HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.09.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
April 9, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me eting will c onvene at 6:00pm on April 9, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , please c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r: https://bit.ly/2w M zvbY
If you're attending the live e ve nt on the we b, use a me dia-sourc e e xtension
(M S E ) - enabled we b browse r like Chrome, F ire fox, or E dge. Safari is not
c ur re ntly supporte d.
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r: +1 512-672-8405
Confe re nc e I D: 939481030#
P ublic comme nt will be allowed via the above c onfer ence call numbe r or the
“ask a que stion” function on the vide o confe re nc e option; no in-per son input
will be allowed.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A (Instructions for joining meeting attached)
Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C o mmis s io n, ap p o inted b y the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertificates of Appropriateness
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P roc edures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens *
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
Page 1 of 153
* O nce staff and the applic ant have addressed ques tions from the C ommis s ioners, the C hair of the
C ommission will open the public hearing. If a member o f the public would like to provid e comments on
the agenda item under dis cus s ion, the chair will as k if anyone would like to s peak. To speak, unmute
yourself by pres s ing *6 on your phone and s tate your name and addres s . O nce the C hair has the names of
everyone who would like to s peak, the C hair will c all the names in order, and when your name is called
you will have up to 3 minutes . A speaker may allot their time to another speaker fo r a maximum o f 6
minutes . If a member of the public wis hed to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their
name is called by the C hair. P lease rememb er that all c omments and ques tions mus t b e addres s ed to the
C ommission, and pleas e be patient while we organize the speakers during the public hearing portion.
• T he public also has the opportunity to provide c omments through the Q &A s ection of the Live Meeting,
loc ated on the right-hand s ide of your c omputer sc reen. P leas e provid e your full name and address for the
rec ord, and your c omment will be read by S taff.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s peak has s poken, the C hair will close the public hearing and provid e a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 26, 2020 regular meetings of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
D P ublic Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition
that c reates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade at the property located at 701 University
Avenue, bearing the legal des cription of 0.31 acres out of the southwest portion of Block 2, S nyder
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19.3’
setback encroac hment into the 25’ required garage (west) setback, a 6’ setback encroac hment into the
required 6’ side (north) s etbac k, and a 3’ building height increase from the required 15’ maximum building
height at the side (north) s etbac k line allowing for a building height of 18’ at the s ide setback at the
property located at 403 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.472 acres out of Bloc k 24,
O UT LO T DI VI S I O N C . – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for New
C ons truction (Infill Development) of a S ingle-F amily R esidence and a 4’-6” building height inc reas e from
the required 15’ maximum building height at the s ide (south) setback line allowing for a building height of
19’-6” at the side s etbac k at the property located at 1205 Walnut, bearing the legal des cription of 0.15
ac res out of the west portion of Block 1 of the S nyder Addition. - Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric
P lanner
G Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
Page 2 of 153
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 153
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
(Instructions for joining m eeting attached)
D iscussion on how the Historic and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted, to
include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson, C N U-
A, P lanning Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
Attached is a set of meeting instruc tions and proc edures to as s is t in joining and partic ipating in the meeting.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Ins tructions on How to Participate Cover Memo
Page 4 of 153
Participating in a Public Meeting
Commissioners and Public
4.2.2020 Draft (we will continuing update to improve- if you have suggestions for improvement after use
please email sofia.nelson@georgetown.org so the sheet can be updated)
Each agenda will have the following link to access the meeting. Agenda links can be found at
www.agendas.georgetown.org :
• WEBSITE
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated link will be posted with each agenda
• CALL IN NUMBER
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated phone number and conference id will be
posted with each agenda
EXAMPLE:
FAQs for Participating in a Meeting.
• If I log into the meeting on my computer can you see me? NO. Logging into the meeting via the
computer is the equivalent of watching the meeting on your TV. We cannot see you and we
cannot hear you. If you want to participate in public comment or as a commissioner in voting
and discussion you need to follow both the phone and /or web instructions below.
• If I do not have a computer to log into the meeting can I still participate via phone? YES. Please
use the dial in number and listen along to the meeting and speak as directed by the Chair of the
commission.
• If I would like to sign up to speak during public comment- how do I do that on this platform?
Please join the meeting (via below instructions15 minutes in advance of the start of the meeting
and announce your name and the agenda item you would like to speak on. The chair will
announce the public hearing for that item at the appropriate time. You will need to share your
name and address and the time limits associated with a physical meeting still apply.
see instructions below
Commission name
Date and Time of Meeting
Website to
access
meeting
Call In # &
Conference
ID #
Please MUTE when
NOT speaking!
Page 5 of 153
Steps for joining the meeting
• Step 1- Join by copying and pasting the weblink into your browser.
If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-enabled web
browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• Step 2: The below screen will come up:
Click watch on the web instead (circled in red below)
• Step 3: You will enter the meeting and see this screen. Wait here until the event starts. If you
intend on participating in the meeting (public comment/ commissioner deliberations), please
take this time to also call in via the dial in number above.
Turn down your volume on your computer and listen via phone. There will be a 20-40 second lag-
we are working on it.
Page 6 of 153
• Step 4: Prepping for the Meeting - mute your mic until you need to speak. To unmute yourself
when you are on the phone, press the unmute button on your screen & PRESS *6 in your
key pad.
To mute your device-
To unmute- press the screen unmute button AND then *6 ( WE WILL NOT HEAR
YOU IF YOU DO NOT PRESS *6) you should keep your keypad on your phone
up/open and be ready to respond on the phone. Then mute when you are done talking, to
avoid external noises coming into the meeting
• Step 5 Meeting Starts. Orientation to meeting screen
This is the meeting screen.
Meeting title
Ask a question Function--IF you attend late please announce yourself
using this function.
If you would like to submit written comments during public hearing for
the commission please alert the recording secretary using this box
Q&A selection
button
Page 7 of 153
Quick Tips
You do NOT need to download Microsoft Teams-
• If you are watching the meeting in the web browser on your computer, any click on your
screen may make the meeting pause momentarily. The video will then be a few seconds
behind. If this happens, click “LIVE” at the bottom right of the screen to jump to the live
recording.
• If you already have TEAMS, please sign out completely from the Microsoft suite &join
anonymously on the web.
• If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-
enabled web browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• If participating by web browser and phone, be sure to turn down the volume of your
computer to avoid an echo.
Page 8 of 153
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Marc h 26, 2020 regular meetings of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 9 of 153
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: March 26, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
March 26, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Faustine Curry; Pam
Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Robert McCabe
Member absent: Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst;
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:03 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
The regular HARC meeting was moved from City Council Chambers to a web-based conference
meeting with phone-in option on the Microsoft Teams platform related to the ongoing public
health emergency caused by COVID-19 and in anticipation of potential restrictions on public
meetings because of local orders for public health and safety. Public comment was allowed via a
conference call number and the “ask a question” function on the video conference option.
Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 12, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Browner. Second by
Commissioner Curry. Approved (7-0).
C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an
addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; the removal of an awning
or canopy; and the addition of an awning or canopy on a high priority structure at the property
located at 805 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 52, Lot
3(N/PT), ACRES 0.0548. – Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The current structure is the second structure to be located on
this property. The original structure was a wood frame, single-story structure that was
Page 10 of 153
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: March 26, 2020
constructed between 1889 and 1894, according to Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. In 1894 the
building served as a confectionery and fruit shop, in 1900-1910 it was a barber shop with an
addition at the rear, and by 1916 it was a millinery with a larger shed addition to the rear.
Around 1925 a new, two-story structure was built. The Alcove, a café and confectionery that
was popular with Southwestern students, was on the ground floor, and a beauty shop was
upstairs, both owned and operated by the Reas. The historic façade is shown in the photo in the
applicant’s Letter of Intent. The building had a flat canopy with a transom window above at the
face of the building, with a recessed entrance. It appears that some small modifications had
been made to the storefront by the 1980s, and the storefront that exists today is a replacement of
the original storefront, including the transom windows, with a storefront that is not compatible
with the design and construction period of the building. The applicant is requesting approval to
remove the existing fabric awnings over upper floor windows and ground floor storefront, to
install a new flat canopy similar to the canopy in the historic photo, to bring the transom
windows forward to the face of the building, and to replace the existing non-historic storefront
with a new storefront.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item B (2020-9-COA) as submitted by the applicant by Commissioner
Johnston. Second by Commissioner Curry. Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19'-6"
Setback Encroachment into the required 25' front setback for the construction of a carport
addition 5'-6" from the front property line, and a 4'-8" Setback Encroachment into the required 6'
side setback for the construction of a carport addition 1'-4" from the side (north) property line at
the property located at 1604 Vine Street, bearing the legal description NOLEN ADDITION,
BLOCK 2, LOT 5-6(PTS), ACRES 0.160. (2020-8-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic
Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is proposing the addition of a 21’-4” deep, 22’-
6” wide carport to the front of the low priority residential structure to replace an existing
carport which has some deterioration causing a need for its removal. The proposed new carport
would encroach 19’-6” into the required 25’ front setback and result in a 5’-6” front setback, as
well as encroach 4’-8” into the required 6’ side (north) setback and result in a 1’-4” side setback
if approved. Along this portion of Vine Street and in this area the residential structures are low
and medium priority, and they vary in distance to front and side property lines. This block is at
the southern boundary of the Old Town Historic Overlay District, near the southeast corner of
the district.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Michael Walton is in favor of the request.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item D (2020-8-COA) as presented by Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde.
Second by Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
Page 11 of 153
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: March 26, 2020
E. Discussion and possible action establishing the regular meeting date, time and place of the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission for 2020/21 – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Nelson explained the Commission needs to confirm the HARC meetings as the 2nd and 4th
Thursdays of each month at 6:00 pm.
Motion to approve the meeting schedule by Commissioner Browner. Second by
Commissioner Morales. Approved (7-0).
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Curry.
Meeting adjourned at 6:46pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 12 of 153
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition
that creates a new, or adds to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ade at the property loc ated at 701 Univers ity
Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.31 ac res out of the s outhwes t portion of Bloc k 2, S nyder
Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
In June o f 2016, HAR C ap p ro ved a sec o nd-floor ad d ition to the existing his toric struc ture, which would
have als o inc reas ed the height o f the firs t floor. Ad d itional ap p ro ved alterations inc luded the addition of
windows and doors on the firs t flo o r, and an exterior stair fo r egres s fro m the s ec o nd floor. T he sec ond-
floor ad d ition was no t completed , and the owner is now reques ting H A R C approval of a revis ed design
that would retain the struc ture as a single sto ry, with an inc reas e in the height of the ro o f to allo w for the
installation of higher ceilings and HVAC duc twork and equip ment, the ad d ition o f new windows and doors
and the retention of the original bric k s iding and mid-c entury c onc rete entranc e c anopy.
In the revis ed des ign, the ap p licant is propos ing to ad d 5’-0” to the height of the exis ting b rick building,
which will retain the flat roof cons truction of the original struc ture and allow for the installation of modern
HVAC (heating, ventilation and air c o nditio ning) equip ment ab o ve the c eiling, as well as to rais e the ceiling
in the interior s pac es . P er the ap p licant’s Letter of Intent d ated F ebruary 18, 2020, the o riginal height o f the
brick b uilding was 9’-10” and the proposed new height with the additio n o f s tucc o -clad wall s ections
above the existing bric k walls is 14’-10”. As this height includ es a 1’-0” ro o f parapet, the proposed
building height is 13’-10” p er the UDC d efinitio n, whic h is within the height requirements fo r the O ld Town
His toric O verlay District. Als o inc luded in the revis ed d es ign are a new configuration o f the wind o ws in the
covered main entrance (a c hange from the original large p ane windows to multi-pane s torefront windows
with the entranc e d o o r mo ved to the far left or wes tmost wind o w s ectio n); the ins tallation of new windows
in the original bric k walls on the front (south) and s ide (eas t) fac ad es ; and the removal o f the rear “ribbon
windows” and rep lacement with bric k and fewer wind o ws to matc h the new wind o ws o n the front (s outh)
façade. Lastly, the proposed exterior alterations include removal and addition of doors to acc ommodate
the rec onfiguration of the interior, as well as the addition of s mall metal awnings over the doors.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Page 13 of 153
Exhibit 4 - Site Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 6 - Public Comments Exhibit
Exhibit 7 - COA-2016-008 Approved Elevations Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Exhibit
Page 14 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: April 9, 2020
File Number: 2019-44-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition that
creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade at the property located at 701 University
Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.31 acres out of the southwest portion of Block 2, Snyder
Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 701 University Academia East
Applicant: Lee McIntosh (McIntosh Holdings)
Property Owner: 605 Academia Avenue LP
Property Address: 701 E. University Avenue
Legal Description: 0.31 acres out of the southwest portion of Block 2, Snyder Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District
Case History: HARC approved a second-floor addition and exterior alterations in June 2016
with COA-2016-008
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1960 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing facade
STAFF ANALYSIS
In June of 2016, HARC approved a second-floor addition to the existing historic structure, which would
have also increased the height of the first floor. Additional approved alterations included the addition of
windows and doors on the first floor, and an exterior stair for egress from the second floor. The second-
floor addition was not completed, and the owner is now requesting HARC approval of a revised design
that would retain the structure as a single story, with an increase in the height of the roof to allow for the
installation of higher ceilings and HVAC ductwork and equipment, the addition of new windows and
doors and the retention of the original brick siding and mid-century concrete entrance canopy.
Page 15 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 2 of 7
Per the Staff Report for COA -2016-008, “The Medium priority structure was constructed in the 1960’s to
provide additional office space for the adjacent Georgetown Hospital building… The architec tural style
for the structure is a variant of New Formalism architecture, which emphasizes arches and a mix of
materials. The primary façade of the building features an arched entry way and represents a unique style
in the City of Georgetown. This project will remove the existing screen wall, currently obscuring the
view, and open up the façade, allowing the arched entry to be the focal point for the design.” The hospital
in Georgetown had been housed in a residential structure on E. University Ave, which began expanding
in the 1950s and resulted in the construction of a new hospital wing and this medical office building.
In the revised design, the applicant is proposing to add 5’-0” to the height of the existing brick building,
which will retain the flat roof construction of the original structure and allow for the installation of
modern HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) equipment above the ceiling, as well as to raise
the ceiling in the interior spaces. Per the applicant’s Letter of Intent dated February 18, 2020, the original
height of the brick building was 9’-10” and the proposed new height with the addition of stucco-clad
wall sections above the existing brick walls is 14’-10”. As this height includes a 1’-0” roof parapet, the
proposed bu ilding height is 13’-10” per the UDC definition, which is within the height requirements for
the Old Town Historic Overlay District. Also included in the revised design are a new configuration of
the windows in the covered main entrance (a change from the original large pane windows to multi-
pane storefront windows with the entrance door moved to the far left or westmost window section); the
installation of new windows in the original brick walls on the front (south) and side (east) facades; and
the removal of the rear “ribbon windows” and replacement with brick and fewer windows to match the
new windows on the front (south) façade. Lastly, the proposed exterior alterations include removal and
addition of doors to accommodate the reconfiguration of the interior, as well as the addition of small
metal awnings over the doors.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS
IN OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings
should be maintained and respected when additions
are proposed.
See Chapter 5 for Design Guidelines related to
maintaining and protecting historic building
materials.
Complies
Historic building materials include the brick
façade and concrete arched canopy at the
main entrance, which are being maintained.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Complies
The proposed alterations would remove
large plate glass windows and ribbon
windows that are part of the period of
Page 16 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS
IN OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
• Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period
than that of the building are inappropriate.
significance of the historic structure and
which help to identify the architectural
character and mid-century design.
However, the large arched canopy and
window openings are proposed to be
retained with a new storefront infill, so that
some of the most prominent features of the
building design will be retained.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed addition is compatible with
the scale and materials of the building as
the stucco finish signals an addition and the
height is not out of scale with the existing
building. The height addition does alter the
character of the original low-height
building; however the alteration allows for
modern improvements and is sufficiently
differentiated in materials from the original
brick façade.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to the
building.
An addition should be distinguishable from
the original building, even in subtle ways,
such that the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the
original and new structures may help to define
an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the
connection point between the addition and the
original structure can help define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the
National Parks Service.
Complies
The addition can be distinguished through
the difference in material (brick original and
stucco addition), and the difference in
textures between the brick and stucco in this
case allows for the brick to be the prominent
(historic) feature.
Page 17 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 4 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS
IN OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
Complies
The proposed addition in height provides
similar massing and is a scale and form that
are compatible with the existing building.
The simple stucco exterior of the addition is
subordinate to the original structure and
does not compete with the primary façade.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are
appropriate for residential additions. Flat
roofs may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the
addition should be similar.
Complies
As the addition increases the height of the
roof and retains the existing building as a
single story, it is important that the roof
form (flat roof) be retained. The proposed
addition retains the flat roof and improves
the slope to the rear of the structure so that
downspouts can be located in less
prominent places.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
Page 18 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
Proposed increase to the height of the
existing building does not expand the
building footprint.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
Partially complies with SOI Standards, in
particular Standards for Rehabilitation #9.
Partially complies with portion which
reads: “New additions, exterior alterations,
or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial
relationships that characterize the
property.” The new addition of the stucco-
clad exterior wall extension and roof
parapet does not destroy historic features,
however some historic features such as
windows are proposed to be removed.
Complies with portion which reads: “The
new work will be differentiated from the
old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and
proportion, and massing to protect the
integrity of the property and its
environment.” The use of stucco for the
addition differentiates the new from the
old, and the proportions and materials of
the new windows as well as the new doors
and awnings can be understood as new and
not original to the mid -century structure.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Complies or partially complies with
applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed alterations retain one of the
most architecturally significant features,
which is the arched canopy over the main
entrance. However, the replacement of the
large plate glass windows, removal of the
rear ribbon windows and addition of
Page 19 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
windows diminishes the architectural
integrity of the mid-century design.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
Height of proposed addition is compatible
with surrounding properties, including
surrounding residential properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed height increase and building
alterations are not out of character with
surrounding commercial structures, and the
prominent arched canopy entrance feature
is proposed to be retained.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
Signage is not proposed as part of this
application and any future signage will
require approval of a COA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the reasons stated
above. Additionally, HARC approved the increase in height and a second-floor addition as well as
alterations to the windows and the installation of new windows in 2016, and the revised design presented
in this application is a considerable improvement over the previously approved design in terms of scale
of the finished building, alteration of the exterior and the amount of stucco relative to the existing brick.
The proposed increase in height is not out of scale with the current structure or surrounding structures ,
and key architectural features at the primary entrance will still be retained . Staff would like to further
note that the COA review requirement in the UDC is specific to the street-facing facades, which are the
two facades least altered from the original design and most improved by the proposed design revisions.
As of the date of this report, staff has received five (5) written comments in opposition of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Site Survey
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resource Survey
Exhibit 6 – Public Comments
Exhibit 7 – COA-2016-008 Approved Elevations
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 20 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -44-COA – 701 E. University Ave. Page 7 of 7
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 21 of 153
EL
M ST
ASH ST
PINE ST
E 15TH ST
E 13TH S T
MA
P
LE
S
T
S M
AIN
S
T
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
S CHUR
CH ST
S
CO
LLE
G
E
S
T
S MYRTLE S
T
E 8TH S T
E 7TH S T
WALNUT
ST
OLIV
E
ST
E 11TH S T
E 10TH S T
E 1 6 T H S T
VINE ST
E 14TH ST
LAURE
L ST
SOUTHWESTERNBLVD
SO U L E D R
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
JA
ME
S
ST
E 9 T H S T
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
MCKENZIE DR
E 1 7 T H S T
SE RV I C E R D
W 16TH S T
E 9TH 1/2 ST
W 9 TH S T
W 11 TH S T
W 10TH S T
W 8TH ST
W 7 T H ST
GEORGE
ST
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E 9 T H S T
E 16TH ST
E 14TH S T
E 16TH ST
L
A
U
R
E
L
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
V
I
N
E
S
T
E 16TH ST
WALNUT
ST
E 10TH ST
E 1 6 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 11TH ST
E 1 4 T H S T
E 9TH ST
2019-44-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 22 of 153
Page 23 of 153
Page 24 of 153
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Britin Bostic
Downtown Historic Planner
City of Georgetown
406 West 8th Street
Georgetown Texas 78626
Re: Letter of Explanation
701 University
Dear Britin,
Thank you for your comments pertaining to the HARC Application on
701 University. I will address the comments in the order they appear.
Storefront. The storefront is original and is not being changed. Anodized
aluminum with a wood nailer. No change from original
Windows. The window placement is original except in a couple of
locations. The original windows were anodized aluminum with wood
structural components. The original were the same height as the new
frames but with no break in the window run. Structural issues forced a
change with the addition of vertical structural components to make the
building sound. The former windows supported the top plate.
Stucco. The stucco being used is a match for the original stucco that
still exists. The only difference is we are using a dove grey color instead
of the white. It has a small sand pebble finish. No Change from original
same as the original.
Doors. Exterior doors are either metal or glass and the same finishes will
be used on replacement as the original. Per the original we have three
metal doors and one glass door. No change from original
Page 25 of 153
Roofing. The original roof was a flat built up system with no parapet.
Later, insulation was added and new PVC roof was installed. The new
roof is flat but with enough pitch to drain the water in an adequate
fashion. There is a low parapet wall to accommodate this pitch.
Awnings. The former awnings were metal rectangular and the new
awnings are the same, where applicable. Painted the same grey tone to
match the brick. No change from original
Brick. Brick is the original brick used. No change from original.
Building Height. The previous height was 9’10” on the main structure.
The new height is 14’ 6”. This provides for an 11 foot plate height, 2 foot
trusses and 1 foot parapet. The building can now have a modern
mechanical system, insulation and electrical that does not interfere with
a normal ceiling height of structural components.
Arches: The arches are original and the main mid-century historic
element of the structure. No change from original
All this was previously approved by HARC except for two items. The
color of the stucco was white and we had a second floor approved that
was clad in stucco. The second floor was eliminated and the color
changed to better meet the color scheme of the original brick.
Sincerely,
Lee H. McIntosh
McIntosh Holdings
701 HARC explanation.
Page 26 of 153
Page 27 of 153
Page 28 of 153
Page 29 of 153
Page 30 of 153
Page 31 of 153
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:125435
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address GEORGETOWN, COMMUNITY CLINIC, LONE STAR CIRCLE OF CARE, 1500 W UNIVERSITY AVE
STE 103, GEORGETOWN,TX 78628-7109
Latitude:30.633558 Longitude -97.670635
Addition/Subdivision:S4615 - Snyder Addition
WCAD ID:R047413Legal Description (Lot/Block):SNYDER ADDITION, BLOCK 2(SW/PT), ACRES .31
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 4/21/2016Recorded by:CMEC
UnknownOther:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
United WayOther:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1960
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: North
Page 32 of 153
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:125435
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, brick and stucco, Post-War Modern building with an L-shape. The building has a raised central portion with a
repeating, low-pitch, concrete, barrel roof flanked by flat-roofed wings. The entry is located under one of the barrels and
has a single door with sidelights and a transom. A concrete wall encloses a courtyard on the primary elevation.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Courtyard wall
Landscape Notes:
Barrel
Concrete; Not visible
Metal
Barrel roofed canopy
Metal Posts
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 33 of 153
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:125435
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of
integrity; property is significant and
contributes to neighborhood character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:281
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 34 of 153
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:701 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:125435
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NorthPhoto Direction
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Page 35 of 153
Page 36 of 153
Page 37 of 153
1
Britin Bostick
From:Brandy Heinrich
Sent:Thursday, April 2, 2020 10:14 AM
To:Britin Bostick
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Comments for HARC on 701 University Ave Project (2019-44-coa)
Attachments:mcintosh.pdf
Hi Britin,
Looks like this is for you.
Thank you,
Brandy Heinrich
Development Account Specialist
Planning Department
512-930-3576
planning@georgetown.org
From:
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 10:03 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for HARC on 701 University Ave Project (2019-44-coa)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
To whom it may concern,
I am against the new commercial development project on 701 University based on the following below.
Variances. The COA asks for the following variances. . .
2.3' setback encroachment into a required 25' (south) setback to allow a commercial structure
22.7' from the front property line;
4.8' setback encroachment into the required 15'side (east) setback to allow a commercial
structure 10.2' from the side property line
5.4' setback encroachment into the required 25' rear (north) setback to allow a commercial
structure 10.2 from the rear property line; and
20' setback encroachment into the required street (west) setback to allow a commercial
structure 5' from the side property line.
Size. The structure is simply too large for the site (see pdf below)
Page 38 of 153
2
Parking. The lack of parking given the percentage of the property taken up by the building. Where will
the cars park? In the Neighborhood?
In addition, the property is:
in a transition zone - commercial zoning next to single family zoning - where the burden
is/should be on the commercial property to be sensitive to the residential neighbors
in the old town overlay district - indicating the property has additional restrictions due to the
need to protect our most sensitive/treasured properties
an end-cap of the neighborhood not to mention the first commercial property westbound from
130.
Regards,
Michael Spano
Silverado Dr
Georgetown, TX
Page 39 of 153
22.7
ft
10.2 ft
10.2
ft
5 ft
122 ft
110 ft
35 ft
128 ft
87 ft
Page 40 of 153
1
Britin Bostick
From:Brandy Heinrich
Sent:Thursday, April 2, 2020 12:00 PM
To:Britin Bostick
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Property at 801 Universit
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Britin,
I believe he’s talking about 701 University Ave.
2019-44-COA
Thank you,
Brandy Heinrich
Development Account Specialist
Planning Department
512-930-3576
planning@georgetown.org
From: Gerald Adcock <gerald.adcock81@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 11:33 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Cc: Christine Attoun <cattoun858@gmail.com>; MAS <cp123mdf@yahoo.com>; Chris Hamilton
<chrisjhamilton@sbcglobal.net>; Regina Watson <txgwatson@gmail.com>; Byron Zollars <byronzollars@gmail.com>;
Pamela Mitchell <pamela.i.mitchell@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Property at 801 Universit
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I am writing to state my unequivocal opposition to the plans for "developing" the subject property. The current plans
would violate several longstanding rules for commercial property development. More importantly, the plan
would create an unreasonable condition for the adjoining neighborhood. This neighborhood deserves to be considered
as important criteria for making any decision regarding this property. I also believe that the proposal would cause many
issues for the the 29 highway. While I could delineate all he reasons why the proposal should not be approved, I also
believe that the city planning department has to be aware of the inherent fallacies in this proposal. However, I would be
more than pleased to speak to this in any forum where this opportunity would be provided.
The destruction of heritage trees is but one unsavory result of the proposal. This causes some of our culture to be
destroyed. Although, some would argue this is progress, I would argue it is emblematic of the several problems this
proposal would create.
Page 41 of 153
2
I view the entire matter as being a hand over of the city to developers. I would also believe that the drive to create sales
tax revenue is now a controlling factor in any commercial property development. And this leads to a sacrifice of life as
we know it today. This would be another step in changing our city forever.
Sincerely
Gerry Adcock
Page 42 of 153
Peter H. Dana
1101 Walnut St.
Georgetown, Texas 78626
4/02/2020
These comments are in reference to the proposed project at 701 University Ave. (Case
Number 2019-44-COA) scheduled for a hearing on April 9, 2020.
As a resident within 200 feet of the property I object to this project.
This applicant has already gutted the building and increased the height.
The applicant has failed to maintain the signage required by HARC (see following pages).
If the requested encroachment are allowed without more detail the proposed structure could
be rectangular in size and fill most of the parcel.
There is already a serious parking problem which this property. Any enlargement of the
footprint of the existing structure would present serious problems with vehicles turning north
from University Avenue on the Walnut Street.
The size of the proposed structure would require parking spaces that do not exist now forcing
parking on Walnut Street. The 605 University parking is allocated now to the tenets of that
property.
Page 43 of 153
Page 44 of 153
Page 45 of 153
Page 46 of 153
Page 47 of 153
Page 48 of 153
Page 17 of 30Page 49 of 153
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Purpose of Notice:
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold a Public Hearing to consider public
input and possible action on the proposed:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
following:
. Addition that creates a new or adds to an existing street facing fagade;
. 2.3' setback encroachment into the required2l' front (south) setback to allow a
commerciai structure22.7' from the front property line;
. 4.8' setback encroachment into the required L5' side (east) setback to allow a commercial
structure 10.2' from the side property line;
. 5.4' setback encroachment into the required25'rear (north) setback to allow a commercial
strucfure 1.0.2' from the rear property line; and
. 20' setback encroachment into the required street (west) setback to allow a commercial
structure 5' from the side property line
at the property located at70'1" University Avenue, bearing the legal description of 0.31 acres out
of the southwest portion of Block 2, Snyder Addition. (2019-M-COA) - Britin Bostick, Downtown
& Historic Planner
Reason for Notice:
You are being notified as a requirement of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances. You are
invited to express your views or concerns regarding the above - described petition by returning
the attached comment form and/or by attending one or both of the scheduled pubiic hearings on
the matter.
Meeting Location and Dates:
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission hearing will be held on Thursday, Apnl9,
2020, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting wili be at the City Councii Chambers located at 5i0 yy'. gth St.,
Georgetown, Texas.
Location map of the property is provided on the back.
If you wish to speak on this item, please arrive before the start of the meeting and complete a
spea-ker form and give to the Recording Secretary prior to the start of the meeting.
For further informatiory or to comment on the proposal, contact the Case Manager, Britin
Bostick,512.930.358L or email at britin.bostick@georgetown.org. The staff report related to this
item will be available online at agendas.georgetown.org after 5:00 p.m. the Friday before the
meeting. To send a written response, please fill out the form attached with this letter.
Page I of3Page 50 of 153
3DJHRI
Proposed “Commercial Structure”
Page 51 of 153
22
.
7
f
t
10.2 ft
10
.
2
f
t
5 ft
122 ft
11
0
f
t
35 ft
12
8
f
t
87 ft
Page 52 of 153
Page 53 of 153
Page 54 of 153
701 University Academia East
2019-44-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
April 9, 2020
1Page 55 of 153
Item Under Consideration
2019-44-COA–701 University Academia East
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street
facing façade at the property located at 701 University Avenue, bearing the
legal description of 0.31 acres out of the southwest portion of Block 2, Snyder
Addition.
2Page 56 of 153
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing facade
3Page 57 of 153
Item Under Consideration
4Page 58 of 153
Hammerlun
Center
Southwestern
University
5Page 59 of 153
Current Context
6Page 60 of 153
701 University Ave. –Historic Photos
7Photos from previous COA application COA-2016-008 showing construction of subject property.Page 61 of 153
701 University Ave. –c. 2016 Photos
8
Photos from previous COA application COA-
2016-008 (left) showing subject property c. 2016.
Site survey (above) showing existing building
and site improvements.
Page 62 of 153
701 University Ave. –Current Photos
9Page 63 of 153
701 University Ave. –Prior Approved Elevations
10HARC-Approved Elevations from COA-2016-008. Page 64 of 153
701 University Ave. –Proposed Elevation
11Page 65 of 153
701 University Ave. –Proposed Elevation
12Page 66 of 153
701 University Ave. –Proposed Elevation
13Page 67 of 153
701 University Ave. –Proposed Elevation
14Page 68 of 153
Current Context –Aerial View
15Page 69 of 153
Current Context –Street View
16Page 70 of 153
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 17Page 71 of 153
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-three (33) letters mailed
•No (0) public comments in favor and five (5) against
18Page 72 of 153
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request.
19Page 73 of 153
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
20Page 74 of 153
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19.3’
s etbac k enc roachment into the 25’ required garage (wes t) s etbac k, a 6’ s etbac k enc roachment into the
required 6’ s ide (north) setback, and a 3’ building height inc reas e from the required 15’ maximum building
height at the s ide (north) setback line allowing for a building height of 18’ at the side s etbac k at the property
located at 403 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.472 acres out of Bloc k 24, O UT LO T
DI VI S I O N C . – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
In May 2017, HAR C ap p ro ved an ad d ition to the high p rio rity main s truc ture, a 6’ high fence in the side
s treet yard and an alteration to the d etac hed garage struc ture that would have altered the ro o f of the garage
s tructure to a low-pitc hed gable roof fac ing Elm S treet. T he approved design als o included a wood pergola
attached to the garage s truc ture. Now that the alteratio n to the main s tructure is c o mp lete, the property
owner wo uld like to req uest approval of a new d es ign for the garage s truc ture, whic h would inc reas e the
height over the p revious ly-approved design to ad d attic s torage spac e above the garage, change the ro o f to
a p itc h mo re s imilar to the main s truc ture, alter the gab le ends to fac e no rth and s o uth, and ad d a c overed
patio to the south side of the garage.
T he exis ting d etac hed garage is not lis ted o n the His to ric R es o urc e S urvey and is no t a contributing
s tructure to the O ld Town Histo ric O verlay District. T he exis ting c arp o rt attac hed to the garage is also
non-contributing. Bo th s tructures are s ituated within s etbac ks, whic h makes them non-c onforming
s tructures. P er UDC Table. 3.13.010, the removal, d emo lition or relocation of a no n-c o ntrib uting attac hed
porch, patio or dec k d o es no t require approval of a C ertific ate of Appropriateness (C O A). P er that same
table in the UDC , an addition that c reates a new, o r adds to an exis ting s treet-facing façade fo r a non-
contributing s tructure is reviewed b y the HP O . S etbac k and b uilding height modific ations are reviewed by
HAR C . T he proposed c hange o f the ap p ro ved pergo la struc ture to a struc ture with a roof ad d s s quare
footage to the d etac hed garage, whic h is limited by the UDC to a to tal o f 600 s q . ft. In this c as e, the HP O
and HAR C d o no t have the autho rity to approve the ad d ition to the no n-c o ntrib uting build ing. Ho wever, if
the roofed p ergola struc ture were s eparated fro m the garage s tructure and were c o nstruc ted as a stand-
alone struc ture, it c o uld b e reviewed by HAR C as an additio n to the s treet-facing faç ad e of the main high
priority s tructure. S taff is therefo re p res enting the change o f the p ergola to a ro o fed s truc ture to HAR C for
review.
T he propos ed projec t involves the exis ting non-contributing garage struc ture, whic h is approximately 600
s q. ft., and modify the roof and the exterior to:
C hange the ro o f from a flat roof to a 12/12 pitc hed gable roof, with the gab le ends fac ing no rth and
s outh (o rientation to addres s c o nc erns ab o ut rainwater runo ff), with a height to ac commodate attic
s torage over the garage spac e. T he attic will be acc es s ed via interior s tairs, and there is storage s pace
at the rear of the garage.
Add two o verhead garage doors to the street-fac ing faç ade (Elm S treet), two d o o rs o n the s outh
s ide of the garage for ac cess to the garage and s torage room fro m the yard and a pas s -thru window
with s hutters in the s outh façade.
Us e board and batten s iding and metal roof to matc h the main struc ture.
Add a 224 s q. ft. covered patio o r roofed pergo la s truc ture to the s o uth faç ad e of the garage with a
s lightly sloped roof of the same metal as the garage roof.
Page 75 of 153
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Materials Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 6 - Public Comment Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Exhibit
Page 76 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: April 9, 2020
File Number: 2019-75-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 19.3’ setback
encroachment into the 25’ required garage (west) setback, a 6’ setback encroachment into the required
6’ side (north) setback, and a 3’ building height increase from the required 15’ maximum building
height at the side (north) setback line allowing for a building height of 18’ at the side setback at the
property located at 403 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.472 acres out of Block 24,
OUTLOT DIVISION C.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 403 E. 4th Street Garage
Applicant: John Lawton (Green Earth Builders, LLC)
Property Owner: Michael Masterson
Property Address: 403 E. 4th Street
Legal Description: 0.472 acres out of Block 24, OUTLOT DIVISION C.
Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District
Case History: Addition to main structure , alterations to garage structure and fence approved by
HARC with COA-2016-038
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: Detached Garage – U nknown (Not on HRS)
Main Structure – 1915 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Non-Contributing (Detached Garage)
High Priority (Main Structure)
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modifications (detached garage)
Building height modification (detached garage)
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (roofed pergola)
HPO:
Demolition of an a ttached carport, porch, patio or deck (detached garage)
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (detached garage)
Page 77 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 2 of 9
STAFF ANALYSIS
In May 2017, HARC approved an addition to the high priority main structure, a 6’ high fence in the side
street yard and an alteration to the detached garage structure that would have altered the roof of the
garage structure to a low-pitched gable roof facing Elm Street. The approved design also included a wood
pergola attached to the garage structure. Now that the alteration to the main structure is complete, the
property owner would like to request approval of a new design for the garage structure, which would
increase the height over the previously-approved design to add attic storage space above the garage,
change the roof to a pitch more similar to the main structure, alter the gable ends to face north and south,
and add a covered patio to the south side of the garage.
The existing detached garage is not listed on the Historic Resource Survey and is not a contributing
structure to the Old Town Historic Overlay District. The existing carport attached to the garage is also
non-contributing. Both structures are situated within setbacks, which makes them non-conforming
structures. Per UDC Table. 3.13.010, the removal, demolition or relocation of a non-contributing attached
porch, patio or deck does not require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Per that same
table in the UDC, an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade for a non-
contributing structure is reviewed by the HPO. Setback and building height modifications are reviewed
by HARC. The proposed change of the approved pergola structure to a structure with a roof a dds square
footage to the detached garage, which is limited by the UDC to a total of 600 sq. ft. In this case, the HPO
and HARC do not have the authority to approve the addition to the non-contributing building. However,
if the roofed pergola structure were separated from the garage structure and were constructed as a stand-
alone structure, it could be reviewed by HARC as an addition to the street-facing façade of the main high
priority structure. Staff is therefore presenting the change of the pergola to a roofed structure to HARC
for review.
The proposed project involves the existing non-contributing garage structure, which is approximately
600 sq. ft., and modify the roof and the exterior to:
• Change the roof from a flat roof to a 12/12 pitched gable roof, with the gable ends facing north
and south (orientation to address concerns about rainwater runoff), with a height to
accommodate attic storage over the garage space. The attic will be accessed via interior stairs, and
there is storage space at the rear of the garage.
• Add two overhead garage doors to the street-facing façade (Elm Street), two doors on the south
side of the garage for access to the garage and storage room from the yard and a pass-thru
window with shutters in the south façade.
• Use board and batten siding and metal roof to match the main structure.
• Add a 224 sq. ft. covered patio or roofed pergola structure to the south façade of the garage with
a slightly sloped roof of the same metal as the garage roof.
Because the existing accessory structure is situated within the side street and side setbacks, and is
proposed to be expanded within those setbacks, the request to HARC is for approval of setback
modifications to allow the existing structure to be enlarged as a detached garage, and encroach 19.3’ into
the 25’ required garage setback that applies, and to encroach 6’ into the required 6’ side (north) setback,
Page 78 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 3 of 9
which is along the north property line. Additionally, the height of the expansion, in which a gable feature
is proposed along the side (north) property line, requires approval of a 3’ building height increase, for a
building height of 18’ along the property line. Per the UDC, building height is measured as “the average
height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, shed, hip, or gambrel roof”. The proposed eave
height is 10 and the proposed ridge height is 26’, providing for a building height at the gable ends of 18’.
The covered patio is also located in the setback, set 4’ back from the face of the garage and encroaching
15.3’ into the setback, and as it is proposed to be attached to the garage is part of the setback modification
request.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS
IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
Complies
Although the proposed addition to the
detached garage structure is close to the side
street curb, it is detached from the main
structure, set back from the primary façade,
and compliments the main structure in form
and character. The requests for setback and
building height modifications are related to
the location of the existing structure on the
site, and while the height of the addition is
similar to that of the main structure, the use
of a similarly steep roof pitch relates to the
main structure while also adding to the
height of the addition. The detached
accessory structure is not identified as
historic, but some of the Guidelines for an
addition to the historic main structure apply.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically gable, hip, and shed roofs are
appropriate for residential additions. Flat
roofs may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
Complies
The roof of the proposed addition is a
change in style from the existing roof, but as
the accessory structure is non-contributing
and the proposed roof addition is
complimentary to the roof of the main
structure and uses the same materials and
slope, staff found that the proposed project
Page 79 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 4 of 9
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS
IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
If the roof of the building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should
be similar.
complies with this Guideline. The design of
the roof addition has larger gables than
does the historic main structure, and in that
way the alterations to the non-contributing
structu re can be understood as
complimentary to rather than original to the
main structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff has reviewed the application and
deemed it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed addition requires approval of
setback and building height requirements.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
Complies with SOI Standards, in particular
Standards for Rehabilitation #9, which
reads: “New additions, exterior alterations,
or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial
relationships that characterize the property.
The new work will be differentiated from
the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and
proportion, and massing to protect the
integrity of the property and its
environment.”
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
Page 80 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 5 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
Proposed garage addition is for an existing
structure sited within side yard and side
setbacks, which is consistent with the
period of construction of the main (high
priority) structure, and the proposed
alterations are more consistent with the
character and design of the main structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies
The additions to the existing detached
garage are compatible with the main
structure on the property, but the increase
in size in combination with the close
proximity to the street curb would make the
detached garage dissimilar from other
structures on surrounding properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Historic Overlay
District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage included.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is
for an existing building that is currently
situated within the side street and side
setbacks. Approval of setback
modifications is required for the
proposed addition to the structure,
which would make the structure a
usable two-car garage with attic storage.
Page 81 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 6 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
The existing structure is already located
within the setbacks, and the footprint is
not proposed to be expanded.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The setback is for an existing building
that, while not identified as historic
itself, is in a location consistent with the
siting of accessory structures during the
1910s, which is the construction period
for the property’s main structure. Other
structures within the block (S. Elm St.)
are generally low priority structures
constructed at later dates, with one other
high priority and some medium priority
structures along E. 4 th Street, also
constructed at later dates.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed setback modifications are
for an existing structure that is generally
set closer to the street that other units.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
Proposed setback modifications are for an
existing structure.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
Proposed setback modifications are for an
existing structure.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Complies
Proposed setback modifications are for an
existing structure that is not being
replaced and for a roofed pergola
structure that is proposed to replace a
larger carport structure.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
The proposed addition to the garage
would create roof lines and features that
are more like the main house, and as the
existing footprint is not proposed to be
altered the change in scale to the existing
structure would be the addition of
Page 82 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 7 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
height, which would be complimentary
to the historic structure.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Partially Complies
The proposed finished size of the
structure is not generally larger in
footprint than other accessory structures
within the same block, however there
are not similarly situated structures
along a street edge and side property
line.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Partially Complies
The height and form of the proposed new
addition to the existing structure may
overshadow the low priority structure on
the property directly north of the subject
property. Although the detached garage
structure is set several feet from the
adjacent structure to the north and there
is adequate room for maintenance, the
structures are somewhat close together.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Partially Complies
There is adequate space for maintenance
around the detached structure, however
due to its location along the side setback,
some maintenance would require access
from the adjacent property.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or other significant
features are affected by this project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
Proposed building height modification
will not affect views of the Courthouse
of the Town Square Historic District.
Page 83 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 8 of 9
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Complies
Proposed building height modification
will not affect the character of the
Downtown Overlay District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Partially Complies
The proposed building height
modification would allow for the
detached garage structure to be of a
character that is more consistent with the
high priority main structure, and to have
a similar roof pitch and gable features
using the existing building footprint.
However, the proposed height and form
of the addition to the detached garage
would be both taller and closer to the
street that any structures on surrounding
properties.
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square Historic District; and
Not Applicable
Project is not located in the Downtown
Overlay or Town Square Historic District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Partially Complies
The date of construction of the detached
garage structure is unknown, and it is
not listed on the Historic Resource
Survey. The proposed addition would
enhance the relationship between the
garage and the main structure, however
the proposed height at the setback may
overshadow the low priority structure
directly to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the request,
with the condition that the covered patio or roofed pergola structure not be attached to the detached
garage, and be constructed as a separate structure to meet the requirements of the UDC or that the pergola
be constructed without a roof. In addition, staff has spoken directly to the property owner to the north,
who is in support of this project, and the project utilizes an existing structure on the site, that, while not
identified as historic, has an unknown construction date and appears to have been in its location for some
time. Its location within setbacks is not unusual for an outbuilding of the time period the original
structure was constructed. Although the proposed roof addition is tall for an outbuilding and for a
Page 84 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019 -75-COA – 403 E. 4th Street Page 9 of 9
structure located so close to the side and rear property lines, the height is a result of seeking to maintain
a roof slope consistent with that of the gable roofs on the main structure, and to provide attic storage
space above the garage. The detached condition of this structure is preferable as it does not alter any
details of the main structure, and the proposed design including the covered patio is both complimentary
to the main structure and helps identify the age of the main structure as different from the surrounding
structures.
As of the date of this report, staff has received one (1) written comment in favor of the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Materials
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resource Survey
Exhibit 6 – Public Comments
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 85 of 153
Location
2019-75-COA
Exhibit #1
N C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 5TH ST
E 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
E2NDST
E 3RD ST
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
ELM
S
T
ASH
S
T
S C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Page 86 of 153
Green Earth Builders, LLC
2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626
Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100
Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: Jennifererin.jl@gmail.com
Letter of Intent – Garage Renovation
403 E 4th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Changes from original proposal to HARC:
The flat roof design that is existing to be changed to an A-frame roofing system which will
be at a 12/12 pitch to match the house. Gables will run north and south with no overhang to the
north side, because of the structure being on the property line. The reason for the roof to have
the ridge to travel north to south is that the neighbors were concerned that the runoff would be
too much and leave ruts in the yard. Having a gutter system to that side would be hanging over
the property line.
The garage facade with sliding tin doors is to be changed to 2-garage doors and new
siding to mimic house of board and batten.
The two doors on original garage will be replaced with 2- 3(0)6(8) exterior doors. Also
added will be a 4(0)4(0) pass-through flip-up shutter to the side of the doors.
A privacy fence is to be located where it was proposed in the original proposal to HARC.
Page 87 of 153
Page 88 of 153
Page 89 of 153
Page 90 of 153
Page 91 of 153
Green Earth Builders, LLC
2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626
Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100
Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: Jennifererin.jl@gmail.com
Garage Renovation
Materials
403 E 4th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Siding: 4’X8’ Hardie HZ10 5/6”X48”X96” Fiber Cement
https://www.homedepot.com/p/James-Hardie-HardiePanel-HZ10-5-16-in-x-48-in-x-96-
in-Fiber-Cement-Sierra-8-Panel-Siding-9003080/305684630
Trim:1”X4” Batten- Pine furring Strip Board
https://www.homedepot.com/p/1-in-x-4-in-x-8-ft-Furring-Strip-Board-
687642/203461000
1X6- Premium Kiln-Dried White Wood
https://www.homedepot.com/p/1-in-x-6-in-x-8-ft-Premium-Kiln-Dried-Square-Edge-
Whitewood-Common-Board-914770/100028725
Soffit: Plywood siding panel no groove 11/32” X 48” X 96”
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Plywood-Siding-Panel-No-Groove-Common-11-32-in-x-
4-ft-x-8-ft-Actual-0-313-in-x-48-in-x-96-in-200353/202519622
Page 92 of 153
All Trims to be- Premium Kiln- Dried White Wood
Post: 6”X6” Pressure Treated (ground contact board)
https://www.homedepot.com/p/WeatherShield-6-in-x-6-in-x-8-ft-2-Pressure-Treated-
Timber-260691/100071059
Doors: 2- 3(0)6(8) Jeld-Wen 36”X80” 3-Panel Craftsman Primed
https://www.homedepot.com/p/JELD-WEN-36-in-x-80-in-3-Panel-Craftsman-Primed-
Steel-Prehung-Left-Hand-Inswing-Front-Door-THDJW166100370/301679991
Metal roof to match house
Page 93 of 153
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:403 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125918
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R044908Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/1/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1915
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:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:63
ID:16
*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:125918 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.640235 Longitude -97.67393
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northwest
Page 94 of 153
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:403 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125918
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
NorthPhoto Direction
NortheastPhoto Direction
Ancillary
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 95 of 153
Page 96 of 153
403 E. 4th Street Garage
2019-75-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
April 9, 2020
1Page 97 of 153
Item Under Consideration
2019-75-COA –403 E. 4th Street Garage
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for a 19.3’ setback encroachment into the 25’ required
garage (west) setback, a 6’ setback encroachment into the required 6’ side
(north) setback, and a 3’ building height increase from the required 15’
maximum building height at the side (north) setback line allowing for a
building height of 18’ at the side setback at the property located at 403 E. 4th
Street, bearing the legal description of 0.472 acres out of Block 24, OUTLOT
DIVISION C.
2Page 98 of 153
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Setback modifications (detached garage)
•Building height modification (detached garage)
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (roofed pergola)
HPO:
•Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck (detached garage)
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade (detached
garage)
3Page 99 of 153
Item Under Consideration
4Page 100 of 153
Historic
Courthouse
5Page 101 of 153
Current Context
6Page 102 of 153
403 E. 4th Street –prior approval (Elm St. Elevation)
7Page 103 of 153
403 E. 4th Street –new design (Elm St. Elevation)
8Page 104 of 153
403 E. 4th Street –new design (E. 4th Elevation)
Insert Property Drawings/Photos/Survey/Etc. as Applicable
9Page 105 of 153
403 E. 4th Street –new design (Survey & Plan)
10Page 106 of 153
Current Context
11Page 107 of 153
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 12Page 108 of 153
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
13Page 109 of 153
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Partially
Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Partially
Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or
Partially
Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
14Page 110 of 153
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
(Building Height Modification)
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and Complies
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Partially Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and Not Applicable
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.Partially Complies
15Page 111 of 153
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-nine (39) letters mailed
•One (1) public comment in favor and none (0) against
16Page 112 of 153
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for the addition, setback and
building height modifications, with the condition that the roofed
pergola or covered patio structure be constructed as a separate
structure to comply with UDC requirements.
17Page 113 of 153
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
18Page 114 of 153
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
April 9, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for New
C onstruc tion (Infill Development) of a S ingle-F amily R es idenc e and a 4’-6” building height increase from
the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (s outh) s etbac k line allowing for a building height of
19’-6” at the s ide setback at the property loc ated at 1205 Walnut, bearing the legal desc ription of 0.15 ac res
out of the wes t portion of Bloc k 1 of the S nyder Addition. - Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is requesting to c onstruc t a 1,432 sq. ft. s ingle-family s tructure on the vacant lot at 1205
Walnut S t., between the approved new residential s tructure at 1207 Walnut S t. and G us’s Drug. T he
propos ed struc ture is to have three bedrooms , three baths, a 150 s q. ft. attac hed carport and a front porc h.
T he design inc ludes a standing s eam metal roof, board and batten s iding, a steep 12/12 roof s lope with a
s treet fac ing dormer, and both single hung and fixed vinyl windows . T he roof ridge height is propos ed to
be approximately 26’, while the building height as defined by the UDC (meas ured as the average of the
eave and ridge height of a gable roof) is approximately 19’- 6”, within the 30’ height limit for the O ld Town
O verlay Dis tric t. P er the proposed s ite plan, the requirements for setbacks , impervious c over, and floor
area ratio are met.
T he proposed building height at the s ide setback along the south property line, or right s ide of the
propos ed struc ture as viewed from Walnut S t., exceeds that height limitation as the building height (average
of eave and ridge height) at the 6’ side s etbac k is over the 15’ maximum. T herefore, a building height
exc eption of 4’- 6” at the s ide setback for the south property line is reques ted. P er the approved projec t
drawings for the res idential struc ture at 1207 Walnut S t., direc tly to the s outh, that struc ture is located along
the 6’ side s etbac k, with a building height of approximately 19’ (gable roof with the gable fac ing Walnut
S t.) and a roof ridge height of approximately 26'.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Materials Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 115 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -7-COA – 1205 Walnut St. Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: March 26, 2020
File Number: 2020-7-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for New
Construction (Infill Development) of a Single-Family Residence and a 4’-6” building height increase from
the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (south) setback line allowing for a building height
of 19’-6” at the side setback at the property located at 1205 Walnut, bearing the legal description of 0.15
acres out of the west portion of Block 1 of the Snyder Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1205 Walnut
Applicant: Chance Leigh Custom Homes (Chance Leigh)
Property Owner: Chance Leigh Custom Homes LLC
Property Address: 1205 Walnut Street
Legal Description: Snyder Addition, BLOCK 1(W/PT), ACRES 0.15
Historic Overlay: Old Town Historic Overlay District
Case History: A previous low priority structure at this address was approved by HARC for
demolition in January 2018 with COA-2017-032.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: N/A
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New Building Construction (Infill Development)
Building Height Modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The southwest corner of Block 1 of the Snyder Addition to the City of Georgetown was vacant until the
late 1920s, when Katharine Hudson constructed and sold a residence at 1205 S. Walnut St. The house was
later owned by Gus and Bessie Steenken, founders of Gus’s Drug, who relocated the house from 601
University Avenue to that lot in 1963, addressing it at 703 E. 13th St. The relocated house was moved to
make way for the new hospital building, and the Steekens briefly lived in the relocated house next to the
house Hudson had built. HARC approved the demolition of both structures with COA -2017-032 in
January of 2018, and a new residential structure was approved at 1207 S. Walnut – next door to the
present request – in August of 2019 after the applicant subdivided the property into two lots. The second
lot, addressed at 1205 S. Walnut, is the subject property for this request for new residential construction.
Page 116 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -7-COA – 1205 Walnut St. Page 2 of 6
The applicant is requesting to construct a 1,432 sq. ft. single-family structure on the vacant lot a t 1205
Walnut St., between the approved new residential structure at 1207 Walnut St. and Gus’s Drug. The
proposed structure is to have three bedrooms, three baths, a 150 sq. ft. attached carport and a front porch.
The design includes a standing seam metal roof, board and batten siding, a steep 12/12 roof slope with a
street facing dormer, and both single hung and fixed vinyl windows. The roof ridge height is proposed
to be approximately 26’, while the building height as defined by the UDC (measured as the average of
the eave and ridge height of a gable roof) is approximately 19’- 6”, within the 30’ height limit for the Old
Town Overlay District. Per the proposed site plan, the requirements for setbacks, impervious cover, and
floor area ratio are met.
Per UDC Sec. 4.08.080.C.2, “Maximum building height at the prescribed setback of the underlying base
zoning district shall not exceed 15 feet. For each additional three feet of setback from the property line,
the building may increase in height by five feet. However, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be
approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow building heights in excess of this
requirement.” The proposed building height at the side setback along the south property line, or right
side of the proposed structure as viewed from Walnut St., exceeds that height limitation as the building
height (average of eave and ridge height) at the 6’ side setback is over the 15’ maximum. Therefore, a
building height exception of 4’- 6” at the side setback for the south property line is requested. Per the
approved project drawings for the residential structure at 1207 Walnut St., directly to the south, that
structure is located along the 6’ side setback, with a building height of approximately 19’ (gable roof with
the gable facing Walnut St.) and a roof ridge height of approximately 26'.
The design features proposed (side-gabled roof, porch with columns, windows, front dormer) are those
similar to features described as New Traditional Craftsman style of home according to the Field Guide
for American Houses (2015), although the 12/12 roof pitch is steeper tha n would be traditionally found
in this type of home. These features are compatible to those found on the block and are supportive of the
character of the District, however, all of the structures within the block are a single story. This is also true
of properties to the south, on the south side of E. 13 th Street. The nearest two-story homes are located to
the east, on the east side of Pine St, and across University Ave. to the north.
Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines state that “The purpose of guidelines for new construction is not to
prevent change in the Old Town Overlay District, but to ensure that the District’s architectural and historic
character is respected. The height, the proportion, the roof shape, the materials, the texture, the scale, and the
details of the proposed building must be compatible with existing historic buildings in the District.” Sec.
4.08.050(H) states that “The new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the building or structure and its
environment.” Protecting the historic setting and context of a property, including the degree of open
space and building density, must always be considered when planning new construction on an historic
site This entails identifying the formal or informal arrangements of buildings on the site, and whether
they have a distinctive urban, suburban, or rural character. For example, a historic building
traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development. The proposed
Page 117 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -7-COA – 1205 Walnut St. Page 3 of 6
development would include a similar amount of open space on the lot to what existed before the
previous home was demolished.
While the proposed home is a similar height to that immediately adjacent on Walnut St., its back yard
faces the back yard of the home to the east, minimizing the impact of the two-story structure on the
one-story home. The properties surrounding the site are single-story commercial, vacant, or single
story residential. They all have roof pitches flatter than the proposed infill structure, although the
original home at 1205 Walnut had a similar pitch to that being proposed. The proposed structure’s
front façade is similar to the previous home on the property, with differences in gables, dormers and
porches.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential setback.
Align the new non-residential building front at a
setback that is in context with the area
properties.
New residential buildings should meet the
minimum front setback requirement of the UDC
or use an increased setback if the block has
historically developed with an extended setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to the
front facing façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
The proposed structure complies with the
front setback of the zoning district at 20’
and is similar to the approved residential
structure at 1207 Walnut, which is also
located at the 20’ front setback. There are
currently no other structures facing that
block of Walnut St. In addition, the
applicant is constructing a sidewalk along
Walnut St., connecting to the front entrance
of the home via a walkway and connecting
to the sidewalk on the adjacent property to
the south.
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional size
of residential buildings
A typical building module should not exceed 20
feet in width. The building module should be
expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of
3 feet
- A change in primary façade material for
the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece.
Complies
The proposed structure is divided into
modules including the front porch , carport,
second floor dormer (set back from the
front line of the porch), and the rear
module with a lower roof.
Page 118 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -7-COA – 1205 Walnut St. Page 4 of 6
Variations in façade treatments should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear façades.
14.10 - Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The siding is HardiPanel vertical siding
with HardieTrim batten boards, which is a
fiber composite siding material that mimics
wood siding.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application is
correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
The application was deemed complete by
Staff.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies with UDC
requirements, excepting 15’ building height
limitation at side (south) setback, which it
exceeds by 4’- 6”.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, particularly #9, to the most extent
practicable;
Complies
The proposed project is for a new structure;
however, the proposed new construction
protects the integrity of the site and
maintains a similar degree of open space as
the previous development.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Proposed project complies with applicable
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
Design features and materials of the
structure are similar to the previous home
and structures in the immediate area. The
roof pitch, while steeper than surrounding
structures, is similar to the former home on
the site.
Page 119 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -7-COA – 1205 Walnut St. Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
Building is designed with modules, one of
which steps-down toward the adjacent
single-story structure behind the subject
property.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Historic Overlay
District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic overlay
district.
Not Applicable
Signage is not proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not block
Courthouse or Town Square views, and
the proposed building height exception
is only at a setback condition.
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Complies
Proposed project does not affect
Downtown Overlay District or Town
Square District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Complies
Proposed building height exception at
the side (south) setback would not create
a relationship with the existing or
approved structures that would be
discordant with those in the immediate
vicinity.
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square Historic District; and
Complies
Proposed project is not unlike other
steep roof pitches in the Old Town
Historic Overlay District, and height
with second floor is compatible with
transition from residential district to
adjacent and nearby commercial sites.
Page 120 of 153
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -7-COA – 1205 Walnut St. Page 6 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overla y District.
Complies
Proposed height exception is not
adjacent to historic buildings, nor does it
diminish them.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the reasons stated
above. Additionally, the proposed structure would continue a new pattern of larger, taller structures in
the block where it is located. There is a commercial structure to the north and an approved two-story
structure to the south, as well as a rear-yard relationship with the nearest single-story home to the east;
these circumstances minimize the impacts of a two-story structure on the block. The structure is also
designed such that modules transition to lower height/massing as they abut single-story homes.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Drawings & Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Materials
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick , Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 121 of 153
Location
2020-7-COA
Exhibit #1
SOULE DR
E 13TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVEWALNUTST
E 11TH ST
E 14TH ST
E 14TH ST
E 14TH ST
E 11TH ST
PINEST
ASH
S
T
MAPLEST
S C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 122 of 153
Page 123 of 153
Page 124 of 153
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: THIS SITE PLAN AND
EVERYTHING DEPICTED REMAINS SUBJECT TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCES AND OTHER ORDINANCES, RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE GOVORNING MUNICIPALITY.
ALL AS HERETOFORE AND HEREAFTER
AMENDED ("APPLICABLE REGULATIONS").
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS CHANGE OVER TIME.
WORDS AND PHRASES USED IN THIS SITE PLAN
HAVE THE SAME MEANINGS AS IN THE
CORRESPONDING APPLICABLE REGULATIONS,
UNLESS A DIFFERENT MEANING IS CLEARLY
INDICATED BY THE CONTEXT.
2. PERMITS & APPROVALS: GENERALLY,
CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF BUILDINGS OR
OTHER FEATURES IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT A
PERMIT OR OTHER APPROVAL FROM THE GOVORNING
MUNICIPALITY.CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION IS
GENERALLY GOVERNED BY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
3. DEED RESTRICTIONS: NOTHING IN THIS SITE
PLAN AMENDS OR REMOVES ANY "DEED
RESTRICTIONS" PLAT RESTRICTIONS OR OTHER
CONDITIONS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, ALL
OF WHICH REMAIN IN EFFECT.
4. EFFECT OF APPROVAL: APPROVAL OF THIS SITE
PLAN SIGNIFIES ONLY THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL
DID NOT NOTICE NON-COMPLIANCE. APPROVAL OF
THIS SITE PLAN DOES NOT: 1)SIGNIFY THAT ANY
AREA, BUILDING, OR OTHER ITEMS COMPLIES WITH
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. 2) AUTHORIZE OR
EXCUSE ANY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS WHETHER IN EFFECT NOW OR
ADOPTED LATER, OR 3) RELINQUISH OR IMPAIR ANY
PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE GOVORNING MUNICIPALITY.
NO APPROVAL AND ESPECIALLY NOT A MISTAKEN
APPROVAL PRECLUDE SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
OR ASSERTION OR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
RELEASE OF THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A VERIFICATION OF ALL DATA,
INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS SUPPLIED BY
THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETENESS,
ACCURACY AND ADEQUACY OF HIS/HER
SUBMITTAL, WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION
IS REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE BY GOVORNING
MUNICIPALITIES ENGINEERS.
5. CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY ALL PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES WITH A SEALED SURVEY AND IS TO FIELD
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS.
3975 SF
LOT AREA
1281 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
12
0
.
7
8
12
1
.
1
2
54.91
55.00
B.L.
20
'
-
0
"
B.L.
6'-0"
B.
L
.
6'
-
0
"
B.L.
6'-0"
576 SF
EXISTING GARAGE
5'
-
0
"
205 SF
PLANTER AREA
45 SF
WALKWAY
285 SF
DRIVEWAY
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
1205 WALNUT STREETF.A.R.: 20%
1
3'-6"
HERITAGE TREE
ROOT ZONE
SHEET LIST
Sheet Name Sheet Number
COVER PAGE A0
GENERAL NOTES A1
FLOOR PLAN A2
ELEVATIONS A3
ROOF PLAN A4
ROOF FRAMING A5
SPAN TABLES A6
FRAMING DETAILS A7
FRAMING DETAILS A8
FLOOR FRAMING A9
FLOOR FRAMING A10
DETAILS A11
PLUMBING A12
ELECTRICAL A13
Window Schedule
Count Type Comments Width Height Sill Height Rough Width Rough Height Level
5 2020 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" PLT HT 2
1 2040 SH 2'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 2'-0 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" F.F.E.
1 3040 SH 3'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 3'-0 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" F.F.E.
1 3050 SH 3'-0" 5'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0 1/2" 5'-0 1/2" F.F.E.
2 3050 SH 3'-0" 5'-0" 1'-8" 3'-0 1/2" 5'-0 1/2" PLT HT 2
2 3060-2 SH 6'-0" 6'-0" 2'-0" 6'-0 1/2" 6'-0 1/2" F.F.E.
2 4020 FX 4'-0" 2'-0" 6'-0" 4'-0 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" F.F.E.
Door Schedule
Count Type Comments Width Height Rough Width Rough Height Level
1 2068 2'-0" 6'-8" 2'-2" 6'-9" PLT HT 2
3 2080 2'-0" 8'-0" 2'-2" 8'-1" F.F.E.
3 2668 2'-6" 6'-8" 2'-8" 6'-9" PLT HT 2
1 2668 PKT 2'-6" 6'-8" 5'-1" 7'-0 1/2" F.F.E.
1 2680 2'-6" 8'-0" 2'-8" 8'-1" F.F.E.
2 2880 2'-8" 8'-0" 2'-10" 8'-1" F.F.E.
1 3080 3'-0" 8'-0" F.F.E.
2 3080 GLS 3'-0" 8'-0" 3'-2" 8'-1" F.F.E.
1 4068 4'-0" 6'-8" PLT HT 2
1 SWR SLIDING 3'-0" 7'-0" F.F.E.
Scale
Project Number
Date
Nick Smith
Senior Planner
325 Simpson Ave.
Cedar Creek, TX 78612
(512) 409-6819
nick@centexblueprint.com
2/14/20
2/15/2020 12:30:21 PM
1" = 10'-0"
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
N
i
c
k
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
2
0
2
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
h
a
n
c
e
L
e
i
g
h
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
.
r
v
t
COVER PAGE
20.12
CHANCE LEIGH HOMES LLC
1205 WALNUT STREET
GEORGETOWN TEXAS 78626
A0
OBSERVED CODES:
2015 International Building Code (IBC)
family, which includes:
• International Plumbing Code (IPC)
• International Mechanical Code (IMC)
• International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
• International Residential Code for One and
Two-Family Dwellings (IRC)
•International Energy Code (IECC)
• International Green Construction Code (IGCC)
2000 International Property Maintenance Code
2015 National Electric Code (NEC)
2012 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code
1" = 10'-0"2 SITE PLAN
LOT AREA CALCULATION
Name Area Type Area Comments
AREA
CALCULAT
ION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT Gross Building Area 1281 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA 20%
EXISTING GARAGE Floor Area 576 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA 9%
WALKWAY Exterior Area 45 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA 1%
DRIVEWAY Exterior Area 285 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA 4%
IMPERVIOUS AREA 2187 SF 34%
LOT AREA Exterior Area 3975 SF PERVIOUS AREA 62%
PLANTER AREA Exterior Area 205 SF PERVIOUS AREA 3%
PERVIOUS AREA 4180 SF 66%
TOTAL LOT AREA 6368 SF 100%
No. Description Date
AREA
Comments Name Area
HVAC 1st FLOOR 966 SF
HVAC 2nd FLOOR 466 SF
1432 SF
Non HVAC CARPORT 150 SF
Non HVAC FRONT PORCH 125 SF
Non HVAC STOOP 40 SF
315 SF
1747 SF
Page 125 of 153
A3
REAR ELEVATION
A3
RI
G
H
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A3
LE
F
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A3
FRONT ELEVATION
A4
Section
1
A4
Section
2
10
'
-
7
"
5'
-
8
1
/
2
"
13
'
-
0
"
6'
-
7
"
5'
-
5
1
/
2
"
33'-0"
41
'
-
4
"
19'-0 1/2"13'-11 1/2"
3080
STKD
W/D
2880
2680 2080
36
"
V
A
N
I
T
Y
WC
R/S
R/S
BENCH
SHWR
2040 SH
4'-0" S.H.
5'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
3'
-
9
1
/
2
"
3'
-
7
"
8'
-
0
"
2880
3'-11"3'-7 3/4"10'-2 1/2"
14'-11 1/4"18'-0 3/4"
2668 PKT
2080
1'-8 1/2"3'-0"3'-0"2'-9 1/2"
30
6
0
-2
S
H
2'
-0"
S
.
H
.
4'-9 1/4"4'-6"8'-6"
3080 GLS
3060-2 SH
2'-0" S.H.
2080
3040 SH
4'-0" S.H.
3080 GLS
3'-9"6'-2 1/2"4'-3 1/2"
10'-0"33'-0"
3'-6 1/2"25'-11"3'-6 1/2"
9'-5 1/2"7'-0"9'-5 1/2"
11
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
4'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
4'
-
6
"
9'
-
2
1
/
2
"
2'
-
8
"
24
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
Refrigerator Power 120
V/1-1000 VA
REF
Ra
n
g
e
P
o
w
e
r
2
2
0
V
/
1
-50
0
V
A
RA
N
G
E
SINK W/ DISP
Dishwasher Power 120
V/1-500 VA
DW
R @ 7 1/4"19
Ov
e
n
P
o
w
e
r
1
2
0
V
/
1
-10
0
0
VA
MI
C
R
O
R/S
R/S
32"X60" TUB
W/ TILE SRND
WC
36" VANITY
40
2
0
F
X
6'
-0"
S
.
H
.
40
2
0
F
X
6'
-0"
S
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
467 SF
10'-0" C.H.
GREAT ROOM 140 SF
10'-0" C.H.
MSTR BED
132 SF
10'-0" C.H.
STUDIO
W.I.C.BATH
MSTR BATH W.I.C.
CA
R
P
O
R
T
3'
-
6
"
9'
-
6
"
10'-3 1/2"4'-7 3/4"
35
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
8"3'-9 3/4"13'-7"
3050 SH
3'-0" S.H.
6'-6"6'-6"
FRONT PORCH
8'-6"8'-0"2'-3"
10
'
-
0
"
STOOP
43'-0"
10'-6"12'-0"10'-6"
4'
-
8
"
2'
-
2
1
/
2
"
3'
-
6
"
7'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
4'
-
8
"
2'-0"
4068
2068
2020
4'-8" S.H.
2020
4'-8" S.H.
2020
4'-8" S.H.
2668
2668 2668
30
5
0
S
H
1'
-8"
S
.
H
.
30
5
0
S
H
1'
-8"
S
.
H
.
12'-7 3/4"2'-3 1/2"
FEILD VERIFY ATTIC ACCESS
MECHANICAL AREA
2020
5'-6" S.H.
2020
5'-6" S.H.
WC
32"X60" TUB
W/ TILE SRND
6'
-
3
1
/
2
"
VA
N
I
T
Y
EDGE OF WALL BELOW
4'
-
8
"
13
'
-
7
"
5'
-
9
"
7'
-
4
"
6'
-
3
"
173 SF
9'-0" C.H.
BED 3
140 SF
9'-0" C.H.
BED 2
BATH
4'
-
8
"
13
'
-
7
"
17
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
6'
-
3
"
7'
-
4
"
2'-8"3'-4"3'-4"2'-8"
14'-11 1/4"12'-4 3/4"5'-8"
2'-0"3'-6 3/4"2'-0"4'-10"
3'
-
8
1
/
2
"
R/S
R/S
R/S
R @ 7 1/4"19
33'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"1 1st FLOOR
AREA
Comments Name Area
HVAC 1st FLOOR 966 SF
HVAC 2nd FLOOR 466 SF
1432 SF
Non HVAC CARPORT 150 SF
Non HVAC FRONT PORCH 125 SF
Non HVAC STOOP 40 SF
315 SF
1747 SF
Scale
Project Number
Date
Nick Smith
Senior Planner
325 Simpson Ave.
Cedar Creek, TX 78612
(512) 409-6819
nick@centexblueprint.com
2/14/20
2/15/2020 12:30:31 PM
1/4" = 1'-0"
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
N
i
c
k
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
2
0
2
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
h
a
n
c
e
L
e
i
g
h
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
.
r
v
t
FLOOR PLAN
20.12
CH
A
N
C
E
L
E
I
G
H
H
O
M
E
S
L
L
C
12
0
5
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
E
X
A
S
7
8
6
2
6
A2
1/4" = 1'-0"2 2nd FLOOR
No. Description Date
Page 126 of 153
F.F.E.
0"
PLT HT 1
10'-0"
TYP. HDR
8'-0"
PLT HT 2
11'-4"
PLT HT 3
20'-4"
9'
-
0
"
1'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
2020
4'-8" S.H.
2020
4'-8" S.H.
2020
4'-8" S.H.
3060-2 SH
2'-0" S.H.
3080
2040 SH
4'-0" S.H.
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
1"
12"
12"
12"
26
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
F.F.E.
0"
PLT HT 1
10'-0"
TYP. HDR
8'-0"
PLT HT 2
11'-4"
PLT HT 3
20'-4"
3050 SH
3'-0" S.H.
BOARD
&
BATTON
3040 SH
4'-0" S.H.
2020
5'-6" S.H.
2020
5'-6" S.H.
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
10"
12"
10"
12"
1"
12"
F.F.E.
0"
PLT HT 1
10'-0"
TYP. HDR
8'-0"
PLT HT 2
11'-4"
PLT HT 3
20'-4"
3050 SH
1'-8" S.H.
4020 FX
6'-0" S.H.
4020 FX
6'-0" S.H.
BOARD
&
BATTON
BOARD
&
BATTON
3080 GLS
6"
12"
5"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
F.F.E.
0"
PLT HT 1
10'-0"
TYP. HDR
8'-0"
PLT HT 2
11'-4"
PLT HT 3
20'-4"
3060-2 SH
2'-0" S.H.
BOARD
&
BATTON
3050 SH
1'-8" S.H.
5"
12"
6"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
10"
12"
2'-0"
TYP
2'-0"2'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"3 FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"4 REAR ELEVATION
Scale
Project Number
Date
Nick Smith
Senior Planner
325 Simpson Ave.
Cedar Creek, TX 78612
(512) 409-6819
nick@centexblueprint.com
2/14/20
2/15/2020 12:30:38 PM
1/4" = 1'-0"
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
N
i
c
k
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
2
0
2
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
h
a
n
c
e
L
e
i
g
h
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
.
r
v
t
ELEVATIONS
20.12
CH
A
N
C
E
L
E
I
G
H
H
O
M
E
S
L
L
C
12
0
5
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
E
X
A
S
7
8
6
2
6
A3
1/4" = 1'-0"1 LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"2 RIGHT ELEVATION
No. Description Date
Page 127 of 153
GENERAL NOTES:
• DIMENSIONS INDICATED ARE HORIZONTAL PLAN DIMENSIONS
• ROOF VENT LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN. COORDINATE WITH OTHER TRADES FOR EXACT LOCATION OF ALL ROOF
PENETRATIONS.
• ROOF ASSEMBLY: STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ON 30 LB FELT MIN ON 7/16" O.S.B. MIN ON RAFTERS PER STRUCTURAL
PLAN
• ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS, CURBS, FLUES, VENTS, VENT CAPS, HOODS, FAN HOUSINGS. ECT. SHALL BE FINISHED OR
PAINTED TO COMPLIMENT ROOF
• PROVIDE FLEXIBLE PIPE FLASHINGS AT ALL PENETRATIONS WHERE APPLICABLE
• ALL HARDWARE IN CONTACT WITH PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (PPT) LUMBER SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL,
DOUBLE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED OR TRIPLE SINC (ZMAX), INCLUDING STRUCTURAL METAL ANCHORS, ANGLES OR TIES,
BOLTS, NAILS, LAG SCREWS AND SCREWS
• COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR ALL ROOF MEMBER SIZING
• 16" SOFFIT TYP
12
"
/
1
2
"
6"
/
1
2
"
12
"
/
1
2
"
10" / 12"10" / 12"
1" / 12"
4"
/
1
2
"
5"
/
1
2
"
12
"
/
1
2
"
12
"
/
1
2
"
9'
-
0
"
1'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
5"
12"
6"
12"
MECHANICAL AREA
ATTIC SPACE
FRONT PORCH
BATH
GREAT ROOM
W.I.C.
STUDIO
26
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
9'
-
0
"
1'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
4
"
CARPORT GREAT ROOM
BED 3 BED 2
MSTR BED
1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN
Scale
Project Number
Date
Nick Smith
Senior Planner
325 Simpson Ave.
Cedar Creek, TX 78612
(512) 409-6819
nick@centexblueprint.com
2/14/20
2/15/2020 12:30:42 PM
1/4" = 1'-0"
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
N
i
c
k
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
2
0
2
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
h
a
n
c
e
L
e
i
g
h
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
\
1
2
0
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
.
r
v
t
ROOF PLAN
20.12
CH
A
N
C
E
L
E
I
G
H
H
O
M
E
S
L
L
C
12
0
5
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
E
X
A
S
7
8
6
2
6
A4
1/4" = 1'-0"2 Section 1
1/4" = 1'-0"3 Section 2
No. Description Date
Page 128 of 153
Page 129 of 153
Page 130 of 153
Page 131 of 153
Page 132 of 153
Page 133 of 153
Page 134 of 153
1205 Walnut St
2020-7-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
April 9, 2020
1Page 135 of 153
Item Under Consideration
2020-7-COA –1205 Walnut
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
New Construction (Infill Development) of a Single-Family Residence and a 4’-6” building
height increase from the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (south) setback
line allowing for a building height of 19’-6” at the side setback at the property located at
1205 Walnut, bearing the legal description of 0.15 acres out of the west portion of Block 1
of the Snyder Addition.
2Page 136 of 153
Items Under Consideration •New Construction
(Infill Development)
of a new Single-
Family Residence
•a 4’-6” building
height increase
from the required
15’ maximum
building height at
the side (south)
setback line
allowing for a
building height of
19’-6” at the side
setback
3Page 137 of 153
GISD Hammerlun Center
4Page 138 of 153
Current Context
5Page 139 of 153
Site History (previously constructed buildings)
6Page 140 of 153
Site History (previously approved building
demolitions)
7Page 141 of 153
Current Context -surrounding properties
1.706 University Ave
2.708 University Ave
3.705 13th St
4.707 13th St
SUBJECT PROPERTY
1
3 4
2
1 2
3 4
8Page 142 of 153
1207 Walnut (immediately south–previously
approved design
9Page 143 of 153
Current Site (view from Walnut looking east)
10Page 144 of 153
Proposed Design
11
Height modification to allow 19’6 at side (south) setback
Page 145 of 153
Proposed Elevations
Left (North) Elevation Front (West) Elevation
12Page 146 of 153
Rear (East) ElevationRight (South) Elevation
Proposed Elevations
13
Height modification to allow 19’6 at side (south) setback
Page 147 of 153
Proposed Materials
14Page 148 of 153
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
to the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended
from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines
and character of the historic overlay district.N/A 15Page 149 of 153
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
(Building Height Modification)
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and Complies
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and Complies
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.Complies
16Page 150 of 153
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•Thirty-four (34) letters mailed
•No public comments
17Page 151 of 153
Recommendation
•Staff recommends approval of the request for building height modification
and new residential construction.
18Page 152 of 153
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
19Page 153 of 153