are proposed to be illuminated, it requires approval by HARC.
The proposed sign is consistent with existing signage on the building in size. There are currently two
hanging signs each measuring installed underneath the building canopy. The existing signs are not
internally illuminated, nor do they appear to be constructed of aluminum material as proposed for the
subject sign. A Certificate of Appropriateness (2021-51-COA) for two additional signs was approved
underneath the building canopy. The two signs are the same size and material as the subject sign and are
internally illuminated through acrylic channel letters.
DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 3 of the 5 applicable Historic District Design
Guidelines in Chapter 5 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Page 17 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Administrative Review
2022-47-COA – 800 S. Austin Ave Page 3 of 6
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Historic District Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER FIVE – SIGNS & COLORS
5.2 Number of Signs
A business may have one (1) primary sign and two (2)
secondary signs.
Complies
One hanging sign is requested for
one business.
5.3 Placement of Signs on a Building Complies
The proposed signs have minimal
impact to the historic façade, are
scaled proportionally to the canopy
size and do not obscure or compete
with the façade.
B. Coordinate a sign within the overall façade
composition. A sign should appear to be in scale with
the façade.
C. A sign should be in proportion to the building, such
that it does not dominate the appearance. A sign shall be
subordinate to the overall building composition.
E. A sign should not in any way obscure or compete
with architectural details of an historic building façade.
This is especially important for a building with historic
significance.
5.6 Under Canopy Hanging Signs Complies
The proposed hanging sign is near
the business entrance, is less than
75% of the width of the 10’ deep
canopy, and is mounted
perpendicular to the building
façade.
The sign proposed is 6.75 sq. ft., less
than the 8 sq. ft. limit.
Location
A small hanging sign should be located near the
business entrance, just above the door or to the side of
it.
Proportions
Size should be relative to the canopy. A hanging sign
installed under a canopy should be a maximum of 75%
of the canopy’s width.
Placement
A hanging sign should be mounted perpendicular with
the building façade.
Clearance
A hanging sign should provide a minimum of seven feet
clearance between the sidewalk surface and the bottom
of the sign.
Complies
The proposed hanging signs are
near the business entrance, are less
than 75% of the width of the 10’
deep canopy, are mounted
perpendicular to the building façade
and provide 8’ of clearance.
The sign proposed is 6.75 sq. ft. each,
less than the 8 sq. ft. limit.
Size
A hanging sign shall be no more than eight square feet
in size.
Page 18 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Administrative Review
2022-47-COA – 800 S. Austin Ave Page 4 of 6
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER FIVE – SIGNS & COLORS
Complies
The proposed hanging sign is metal
with acrylic. 5.15 Sign Materials
Appropriate materials
Painted wood and metal are appropriate materials for
signs. Their use is encouraged.
Plastic
Plastic is not permitted, except for flush, adhesive,
professionally installed lettering or when used for
illuminated signs.
5.17 Internal Illumination in Area 1 Partially Complies
The proposed illumination is for
signs in Area 1, however, the
illumination would not overwhelm
the building façade and is proposed
as halo lighting for the sign text with
a warm white light.
A. Internally illuminated signs are not appropriate in
Area 1 as these do not reflect the historic character of the
buildings and would not have been used during the
period of significance.
B. If internal illumination is used, it should be designed
to be subordinate to the overall building composition.
C. If internal illumination is used, illuminate only the
sign next rather than the sign panel. Illumination may
be front-lit channel letters, "halo", or "push-thru"
illumination styles when the light is a warm, white light.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.020 of the Unified Development Code, the HPO must consider the
following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 5 out of 8 of these criteria.
SECTION 3.13.020 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with applicable design and
development standards of this Code;
Complies
Proposed signs comply with applicable UDC
requirements.
Page 19 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Administrative Review
2022-47-COA – 800 S. Austin Ave Page 5 of 6
HPO DECISION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request, WITH THE
CONDITION that the signs not be illuminated.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
Although the SOI standards do not address
signs specifically, the subject property is a
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark and the
proposed signs do not impact historic
materials.
4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District
Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District; and
Partially Complies
The proposed hanging sign complies with
materials, location, size, and scale.
The sign does not comply with illumination
and clearance requirements.
5. The overall character of the applicable Historic
Overlay District and the building or structure
is preserved, and the design is compatible with
the Historic Overlay District.
Complies
The proposed sign will not impact the
integrity of the building.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No new buildings or additions are
proposed.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Partially Complies
The proposed hanging sign is of a size and
materials that are compatible the historic
building materials and façade, and which
are compatible with the character of the
Downtown Overlay District. However,
proposed signs are compatible with existing
approved signs and the Design Guidelines
limit the use of illumination to Area 2 of the
Downtown as illuminated signs are less
compatible with the character of the
Courthouse Square.
8. The sign is in keeping with the adopted
Historic District Design Guidelines and
character of the Historic Overlay District.
Partially Complies
Proposed signs are compatible with existing
approved signs; however, the hanging signs
are proposed to be illuminated.
Page 20 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Administrative Review
2022-47-COA – 800 S. Austin Ave Page 6 of 6
As required by the Unified Development Code, 1 sign was posted on-site. To date, staff has received 0
written comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request (Exhibit 5).
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Public Comments
SUBMITTED BY
Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Page 21 of 108
Location
2022-47-COA
Exhibit #1
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
JR
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 10TH ST
RO
C
K
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
W 8TH ST
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W 9T H ST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
E 8TH ST
E 7TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 7TH ST
TI
N
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 22 of 108
Page 23 of 108
512.686.4280
georgetownsign.com
01Proof #:
00000Invoice #:
1 of 1Page:
This is an artists rendition of what the
design approximately represents of the
finished product. Colors and placement
may vary due to size and complexity. It is
the customer’s responsibility to proofread
for accurate verbiage and spelling, and
approve the proof prior to Georgetown
Sign Company proceeding with
manufacturing. Any changes after approval
are subject to additional changes for design
and manufacturing. All signs are property
of Georgetown Sign Company until
payment is received in full.
CUSTOMER:
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Customer Approval:
Date:
QUANTITY: XX
SIZE: XX
SIGN MATERIALS:
XX
SUBSTRATE MATERIALS:
XX
INSTALLATION:
XX
NOTES:
XX
74”
Hanging Illuminated signs Double
Sided
APP-103874
Pillar
Page 24 of 108
512.686.4280
georgetownsign.com
01Proof #:
00000Invoice #:
1 of 1Page:
This is an artists rendition of what the
design approximately represents of the
finished product. Colors and placement
may vary due to size and complexity. It is
the customer’s responsibility to proofread
for accurate verbiage and spelling, and
approve the proof prior to Georgetown
Sign Company proceeding with
manufacturing. Any changes after approval
are subject to additional changes for design
and manufacturing. All signs are property
of Georgetown Sign Company until
payment is received in full.
CUSTOMER:
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Customer Approval:
Date:
QUANTITY: XX
SIZE: XX
SIGN MATERIALS:
XX
SUBSTRATE MATERIALS:
XX
INSTALLATION:
XX
NOTES:
XX
Pillar
Hanging Illuminated signs Double
Sided
Aluminum Can (Painted to match corten steel
1/4in acryilc housing for leds
1/8in white acryilc plate with .75” white laser cut lettering adhered
.080 Aluminum Sheet Routed for punch through acrylic letters
painted to match rusted patina look
.040 Aluminum facade adhered to punch through letters.
LOGO to be cut through so only logo and edge lights up.
Page 25 of 108
512.686.4280
georgetownsign.com
01Proof #:
00000Invoice #:
1 of 1Page:
This is an artists rendition of what the
design approximately represents of the
finished product. Colors and placement
may vary due to size and complexity. It is
the customer’s responsibility to proofread
for accurate verbiage and spelling, and
approve the proof prior to Georgetown
Sign Company proceeding with
manufacturing. Any changes after approval
are subject to additional changes for design
and manufacturing. All signs are property
of Georgetown Sign Company until
payment is received in full.
CUSTOMER:
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Customer Approval:
Date:
QUANTITY: XX
SIZE: XX
SIGN MATERIALS:
XX
SUBSTRATE MATERIALS:
XX
INSTALLATION:
XX
NOTES:
XX
APRX 5ft
Pillar
Hanging Illuminated signs Double
Sided
54”
18”
APP-103874
Page 26 of 108
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:800 S Austin Ave 2016 Survey ID:125192 B
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R041426Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 10/6/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1911
Two-Part Commercial Block
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:657
ID:369
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:125192 B2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.636362 Longitude -97.67817
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northwest
Page 27 of 108
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:800 S Austin Ave 2016 Survey ID:125192 B
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
WestPhoto Direction
Page 28 of 108
Illuminated Sign for Pillar
Architecture Studio
2022-47-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 8, 2022
Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and
Redevelopment Manager
Page 29 of 108
2
Item Under Consideration
2022-47-COA
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA)for new signage that is inconsistent with applicable
guidelines at the property located at 800 South Austin Avenue,bearing the
legal description of 0.22 acres,being part of Lots 5 and 8 (E/PT),Block 50,City
of Georgetown.
Page 30 of 108
3
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•One 6.75 sq. ft. halo illuminated, under-canopy hanging sign with 8’
of clearance underneath.
54”
18”
Page 31 of 108
4
Page 32 of 108
5
Current Context -Location
Page 33 of 108
6
Current Context -Existing Signage on Building
Existing Hanging Signs Underneath Canopy Signs Approved 2021-51-COA
Page 34 of 108
7
c. 1880s
Page 35 of 108
8
1984 HRS Photo
Page 36 of 108
9
2016 HRS Photo(s)
West
Northwest
Page 37 of 108
11
Proposed Project
Drawings/Materials
8’
Page 38 of 108
12
Materials
4500 lumens “warm white” lighting
Page 39 of 108
13
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 D
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to
allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most
extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;Partially Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic
overlay district;Not Applicable
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.Partially Complies
Page 40 of 108
14
Public Notification
•1 sign posted
•To date, staff has received:
•0 written comments IN FAVOR
•0 written comments OPPOSED
Page 41 of 108
15
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request with the condition that the sign not
be illuminated.
Page 42 of 108
16
HARC Motion –2022-47-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
Page 43 of 108
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 8, 2022
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and P os s ible Action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for new
s ignage that is incons is tent with an approved Master S ign P lan or applic able guidelines at the property
located at 800 S outh Austin Avenue, bearing the legal des cription of 0.22 acres, being part of Lots 5 and 8
(E/P T ), Bloc k 50, C ity of G eorgetown. (2022-47-C O A) – Maddison O ’Kelley, P reservation and
R edevelopment Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he ap p licatio n is req uesting a C O A to add 1,874 sq. ft. of air-c o nditio ned s p ace to the rear o f the exis ting
s tructure. T he ap p licant wo uld als o like to remo ve the pergo la and re-d es ign fro nt of the ho me to inc lud e a
gable that will extend from the hous e to provid e s helter., T he ap p licant would als o like to add a new,
detac hed 274 s q. ft. ac cessory struc ture and to replac e the as phalt roof material with s tanding-s eam metal.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request complies with 3, partially complies with
4 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in UDC S ection 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in
the attac hed S taff R eport. 1 of the 8 c riteria were not applic able to the propos ed projec t.
Feedback S taff is Seeking:
1.Is the gable addition appropriate for this hous e per Des ign G uideline 3.5.E.1?
2.Does the acc es s ory s tructure have an appropriate roof per DG 3.4.F.2-3?
3.Are the windows appropriate for this hous e per DG 3.5.G .2-3?
4.W hat information would HAR C like to s ee added?
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
2022-46-COA Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit
Page 44 of 108
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 – Historic Res ource Survey Exhibit
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 45 of 108
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
Report Date: September 2, 2022
File Number: 2022-46-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates or
adds to a street facing façade and removal of historic architectural features for a property located 1811
Eubank St. bearing the legal description Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition (2022-46-COA) - Maddison
O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment Manager
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1811 Eubank St. Residence
Applicant: Wang Architects, c/o Alexia Noble
Property Owner: Kristin Diane Best Trustee of Kristin Diane Best Revocable Trust
Property Address: 1811 Eubank St.
Legal Description: Lot 7-8, Block 8, Eubank Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: 2019-85-COA
Prior COA Denials: N/A
Prior COA Approvals: 2019-85-COA, the extension of the height of the existing fence and addition of a
pergola structure in the front and side yards
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of Construction: 1970
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
✓ Addition that creates or adds to a street facing façade
✓ Removal of historic architectural features
STAFF ANALYSIS
Present Property Description:
The property under consideration is located at the intersection of Eubank Street and 17th ½ Street. The
parcel contains a 1,694 sq. ft. house, a 728 sq. ft. garage, and a 193 sq. ft. accessory structure.
Page 46 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 2 of 14
The HRS identifies the construction date of the house as 1970. The HRS also identifies the style of the
house as bricked Ranch with a cross-hipped roof, double-hung windows and a partial-width inset front
porch, single front door with modifications to the attached garage, conversion to a living space and a
pergola addition to the front entry. The 2016 HRS identifies the property as a low priority resource,
noting that the property lacks significance and integrity due to the garage conversion.
Requested Changes:
The application is requesting a COA to add 1,874 sq. ft. of air-conditioned space to the rear of the existing
structure. The applicant would also like to remove the pergola and re-design front of the home to include
a gable that will extend from the house to provide shelter and construct a new, detached 274 sq. ft.
accessory structure and to replace the asphalt roof material with standing-seam metal at the rear of the
property.
Justification for Requests:
The applicant would like to update the home for contemporary lifestyle demands.
Technical Review:
This house is identified as a Ranch style on the Historic Resource Survey. A ranch style house is most
often identified by its low, long roof, its large overhanging eaves, its single story, and its asymmetrical
form. The exterior of a Ranch style house is typically brick, wood, or stucco. The most common roof
assemblies for a Ranch style house are cross hipped, side-gabled, or hipped. The architectural details on
a Ranch style house are minimal. The absence of ornamentation is a character-defining feature for this
affordable home product that spanned across America from about 1935 to about 1975.
Front Porch
The proposed new roof projection will extend 8’ from the façade and 21’ 6” across the front of the house
along the street-facing, western, façade with a height of 10’ 8”. The street-facing façade measures 43’ 6”.
The new porch roof will have a gable and a 4:12 pitch to match the home. Two columns are to be added
to give the impression of minor support for the new roof.
From a preservation perspective, the proposed gable addition is not appropriate for the house because
the location and style of this gable is not consistent with the Ranch style.
Windows
Along the western façade, the applicant proposes to renovate the former garage that was converted into
living space by with the replacement of an existing, non-historic window, with a new floor-to-ceiling
window. A similar window will replace an existing window to the south on the same (western) elevation.
Finally, one additional floor-to-ceiling window that will have partial visibility from the street is to be
located on the western elevation of the new rear addition, facing Eubank Street. The same window style
Page 47 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 3 of 14
will also be added to the south and east elevations, but they will not be visible to the street due to an
existing fence and orientation away from the street.
Ranch style houses tended to have large, street facing windows, like the proposed widows. However,
Ranch style houses usually have divided light windows, or windows with multiple panes of glass rather
than one large pane of glass. The reason this is important, aside from windows being a significant
character defining feature for any building, is because the Ranch house would have been constructed as
an affordable home type. Large, single panes of glass would have been an expense, beyond a reasonable
cost of construction of this house type.
Rear Addition
The rear addition will cover approximately 658 sq. ft. of the existing home. The new addition will be
situated behind the existing house, however, because it is off-center, a portion of the structure will be
visible from Eubank Street. The footprint of the new addition is approximately 10.5% smaller than the
original house. The new addition’s roof will be approximately 10.5% smaller than the existing house’s
hipped roof with a 4:12 pitch. The height of the rear addition is 10’ 7”, compatible with the existing house
height of 11’6”. The rear addition will be used for a new bedroom with a closet, full bath, and laundry
room. The materials of the rear addition appear to be similar to the primary: a standing seam metal roof
and brick siding.
Accessory Structure
The proposed detached accessory building is to be added to the southeastern corner of the property. The
structure will be 274 sq. ft. and is to contain a sleeping space with a bathroom and a kitchenette. Windows
for the structure are to face north, into the backyard of the property, with a transom that is to face east,
towards the neighbors. The roof style is a (half) hipped roof that measures to the ridge 11’ 2” from
finished grade. At this point, without material specifications, the accessory structure appears appropriate
for the neighborhood. The structure’s mass, scale, and form meet the necessary design guideline criteria.
Finally, the entire roof is to be renovated with a new material: standing-seam metal, which is an approved
material in the Design Guidelines.
DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 18 of the 46 applicable Historic District
Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Historic District Design Guidelines:
Page 48 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 4 of 14
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.4.F Accessory Structures
F.1 Accessory structures should be located in the rear
of the property.
F.2 Accessory structures should be a simplified
historic style of the primary dwelling and should be
subordinate (smaller and simpler) to the primary
dwelling.
F.3 Accessory structures should not be attached to the
primary structure.
Complies
The accessory structure is to be located in the
rear of the property, will be simple in style,
and is not attached to the primary structure.
3.5.C Massing, Scale and Form
A variety of building sizes exist in this area. While
contemporary design approaches are encouraged,
developments should continue to exhibit a variety of
sizes, similar to the buildings seen traditionally in
the neighborhood.
Partially Complies
The proposed additions and alterations
appear to be appropriate in mass and scale.
The rear addition and the accessory structure
are appropriate in form.
The proposed alteration to the roof of the
house is not appropriate in form as it does not
match the form of the existing building.
C.1 The overall mass of a new building or addition
should convey a sense of human scale. That is floor to
floor heights on the ground floor should not exceed 15
feet on the ground floor and 12 feet on the second
floor. Building materials should reflect a sense of scale
that would appear as if one or two persons could lift
the material. Monumental proportions are not
appropriate.
Complies
The mass and scale of the proposed additions
are similar to the mass and scale of other
structures in the neighborhood.
The first-floor height is 9’ with a vaulted
ceiling at 15’.
3.5.E Roof
E.1 Form
The primary form should either be a gable end that
faces the street or a cross gable that runs parallel to
the street. Gable, hipped, pyramidal and gambrel
roofs are appropriate.
E.2 Dormers
a. Dormers are also appropriate but must be designed
so that there is a relationship to windows on the main
building.
Complies
New roof and the proposed additions will
retain the hipped form and 4:12 pitch for the
additions and detached structure.
Dormers are not proposed for this project.
Page 49 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 5 of 14
b. Dormers may also be front facing and centered, but
should not occupy more than 40% of the roof plane.
In other words, dormers should not be so large as to
appear to be adding an additional story to a structure.
c. Dormers on the side should not occupy more than
60% of the roof plane.
E.3 Roof Pitch. Primary roof line should be between
5:12 and 10:12 in slope depending on the style of the
house.
Partially Complies
The proposed pitch is 4:12.
Though the proposed pitch is less than the
Guideline, the proposed pitch matches the
pitch of the existing roof.
E.4 The following materials may be acceptable
depending on the building style:
• Dimensional asphalt shingle roofs that
emulate wood shingles.
• Real clay tile roofs
• Slate tiles
• Terra-cotta tiles
• Standing seam metal roofs with a double
munch or double lock seam, no more than 1.5
inches high and 18-inch-wide pans.
• Grade A, smooth machine cut, real wood
shingles treated with fi re retardant. Shingles
should be about 3/8” thick by about 5 inches
wide.
• Built-up and membrane roofs are only
appropriate on slopes less than 1:10 and
should be screened by a low parapet
Complies
The proposal utilizes a standing seam metal
roof to replace all roofing material for the
existing house, the proposed rear addition,
and the new gable addition at the front of the
house.
E.5 Eaves and Overhangs. Overhangs should be
between 18 inches and 24 inches to provide shade
over windows in summer months.
3.5.F Porches
F.1 Front porches contribute to the ambiance of the
street and encourage social interaction. Porches are
recommended as a character defining feature.
Complies
A front porch is a part of this design.
F.2 Location
Porches should be located and accessible from the first
floor of the structure.
Complies
The porch is located on and accessible from
the first floor.
F.3 Porch Size Complies
Page 50 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 6 of 14
Porches should at least cover half of the first-floor
façade facing the street horizontally.
The length of the first floor is 43’ 6”. One half
of this is 21’ 9”. The length of the proposed
gable addition to cover the “porch” is
approximately one half of the first floor façade
at 21’ 6”.
F.4 Depth of Porch
The minimum depth of the porch should not be less
than six feet and the maximum depth of the porch
should not exceed 10 feet.
Complies
The depth of the porch is 8’.
F.5 Porches Bulk
a. Porches should appear to be “added on to the
building” rather than cut out of the building.
In other words, porches should have their
own roof that isn’t integral to the
rest of the building.
Complies
The proposed roof addition for the porch is
not integral to the rest of the building.
The proposed gable addition is in response to
this house’s style, Ranch, which typically do
not have designated porches. On a Ranch, the
porch is typically a result of deep eaves from
the low, long roof.
F.6 Porch Roofs
A minimum of 60% of the front porch should be
covered by a roof or a trellis.
Complies
100% of the porch is covered by a roof.
F.9 Open Porch
The front porch should be open and not enclosed by
any materials except screens.
Complies
The front porch is not enclosed.
F.10 Height of Porch Floor
The floor of the front porch should be raised above
grade and no lower than one step below the first floor.
Does Not Comply
The porch will be at grade.
F.11 Porch Roof Height
No portion of the eave of a roof or trellis should be
more than twelve feet in height when measured from
the floor of the porch or exceed the ceiling height of
the first floor.
Complies
The roof height of the porch is 10’ 8”.
F.12 Porch Columns
Porch columns should visually be able to support the
porch roof. If the porch roof and decorative elements
like spindles are thin and delicate then the columns
can be thin. If the porch roof is substantial with large
beams, then the porch columns need to be more
substantial.
Complies
The proposed columns give the visual
impression that they support roof and,
stylistically, the columns are appropriate for a
Ranch house because they are thin and
without ornamentation.
F.13 Porch Foundation
Page 51 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 7 of 14
a. The porch must be supported by columns or
foundation walls affixed to the ground. The columns
should be no less than 18 inches by 18 inches.
Underground support of the porch is not
identified.
F.14 Painted Wood
All exposed wood used for porches should be painted,
not stained. The exception is that floor decking can be
stained.
Does Not Comply
The proposed columns are wood, according to
the applicant, but their treatments are
unidentified at this stage.
G.2 Windows
a. Windows should generally comprise 30-45% of
the front façade.
b. The windows should be about twice as tall as
they are wide and should have the same sill and
head height on each floor of the building. The
exception is Modern Ranch houses.
c. Windows facing the street should have all the
same sill height on each floor of the structure.
Accent or feature windows are excepted.
Windows on stair cases should follow the pitch of
the stairs.
d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in
each bay (wall plane) that faces the street.
e. Gang windows together rather than using one
large single pane window. Ganged windows
should be separated by a no less than 7” wide trim
piece.
f. A window should have trim that is at least 4.5"
wide. The window should be recessed from the
trim by at least 2”.
g. Shutters should be the same size as the
window they are adjacent to so if they were to be
closed they would cover the window. Single or
double shutters are appropriate
Partially Complies
All proposed street-facing windows are at
least twice as tall as they are wide.
As is permitted for Ranch style houses, not all
of the windows share the same head and sill
heights with the windows facing the street on
the west elevation. The windows on the west
elevation, facing the street, are asymmetrical
due to the asymmetry of the house itself.
The windows are, however, stylistically
inappropriate because Ranch houses most
often have windows with divided lights rather
than full, single-pane windows. The Ranch
style house is meant to be an affordable
housing product, thus luxurious floor-to-
ceiling windows would not have been used.
G.3 Window Materials
a. Windows should be made of wood or
aluminum-clad wood or fiberglass clad
wood. The profiles and jamb conditions shall
resemble the original wood windows in
detailing and profile thickness.
Does Not Comply
The proposed windows are aluminum.
b. Windows with muntins shall have
dimensional muntins on the exterior of the
glass and with a spacer inserted between the
Not Applicable
Muntins are not included in this proposal.
Page 52 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 8 of 14
glass in insulated windows. Dimensional
muntins on the interior are optional.
c. Window glass may be insulated and/or
low-e glass but shall be clear and not tinted.
Does Not Comply
Applicant did not provide specifications in
letter of intent or plan set.
3.5.H Exterior Building Materials
H.1 Building materials for new construction
should be visually compatible with the
predominant materials of this area. Materials
for additions should be the same materials as
the predominant materials of the existing
building.
Partially Complies
The applicant is proposing to match the
existing brick for the rear addition, however,
specifications for the exterior materials have
not been identified at this time. This proposed
building material appears to relate to the scale,
durability and color of the surrounding area.
H.2 New materials should relate to the scale,
durability, color, and texture of the
predominant materials of Old Town and in
the case of building additions, to the existing
structure.
Partially Complies
The applicant is proposing to match the
existing brick for the rear addition, however,
specifications for the exterior materials have
not been identified at this time. This proposed
building material appears to relate to the scale,
durability and color of the surrounding area.
H.4 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. Vinyl siding is not
allowed.
Does Not Comply
Applicant did not provide specifications in
letter of intent or plan set.
H.6 Building Wall Materials
The following exterior building materials are
appropriate for new construction:
a. Horizontal wood or cementitious wood siding
with a 4-7 inch exposure (smooth not
weathered finish).
b. Wood shingle in a vertical pattern with 3” to
7” reveal.
c. Stone, brick or other masonry with dimensions
that are human scale, that is with the
appearance that they could be laid by hand.
d. Combinations Creative combinations of the
above are encouraged to recreate natural
Does Not Comply
The applicant intends to match brick siding
and exterior paint color to primary, however,
applicant did not provide specifications in
letter of intent or plan set.
Page 53 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 9 of 14
textures, so long as they meet the overall
objective of conveying a sense of permanence,
human scale and proportion.
e. Use of Wood Shingles Wood shingles should
be used as second story cladding, on attic
dormers, gable ends and porch roof gables.
f. Use of Brick & Block
• Brick is encouraged, but the style of brick
should be similar to the brick already found in
the neighborhood, and should be no larger
than 2 2/3” X 8” with mortar joints no larger
than 1/4”.
• Brick should not be used on upper floors
unless brick is found on the floors below.
• Concrete masonry units (CMU) or concrete
block should not be used as an exposed
exterior material.
g. Use of Stone
• Native Texas stone is an appropriate exterior
material if used in the scale of other stone
found in the neighborhood.
• Use of synthetic stone is not appropriate
unless the structure already has synthetic
stone.
h. 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.
3.5.K Additions
K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible
with the historic character of the property. Building
additions should be in keeping with the original
architectural character, color, mass, scale, and
materials.
Partially Complies
Complies in that the rear addition will
maintain a rectangular plan, like the primary
structure. The rear addition also complies as it
incorporates mass, scale, form, and windows
similar to the primary. The new accessory
structure complies in mass, scale, and form as
well.
The proposed gable addition does not comply
because it is stylistically inappropriate for this
house.
Page 54 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 10 of 14
a. Minimize the visual impacts of an
addition. New additions should not be so
large as to overwhelm the original structure
because of location, size, height, or scale. It
should be designed to remain subordinate to
the main structure.
Partially Complies
The proposed rear addition is smaller than the
primary, is situated towards the back of the
primary, and utilizes similar features of the
primary such as long windows and a hipped
roof.
The location of the proposed gable addition to
the center of the front façade of the house is
stylistically inappropriate in that it creates
symmetry where ranch style homes typically
have asymmetrical facades.
K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the
original building, even in subtle ways, such that the
character of the original can be interpreted.
Complies
The rear addition is distinguishable because it
is off-center from the primary. The gable
addition will be distinguishable because it is
out of character with the house.
c. An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Partially Complies
The rear addition’s architectural details will
mimic architectural features of the primary
features, such as the deep eaves and the new
windows.
The proposed street-facing gable addition
does compete with the primary façade which
was designed to be low, long, and dominate
the landscape with straight lines. The
proposed gable addition does not comply.
K.3 Location of Additions
a. Additions should be located
inconspicuously on the least character-
defining elevation.
Partially Complies
One addition is at the rear of the house but the
other is an addition to the character-defining
elevation.
b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever
possible, in portions of the neighborhoods
with predominantly one-story houses.
Complies
The addition is located on the first floor.
c. Additions should be to the rear of the
existing structure or as far away from the
public street unless there is sufficient side
yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a
building or set it back from the front to
Partially Complies
One addition is at the rear of the existing
structure, but the second is on the street-facing
elevation and disrupts the original character.
Page 55 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 11 of 14
minimize the visual impacts. This will allow
the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
e. An addition shall be set back from any
primary, character-defining façade. If
sufficient side yard width is available, the
addition should be recessed behind the front
façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0").
Partially Complies
The proposed rear addition complies with this
criteria, but the gable addition is on the
character-defining façade.
3.5.K Roof
K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Partially Complies
The existing roof is a hipped roof. The rear
addition proposes a smaller hipped roof and
complies. The proposed front addition
includes a gable and does not match the
character of the house.
a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are
appropriate for residential additions. Flat
roofs may be more appropriate for
commercial buildings.
Partially Complies
The proposed roof is hipped on the rear
addition and the accessory structure. The roof
addition on the front of the house is a gable.
b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies
Applicant proposes to match the slope of the
primary structure at 4/12.
c. If the roof of the primary building is
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the
addition should be similar.
Complies
The proposed roof, on the rear addition and
the front gable addition, appear symmetrical
to match the existing.
K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions
a. The selection of exterior materials should
be compatible with the primary building.
Partially Complies
The applicant is proposing to match the
existing brick for the rear addition to the
primary, however, specifications for the
exterior materials have not been identified at
this time. This proposed building material
appears to relate to the scale, durability and
color of the surrounding area.
b. Use the same siding and roof materials as
used on the original structure if possible.
Partially Complies
The applicant is proposing to match the
existing brick for the rear addition, however,
specifications for the exterior materials have
not been identified at this time.
Page 56 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 12 of 14
Applicant did not provide specifications in
letter of intent or plan se for roof materials.
c. Materials should strive to be the same
color, size, and proportion and used in the
same manner as the original house but not
necessarily used in the same overall
proportions. This allows the addition to be
recognized as an addition.
Does Not Comply
Applicant did not provide specifications in
letter of intent or plan set therefore is unclear
if the proposed addition will be recognized
as an addition.
K.9 Distinguish New from Old
a. Although designed to be compatible with
the original building, an addition should be
discernible from it. For example, it can be
differentiated from the original building
through a break in roofline, cornice height,
wall plane, change in materials, siding
profile, or window type. Attention to
materials and details will be critical to
achieving the desired design unity.
Complies
The proposed rear addition and accessory
structure will repeat the existing hipped form
of the original roof. The accessory structure is
detached from the house and will appear as
distinguishable from the original house in
scale and form. The proposed windows on the
rear addition are to match the new windows
on the street-facing faced of the house. The
new windows are used to unify the original
structure and the rear addition.
The front gable addition is distinguishable
from the original house in that it would be out
of character.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the
following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met X out of 8 of these criteria.
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
The information contained within the
application was enough to allow adequate
review.
2. Compliance with applicable design standards
of this Code;
Complies
The proposed additions and accessory
structure comply with the UDC.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
The proposed gable addition does not
comply with the following SOI standards:
2. The historic character of a property shall
be retained and preserved. The removal of
Page 57 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 13 of 14
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
historic materials or alteration of features
and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property
shall be preserved.
10. New additions and adjacent or related
new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would
be unimpaired.
The rear addition and accessory comply with
the following SOI standards:
10. New additions and adjacent or related
new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would
be unimpaired.
4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District
Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Partially Complies
The proposed rear addition and accessory
structure are compliant with the Design
Guidelines in terms of form, massing, and
scale.
The front gable addition is not compatible
with the Design Guidelines in that it is not
appropriate for the style of the house.
The front addition, rear addition, and the
accessory structure are not compliant with
the design guidelines in terms of materials as
the materials have largely remained
unidentified.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The integrity of the building has already
deteriorated over time dues to the
conversion of the garage and potential
window replacement. The gable addition
would eliminate the integrity of the house
Page 58 of 108
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2022-46-COA – 1811 Eubank Page 14 of 14
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
because it would alter the look away from a
Ranch style.
On their own, the rear addition and the
accessory structure will maintain the
existing level of integrity.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies
The proposed additions and accessory
structure are all compatible with
surrounding properties because they are all
compatible with surrounding massing and
scale.
The proposed gable porch addition is not
compatible because it disrupts the cohesive
roof, the asymmetrical façade.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Partially Complies
On their own, the rear addition and the
accessory structure will maintain the
existing level of integrity.
The gable addition detracts from the
character of the overlay district because it
would alter a stylized building.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Historic District Design Guidelines
and character of the historic overlay district.
Not Applicable
Not proposed in this application.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Public Comments
SUBMITTED BY
Meredith Johnson, consultant
Page 59 of 108
Location
2022-46-COA
Exhibit #1
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
BR
U
S
H
Y
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W
18TH
ST
PA
I
G
E
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
ASHST
E 19TH
1/2 ST
E 1 9 T H S T
E 17TH 1/2 ST
E 20TH
S
T
E 18TH
S
T
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
CYRUS A
V
E
E 17TH ST
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
CYRUS A
V
E
E 17TH
1
/
2
S
T
A
L
L
E
Y
W 19TH ST
W 18TH ST
EL
M
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 60 of 108
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC
Architecture + Urban Design
608 East University Ave.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Ph: 512.819.6012
www.wangarchitects.com
September 01, 2022
Nat Waggoner
Historical and Architecture Review Commission
City of Georgetown
Re: 1811 Eubank Street, Georgetown
Dear Mr. Waggoner and Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission:
We are pleased to submit this project on behalf of our client, Kristin Best. We are proposing the
design of a new addition on the back part of the existing residence and a new accessory
structure. The proposal also calls for a new entrance/porch on the front facing side of the
primary structure.
Included here are pages to further describe the rationale for the proposed project’s design:
Page 1, Site Map
Page 2-3, Existing Conditions
Page 4, Survey
Page 5, Roof Plan/Site Plan
Page 6, Existing Demo Ground Floor Plan
Page 7, Proposed Ground Floor Plan Page
8-11, Elevations
Page 12-13, Accessory Structure
Elevations
Page 14-16, Conceptual Renderings Page
17, Materials/Color
The house is defined as “ranch style” per the Historic Resource Survey, which is a somewhat
generic term. The house was renovated in the interim, and no longer looks like the house as
recorded in the 2016 Survey. The owner is requesting that we ‘move the needle’ of the
house’s architectural style towards mid-century modern – with floor to ceiling windows and
ample daylighting to the interior spaces throughout the house.
We understand that the accessory structure will need to go through the ADU / SUP process
separately from HARC.
Page 61 of 108
Yours truly,
We look forward to presenting this project to you at an upcoming meeting. We will have
additional information at this meeting for your review.
If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to
contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you for your time.
Gary Wang, AIA
Wang Architects
Page 62 of 108
Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 1811 Eubank St, Georgetown, TX 78626
Residence for Kristin Best
September 1, 2022
Wang Architects
ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING
Page 63 of 108
E 17 1
/
2
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
R
E
E
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
E 18TH
S
T
R
E
E
T
1ASite MapJuly 15, 2022
N
Page 64 of 108
2Existing Conditions
Existing North front facade along E 17 1/2 Street
Page 65 of 108
2Existing Conditions
Existing South front facade along Eubank Street
Page 66 of 108
3Mid Century Modern Precedents
Page 67 of 108
4Survey By Other
N.T.S.
July 15, 2022
N
Page 68 of 108
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOT AREA: 14423
ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY (RS) OLD TOWN
OVERLAY DISTRICT
EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING RESIDENCE AREA: 1694
SF
EXISTING GARAGE: 728 SF
EXISTING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE AREA: 193 SF
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AC
AREA: 179 SF
PROPOSED NEW ACCESORRY
STRUCTURE AREA: 274 SF
NEW TOTAL AC BUILDING AREA:
1874 SF
SIDE SET BACK: 6’
E 17 1/2 SREET SETBACK: 15’,
25’ IF GARAGE
EUBANK STREET SETBACK: 20’
REAR SET BACK: 10’
EXISTING FAR: 0.18
NEW FAR: 0.20
IMPERVIOUS COVER:
LOT AREA: 14,423 SF
BUILDING: 2121 SF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: 259 SF
GARAGE: 996 SF
DRIVEWAY: 592 SF
FLATWORK: 669 SF
POOL AREA: 873
TOTAL: 5510 SF IC
38.2% COVERAGE
5Proposed Site Plan
1/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
N
1712 ST
EU
B
A
N
K
S
T
N
6' SIDE SETBACK
20
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE
15' B.L. SET BACK
EXISTING GARAGEEXISTING POOL
EXISTING
COVERED
STRUCTURE
EXISTING HOUSE
NEW ADDITION
NEW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE
NEW
COVERED
PORCH
EXISTING SHED
NEW
CONSTRUCTION
Page 69 of 108
BEDROOM #2
PRIMARY
BEDROOM
BATHROOM #1
FOYER/DINING KITCHEN
LAUNDRY
SITING ROOM
LN
ST
DINING
N
6' SIDE SETBACK
20
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
BEDROOM #1
EXISTING BATHROOM
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING KITCHEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING DOOR
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING MILLWORK
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING PORCH
TO BE REMOVED
CONCRETE
DECK
EXISTING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TUB
TO BE REMOVED
6Existing Demo Ground Floor
1/8” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
N
NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME,
HISTORIC ADDITION, OR A PORCH
Page 70 of 108
BEDROOM #2
PRIMARY
BEDROOM
BATHROOM #1
PRIMARY BATHFOYER
LAUNDRY
LN
ST
EXISTING GARAGE
DINING
N
6' SIDE SETBACK
20
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
BEDROOM #1
KITCHEN
CLOSET
OUTDOOR
BREAKFAST AREA
FAMILY ROOM
SKYLIGHT
RE
F
EXISTING RANGE
EXISTING COUNTER
DEPTH REFRIGERATOR
NO GATE
NEW COVERED PORCH
NEW FOLDING
GLASS DOOR
NEW
CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING
MILLWORK CLOSET
GUEST
KITCHENETTE
BATH
LINENS SHOWER
TRANSOM
SOLAR TUBE
FLOOR TO CEILING WITH
INTEGRATED DOOR
FLOOR TO CEILING
FLOOR TO CEILING
FLOOR TO CEILING
MILLWORK PANTRY
FLOOR TO CEILING
FLOOR TO CEILING
FLOOR TO CEILING
TRANSOM
WINDOW WALL
W/ INTEGRATED DOOR
7Proposed Ground Floor Plan
1/8” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
N
Page 71 of 108
8Existing Front Facing Side (West) Elevation
1/8” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-6"
EXISTING GARAGE 1
3
EXISTING DETACHED PERGOLA
Page 72 of 108
9Existing Street Side (North) Elevation
1/8” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
1
3
Page 73 of 108
10Existing Side (East) Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
1'
3'
1
3
EXISTING SHED
Page 74 of 108
11Existing Side (South) Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
Page 75 of 108
8Proposed Front Facing Side (West) Elevation
1/8” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-6"
NEW ADDITION EXISTING
NEW COVER PORCH
NEW ADDITION
EXISTING GARAGE 1
3
1'
3'
NEW ADDITION
1
3
Page 76 of 108
9Proposed Street Side (North) Elevation
1/8” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
NEW ADDITION EXISTING
1
3
1
3
EXISTING GARAGE
NEW COVER PORCH
Page 77 of 108
10Proposed Side (East) Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
NEW ADDITION
NEW ADDITIONEXISTING
EXISTING GARAGE1'
3'
1
3
Page 78 of 108
11Proposed Side (South) Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
NEW ADDITIONEXISTING
EXISTING GARAGE
NEW COVER PORCH
Page 79 of 108
8Proposed East and West Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
1'
3'
GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
VAULT HEIGHT
13'11"
WALL HEIGHT
8'
GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
VAULT HEIGHT
13' 11"
WALL HEIGHT
8'
1'
3'
Page 80 of 108
8Proposed North and South Elevation
3/16” = 1’-0”
July 15, 2022
GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
VAULT HEIGHT
13' 11"
WALL HEIGHT
8'
GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
VAULT HEIGHT
13' 11"
WALL HEIGHT
8'
Page 81 of 108
12Conceptual Rendering
N.T.S.
July 15, 2022
Page 82 of 108
13Conceptual Rendering
N.T.S.
July 15, 2022
Page 83 of 108
14Conceptual Rendering
N.T.S.
July 15, 2022
Page 84 of 108
15Materials/Color
N.T.S.
Brick paint:
Sherman Williams
Alabaster
Match exterior paint color
color pallette
Current exterior conditions
Trim paint:
Sherman Wiliams
Tricorn black with
natural wood
accents
New roof - Berridge B Dark gray
stading seam metal roof
Western Window
Systems multi-
slide door systems,
fi xed windows, and
corner windows
Western Window Systems window precedent
Glacier White Smooth
texture ACME Brick siding to
match existing brick
Black alluminum
window mullionProposed exterior conditions for main structure, gable addition, and accessory structure
Georgetown Precedent of metal roof
Western Window
Systems Classic
Line - Series 670
Windows
Page 85 of 108
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1811 Eubank St 2016 Survey ID:125700
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address RAPER, LARRY D & CARLA A, 1811 EUBANK ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-7942
Latitude:30.627542 Longitude -97.675218
Addition/Subdivision:S3601 - Eubank Addition
WCAD ID:R042254Legal Description (Lot/Block):EUBANK ADDITION, BLOCK 8, LOT 7-8
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 3/16/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1970
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: East
Page 86 of 108
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1811 Eubank St 2016 Survey ID:125700
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, brick, ranch style house with a cross-hipped roof, detached garage, and a partial-width, inset porch with a
single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Attached garage converted to living space, pergola added to entry porch
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 1 Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Hipped
Material not visible behi
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 87 of 108
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1811 Eubank St 2016 Survey ID:125700
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, brick, ranch style house with a cross-hipped roof, detached garage, and a partial-width, inset porch with a
single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Attached garage converted to living space, pergola added to entry porch
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 1 Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Hipped
Material not visible behi
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 88 of 108
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1811 Eubank St 2016 Survey ID:125700
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:Not Recorded
2007 Survey Priority:Not Recorded 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 89 of 108
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1811 Eubank St 2016 Survey ID:125700
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SouthPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 90 of 108
Conceptual Review
Additions at 1811 Eubank
2022-46-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 8, 2022
Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and
Redevelopment Manager
Page 91 of 108
2
Item Under Consideration
2022-46-COA
Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition
that creates or adds to a street facing façade and removal of historic architectural features
for a property located 1811 Eubank St. bearing the legal description Lot 7-8, Block 8,
Eubank Addition (2022-46-COA) -Maddison O’Kelley, Preservation and Redevelopment
Manager
Page 92 of 108
3
Questions for HARC
2022-46-COA
1.Is the gable addition appropriate for this house per Design Guideline 3.5.E.1?
2.Does the accessory structure have an appropriate roof per DG 3.4.F.2-3?
3.Are the windows appropriate for this house per DG 3.5.G.2-3?
4.What information would HARC like to see added?
Page 93 of 108
4
Item Under Consideration
Page 94 of 108
5
Page 95 of 108
6
Current Context -Location
Page 96 of 108
7
Ranch Style Homes
Identifying Features Typical Roof Forms
Source: A Field Guide to American Houses, Second Edition (2015)
Page 97 of 108
8
2016 HRS Photo(s)
Southeast
Southeast
East
Page 98 of 108
10
Current Context
East
Page 99 of 108
11
Proposed Project Drawings/Materials
Page 100 of 108
12
Proposed Project Drawings/Materials
Page 101 of 108
13
Proposed Project Style Elements
Page 102 of 108
14
Proposed Project Style Elements -Accessory
Page 103 of 108
16
Proposed Project Drawings/Materials
Southeast
Page 104 of 108
17
Proposed Project Drawings/Materials
West
Page 105 of 108
18
Materials
Page 106 of 108
19
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 D
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to
allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most
extent practicable;Partially Complies
4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;Partially Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic
overlay district;Partially Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.Not Applicable
Page 107 of 108
20
Questions for HARC
2022-46-COA
1.Is the gable addition appropriate for this house per Design Guideline 3.5.E.1?
2.Does the accessory structure have an appropriate roof per DG 3.4.F.2-3?
3.Are the windows appropriate for this house per DG 3.5.G.2-3?
4.What information would HARC like to see added?
Page 108 of 108