HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.08.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
August 8, 2019 at 6:00 P M
at City Council Chambers, 510 W. 9th St., Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
The H istori c and A r chite ctural R e vi ew C ommi ssion, appoi nte d by the
M ayor and the C ity C ounc il, is re sponsibl e for he aring and taki ng final
ac tion on applic ations, by issuing C e r tific ates of A ppropriateness base d upon
the C i ty C ounc i l adopted D owntown De sign Guide line s and U nifie d
D e ve lopme nt C ode .
Welcome and M ee ting P roc edur e s:
· S taff P r esentation
· A ppl ic ant P r esentation (L imite d to te n minute s unle ss state d other wise
by the C ommission.)
· Q ue stions from C ommi ssion to S taff and Appli c ant
· C omme nts fr om Citizens *
· A ppl ic ant R e sponse
· C ommi ssion D eliber ati ve P roc ess
· C ommi ssion A c tion
* Those who spe ak must turn in a speake r for m, l ocate d at the bac k of the
r oom, to the r e c or di ng se cr e tar y be for e the ite m they wish to addre ss begins.
E ach spe ake r wil l be per mitte d to addr ess the Commissi on one ti me only for
a maximum of thr ee minutes.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c o nvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purp o s e
authorized b y the O pen Meetings Ac t, Texas G o vernment C ode 551.)
A C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the July 25, 2019 regular meeting of the
Histo ric and Architec tural R eview C o mmis s ion. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B P ub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a C ertific ate o f Appropriateness fo r the New
C ons truction of a S ingle-F amily R esidenc e at the p ro p erty loc ated at 1207 Walnut, b earing the legal
Page 1 of 95
desc rip tio n o f S nyder's Additio n Bloc k 1 (W /P T ) (2019-37-C O A) – C hels ea Irb y, S enior P lanner
C P ub lic Hearing and po s s ib le actio n on a reques t for a C ertific ate o f Appropriatenes s fo r an Additio n to a
S treet F acing F aç ade at the pro p erty lo cated at 508 E 7th S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion of
G las s coc k Ad d ition, BLO C K 36, Lot 1-2 (W /P T S ) (2019-43-C O A) – C hels ea Irb y, S enior P lanner
D P ub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a C ertific ate o f Appropriateness fo r an additio n to a
street facing faç ad es at the p ro p erty loc ated at 503 E 14th S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f Hughes
Additio n, BLO C K 5 (S W /P T ) (2019-42-C O A) – C hels ea Irb y, S enio r P lanner
E P ub lic Hearing and possible actio n o n a reques t for a C ertificate of Appropriateness fo r a fenc e at the
property loc ated at 1103 Elm S treet, b earing the legal desc riptio n of Lot 8, Bloc k 25 o f the G lassc oc k
Additio n (2019-50-C O A) – C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
F Updates , C ommis s ioner ques tions and c omments . S ofia Nels o n, P lanning Direc tor
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 95
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the July 25, 2019 regular meeting o f the
His toric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommiss io n. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 95
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: July 25, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
July 25, 2019, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Art Browner; Lawrence Romero; Josh Schroeder; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-
Hyde; Amanda Parr
Absent: Pam Mitchell; Catherine Morales; Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 27, 2019 and July 11,
2019 regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. – Mirna Garcia,
Management Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by
Commissioner Asendorf-Hyde. Approved (6-0).
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) 15’
setback encroachment along the property line adjacent to S Myrtle Street, into the required 25'
setback, allowing for detached garage structure 10’ from the property line per the Unified
Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08d.080.D; 2)street facing facade garage addition, for the
property located at 304 E University, bearing the legal description of 0.66 acres of the Hughes
2nd Addition, Block A (W/PT) (2019-35-COA). Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
The staff report was presented by Waggoner. The applicant is requesting to construct a
detached garage in the same location of the original garage. Per UDC Section 3.13, HARC has
review and approval authority for the following elements of this request: 1)Addition of a street
facing façade (detached garage); 2)Setback modification (15’ into the 25’ setback). The addition
of a street facing façade (detached garage) would be 14’ at the setback, which is an allowable
building height. The applicant proposes to use the same roof and siding materials as the main
structure, which is in conformance with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The
proposed structure would be a single-gabled roof. The street facing facade would have two faux
dormers, two panel garage doors, and one faux panel garage door. Constructing the garage to
match the materials of the primary structure would maintain the character of the high-priority
primary structure. The location of the proposed structure would require a setback modification.
The original structure was 10’ from the property line, which encroached 15’ into the 25’ garage-
facing setback. The original structure was demolished and the driveway apron remained. The
applicant proposes to construct a new detached garage in the same location. There is room on
the lot to move the structure back to respect the 25’ setback; however, there are two trees that
would be encroached upon. Additionally, there would not be a negative impact to the
surrounding properties. There are also other detached garages nearby with similar setbacks.
Page 4 of 95
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: July 25, 2019
Constructing the garage in the original location would maintain the character of the high-
priority primary structure.
There was one public comment in support of the project, which was submitted by email earlier
in the day. Waggoner provided a copy to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Browner asked if the trees are heritage trees. Waggoner explained that they are
not, and the department’s landscape planner conducted a site visit to identify the trees.
Commissioner Romero asked if the placement of the garage will affect the trees. The applicant
explained that it will not.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Chair Schroeder closed
the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item B as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Johnston. Approved (6-0).
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replacement of five windows for the property located at 1607 S Church Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.15 acres of the Southside Addition, Block 1 (SW/PT) (2019-40-COA). Chelsea
Irby, Senior Planner
The staff report presented by Waggoner. The applicant is requesting to replace five (5) windows
on a medium priority structure in the Old Town Overlay District. As noted on the Historic
Resource Survey, the structure is a one-story Minimal Traditional style house clad in wood
siding with an irregular plan and a cross-hipped roof. The structure as a non-historic addition
in the rear. The Historic Resource Survey also notes that the structure retains a relatively high
degree of integrity. The window grouping proposed for replacement are fixed casement metal,
located on the street-facing façade, to the left of the entryway on an articulated wall. The
windows are grouped together and create a character defining element of the structure. The
existing configuration is a large single-paned window flanked with five (5) paned vertical
windows on either side. There are two (2) additional windows parallel to the façade of the
home with a similar configuration of five (5) panes which the applicant also intends to replace.
The window trim and muntins are black on the exterior and white on the interior. The applicant
proposes to replace the windows and maintain the same material, size, location, color, and
configuration (5 panes). However, the proposed replacements will not retain their functionality.
The replacement windows will not swing open. The operation of the window is not a character
defining feature. Recent UDC changes support the replacement of historic materials with in
kind materials for low and medium priority structures. Staff recommends approval of the
request.
Commissioners Browner and Romero had questions about the windows, and how they open.
The applicant explained that the windows are going to be replaced so that they function as
originally intended. They currently do not open.
Commissioner Parr had a question about the material used. The applicant explained that the
casement material will be vinyl which will help with energy efficiency and will also be a similar
look to wood to match the exterior more closely.
Page 5 of 95
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: July 25, 2019
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Chair Schroeder closed
the Public Hearing.
Motion to approve Item C as presented by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Parr. Approved (6-0).
D. Presentation and discussion of a request for a Commercial Addition and Renovation for the
property located at 101 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.14 ac. Georgetown, City
of, Block 39, Lot 2-39 (W/PTS), (COA-2018-046). Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range
Planner
Waggoner explained to the Commission that the item was pulled from the agenda. When the
application was initially submitted, it was reviewed and processed for HARC approval.
However, after further review, it was determined that the application can be reviewed by staff.
The item has been pulled from the agenda as HARC approval is not required.
Larry Olson, public speaker for the item, commented that he liked the project.
Waggoner let the Commission know he can answer questions regarding the project if needed.
E. Updates, Commissioner questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
There are no updates at this time.
Waggoner discussed a training opportunity the Commission members might consider in
Seguin, Te xas on 8/16/2019. He will send a follow up email with the training information and
suggests Commission members attend.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero, second by Commissioner Parr. Approved (6-0).
Meeting adjourned at 6:26pm.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Amanda Parr, Secretary
Page 6 of 95
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos sible actio n o n a reques t for a C ertificate of Approp riatenes s for the New
C o nstruc tion o f a S ingle-F amily R es id enc e at the property lo cated at 1207 Walnut, bearing the legal
d es criptio n of S nyd er's Ad d ition Blo ck 1 (W /P T ) (2019-37-C O A) – C hels ea Irby, S enio r P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of the Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is reques ting to cons truct a 2,082 s q. ft. s ingle-family s tructure on a vac ant lot in the O ld
Town O verlay Dis trict. T he proposed s tructure will have two street facing fac ad es – 13th S treet and
Walnut S treet. P er S ec tion 3.13 o f the Unified Develo p ment C ode, HAR C is the dec is io n-making body
fo r all new c ons truc tio n (infill d evelopment) in the O ld Town O verlay Dis tric t.
Public Comments
To d ate, no p ublic c o mments have b een received.
S taff F indings
T he proposed s truc ture meets the d evelopment s tandards fo r the R es id ential S ingle-F amily (R S ) zoning
d is tric t. T he propos ed s tructure has a floor-to-area ratio o f 0.35. T he ap plic ant s tates the design o f the
hous e will be a mid -century farmhous e style, with a mono chro matic sc heme. Arc hitectural d etails will
inc lude a front porc h with exposed rafters, two front gables, a d o rmer and tall rectangular wind o ws. T he
s tructure is pro p o s ed to have a c o mb inatio n of s id ing includ ing ho rizo ntal Hard ip lank 6” lap s id ing and
b o ard and batten at the gab led end s , as p halt s hingles , and 3 over 1 windows .
T he bloc k in whic h this struc ture is lo cated c ontains a mixture o f low and med ium p rio rity struc tures . T he
two struc tures to the no rth whic h fro nt Univers ity Ave are designated as medium priority, crafts man s tyle
homes in the 2016 His to ric R es o urc es S urvey. Along 13th, to the east of the s ubjec t s tructure are medium
and lo w p riority s tructures which do not have an identifiable s tyle. Although not within the same b lo ck as
the sub ject struc ture, this infill p ro p o s al would identify more with the minimum ranch style homes,
cons tructed b etween 1930 and 1940, loc ated on the s o uth s id e of 13th S treet. T he proposed s tructure fits
the c harac ter and c o ntext of the area.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne. T he applic ant has paid all required ap p lic atio n fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Backup Material
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material
Page 7 of 95
Exhibit 4 - Materials Backup Material
Page 8 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-37 -COA – 1207 Walnut Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: August 8, 2019
File Number: 2019-37-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the New
Construction of a Single-Family Residence at the property located at 1207 Walnut, bearing the legal
description of Snyder's Addition Block 1 (W/PT) (2019 -37-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1207 Walnut
Applicant: Chance Leigh Custom Homes
Property Owner: Chance Leigh Custom Homes
Property Address: 1207 Walnut St
Legal Description: Snyder's Addition Block 1 (W/PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: The property previously had a medium priority structure, which was demolished.
The property was also rezoned in 2019.
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to construct a 2,082 sq. ft. single-family structure on a vacant lot in the Old
Town Overlay District. The proposed structure will have two street facing facades – 13th Street and
Walnut Street. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code, HARC is the decision-making body
for all new construction (infill development) in the Old Town Overlay District.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed structure meets the development standards for the Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning
district. The proposed structure has a floor -to-area ratio of 0.35 . The applicant states the design of the
house will be a mid-century farmhouse style, with a monochromatic scheme. Architectural details will
include a front porch with exposed rafters, two front gables, a dormer and tall rectangular windows. The
structure is proposed to have a combination of siding including horizontal Hardiplank 6” lap siding and
board and batten at the gabled ends, asphalt shingles, and 3 over 1 windows.
The block in which this structure is located contains a mix ture of low and medium priority structures.
The two structures to the north which front University Ave are designated as medium priority, craftsman
style homes in the 2016 Historic Resources Survey. Along 13 th, to the east of the subject structure are
medium and low priority structures which do not have an identifiable style. Although not wit hin the
same block as the subject structure, this infill proposal would identify more with the minimum ranch
style homes, constructed between 1930 and 1940, located on the south side of 13th Street. The proposed
structure fits the character and context of the area.
Page 9 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-37 -COA – 1207 Walnut Page 2 of 4
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FO R INFILL
CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN
OVERLAY DISTRICT
STAFF ANALYSIS
14.01 - Locate a new building using a residential setback.
Align the new non-residential building front at a setback
that is in context with the area properties.
New residential buildings should meet the minimum
front setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased
setback if the block has historically developed with an
extended setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to the front
facing façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that
aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
The proposed structure
complies with the setbacks and
building height.
14.08 - Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are
preferred.
Brick and stone are preferred for new construction.
New materials should appear similar in character to those
used traditionally. For example, wooden siding, brick, and
stone
should be detailed to provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated durability in
the Central Texas climate. For example, some façade
materials used in new construction are more susceptible
to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or
brick.
Complies
HardiPlank lap siding is
proposed, which is a cement
(masonry) product. HardiPlank
siding is similar in character to
residential materials that were
traditionally used.
14.10 - Non -traditional siding materials are discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and bric k veneer are not
appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The design is primarily
Hardiplank lap siding.
14.23 - Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character
of the building and neighborhood.
The primary goal should be preserving the original
residential character, appearan ce, and scale of the
structure.
Complies
The structure will be used for a
single-family home which is
compatible with the
neighborhood.
Page 10 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-37 -COA – 1207 Walnut Page 3 of 4
Building uses that are closely related to the original use
are preferred. Avoid radical alterations to either the
interior or exterior of the structure.
Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
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
Page 11 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2019-37 -COA – 1207 Walnut Page 4 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed structure complies with the zoning standards of the Residential Single-Family (RS) district
and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 4 – Materials
SUBMITTED BY
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 12 of 95
EL
M ST
ASH S
T
PINE
S
T
E 15TH ST
E 13TH S T
MA
P
LE
S
T
S M
AI
N
S
T
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
S CHUR
CH ST
S
CO
LLE
G
E
S
T
OLIV
E
ST
E 8TH S T
S MYRTLE
S
T
WALNUT
ST
E 11TH S T
E 10TH S T
E 1 6 T H S T
VINE ST
E 14TH ST
LAURE
L ST
SAN JO
SE
S
T
SO U L E D R
JA
ME
S
ST
E 1 7 TH S T
E 9 T H S T
MCKENZIE DR
GEORG
E ST
W 17TH S T
W 16TH S T
E 9TH 1/2 ST
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
W 9 TH S T
E 1 8 T H S T
W 11 TH S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
W 10TH S T
W 8TH 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
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
V
I
N
E
S
TE 16TH ST
L
A
U
R
E
L
S
T
E 11TH ST
E 1 7 T H S T
E 10TH ST
E 1 7 T H S T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
E 14TH S TE 1 4 T H S T
WALNUT
ST
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
E 9TH ST
2019-37-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 13 of 95
Page 14 of 95
Page 15 of 95
Page 16 of 95
Page 17 of 95
Page 18 of 95
Page 19 of 95
Page 20 of 95
Page 21 of 95
Page 22 of 95
Page 23 of 95
Page 24 of 95
Page 25 of 95
Page 26 of 95
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a req ues t for a C ertific ate of Appropriateness fo r an Additio n to a
S treet F ac ing F aç ad e at the property lo cated at 508 E 7th S treet, bearing the legal des c rip tion of
G lassc o ck Additio n, BL O C K 36, Lo t 1-2 (W /P T S ) (2019-43-C O A) – C hels ea Irby, S enio r P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of the Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is redes igning und erutilized sp ac e in their ho me on the s econd s tory. T he internal ad d ition
would c reate a d o rmer on the eas t-fac ing faç ade o f the s tructure. T his d o rmer would be p arallel to E. 7th
S treet, which would c reate a street-fac ing faç ade. P er S ectio n 3.13 of the Unified Development C o d e
(UDC ), HAR C has review and approval authority fo r c hanges to a street fac ing faç ad e.
Public Comments
To d ate, no p ublic c o mments have b een received.
S taff F indings
T he dormer is b eing proposed o n a Tud o r R evival s truc ture. A Tud o r R evival s truc ture was
p red o minantly s een fro m 1890 to 1940. T he id entifying features are a steeply pitc hed roof (usually s id e-
gabled), a faç ad e with one or mo re front-fac ing gables , tall/narro w wind o ws , mas s ive chimneys , and entry
p o rches with a dec o rative Tud o r arc h.
T he proposed dormer utilizes materials (wind o ws , trim, s id ing, and s hingles ) that match the existing
s tructure. T he propos ed d o rmer will be the s ame height as the existing dormer on the west faç ad e. T he us e
o f a d o rmer would be the differentiatio n o f the c hange to the struc ture, s inc e Tudor s tructures were not
typ ically c o ns truc ted with dormers.
T he Design G uidelines encourage the us e of a d o rmer for s econd sto ry additio ns , rather than creating a full
s econd sto ry. T he s tructure currently has a d o rmer on the west faç ad e. T he p ro p erty dormer would match
and complement the existing dormer. T he us e o f dormers is appropriate as it allows the two front gables
(which are a p art o f the Tudor R evival style) to be retained . Adding a full sec ond s to ry would c o mp ro mis e
the integrity o f the s tructure.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne. T he applic ant has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material
Page 27 of 95
Exhibit 4 - His toric Res ource Survey Backup Material
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 28 of 95
E 7 T H S T
EL
M ST
ROCK S
T
ASH S
T
S MAIN S
T
E 5TH S T
E 4 TH S T
E 6 T H S T
PINE ST
S M
Y
RTLE
S
T
S CHUR
CH ST
S A
U
S
TI
N
AVE
S CO
LLE
G
E S
T
MAP
LE
S
T
WALNUT
ST
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
E 11TH S T
E 10TH S T
E 3RD ST
H
OLLY
ST
W 9TH S T
W 8 TH S T
W 7 TH S T
W 6TH S T
E 8 T H S T
W 4TH ST
W 11TH S T
W 1 0 TH S T
W 3RD S T
W 5TH ST
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
SO U L E D R
SOUTHWESTERNBLVD
E 9 T H S T
MCKENZIE DR
R E T R E A T P L
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E 9TH 1/2 ST
TI
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
PINE
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 3RD ST
E 11TH ST
E 8TH S T
E 8 T H S T
WALNUT
ST
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
E 9 T H S T
2019-43-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 29 of 95
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC
Architecture + Urban Design
608 East University Ave.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Ph: 512.819.6012
www.wangarchitects.com
June 27, 2019
Historical and Architectural Review Commission
City of Georgetown
Re: 508 E 7th Street Residence
Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission:
We are pleased to submit this project on behalf of the client, Jane Vevea and Daniel Wong. Our
design intends to make use of some of the underutilized spaces in the house, and the client
needs to make an additional room for their son, George. The only port ion under review by HARC
here is the addition of a dormer that is visible from the street.
Included here are pages to further describe the rationale for the proposed project’s design:
Page 1, Site Map
Page 2, Existing Conditions
Page 3, Site Design Plan
Page 4a, Existing Ground Floor Plan
Page 4b, Proposed Ground Floor Plan
Page 5a, Existing Second Floor Plan
Page 5b, Proposed Second Floor Plan
Page 6, Street Facing Elevation
Page 7, Elevation Facing East
Page 8, Rear Elevation
Page 9, Elevation Facing West
Page 10, Conceptual Rendering
Page 11, Materials/Color
Page 12, Model Views
We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on July 25. We will
have additional information at this meeting for your review.
Page 30 of 95
WANG ARCHITECTS LLC / 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 / Ph: 512.819.6012
If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to
contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you in advance for your time.
Yours truly,
Gary Wang, AIA
Principal
Wang Architects LLC
Page 31 of 95
Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 508 E 7th Street
Vevea/Wong Residence
July 25, 2019
Wang Architects
ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING
Page 32 of 95
E 8TH STREET
E 7TH STREET
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
PROJECT
LOCATION
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
1Site MapJULY 25, 2019
N
Page 33 of 95
2Existing Conditions
Existing Front Facade Existing Partial East Facade
Page 34 of 95
3Site Design PlanJULY 25, 2019
N
1/16” = 1’-0”
EAST 7TH STREET
EXISTING HOUSE
508 EAST 7TH STREET
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOT AREA: 6,931 SQ FT
ZONING DISTRICT: RS
PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED CONST AREA: 55 SQ FT
SIDE SETBACK: 6'
REAR SET BACK: 10'
FRONT SET BACK: MIN 20'
EXISTING
WOOD GARAGE
EXIST
SHED
10' REAR SETBACK
6'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
6'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20' FRONT SETBACK
PROPOSED ADDITION @
2ND FLOOR
APPROX 55 SQ FT
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
Page 35 of 95
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
BEDROOM
BATH
PORCH
CORRIDOR
4aExisting Ground Floor Plan
3/16” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
N
Page 36 of 95
WASH
DRYER
8
7
6
9
BEDROOM
SHARED BATH
MUD/
LAUNDRY
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
FAMILY
BATH
PORCH
CORRIDOR
EXISTING WALL
NEW WALL
4bProposed Ground Floor Plan
3/16” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
N
Page 37 of 95
STORAGE
CORRIDOR
STORAGE
SHARED BATH
BEDROOM BEDROOM
STORAGE
5aExisting Second Floor Plan
3/16” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
N
Page 38 of 95
BEDROOM
M. CLOSET
MASTER BEDROOM
M. BATH
STORAGE
CORRIDOR
EXISTING WALL
NEW WALL
5bSecond Floor Plan
3/16” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
N
Page 39 of 95
6Street Facing Elevation
1/4” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
Page 40 of 95
7Elevation Facing East
1/4” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
SECOND FLOOR
9’ - 6”
GROUND FLOOR
0’ - 0”
VEVEA WONG RESIDENCE
EAST ELEVATION-GEORGE 2
1/4" SCALE
NEW DORMER
NEW SIDING TO
MATCH EXISTING
NEW WINDOWS,
TRIM TO MATCH
EXISTING
SIDING TO
BE PAINTED
9
12
9
12
Page 41 of 95
8Rear Elevation
1/4” = 1’-0”
GROUND FLOOR
0’ - 0”
SECOND FLOOR
9’ - 6”
VEVEA WONG RESIDENCE
SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4" SCALE
ROOF OF NEW
DORMER
VISIBLE HERE
NEW DOOR
DASH INDICATES
EXISTING WINDOWS
9
12
SIDING TO BE PAINTED
JULY 25, 2019
Page 42 of 95
9Elevation Facing West
1/4” = 1’-0”JULY 25, 2019
GROUND FLOOR
0’ - 0”
SECOND FLOOR
9’ - 6”
VEVEA WONG RESIDENCE
WEST ELEVATION
1/4" SCALE
EXISTING DORMER
NEW WINDOWS, TRIM TO
MATCH EXISTING
DASH INDICATES EXISTING WINDOW
9
12
Page 43 of 95
10Conceptual Rendering
N.T.S.JULY 25, 2019
Page 44 of 95
11Materials/Color
N.T.S.JULY 25, 2019
Atlantic Blue Shingles
Siding Paint-Benjamin Moore
Polaris Blue
Front Door Paint-Benjamin Moore
Red River Clay
Black Walnut-Door @ In-Law Suite
Precedent for Colors
Precedent for In-Law Suite Door
Page 45 of 95
12Model Views
N.T.S.JULY 25, 2019
Existing Proposed
Page 46 of 95
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:508 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:124405
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042595Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 5/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1931
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:142
ID:68
*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:124405 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.637329 Longitude -97.672537
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: South
Page 47 of 95
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:508 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:124405
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 48 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: August 8, 2019
File Number: 2019-43-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an Addition to a
Street Facing Façade at the property located at 508 E 7th Street, bearing the legal description of Glasscock
Addition, BLOCK 36, Lot 1-2 (W/PTS) (2019-43-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : 508 E 7th Street - Dormer
Applicant: Wang Architects
Property Owner: Jane Vevea and Daniel Wong
Property Address: 508 E 7th Street
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 36, Lot 1-2 (W/PTS)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: No notable case history
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of Construction: 1931
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low
2007 – Medium
2016 – Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is redesigning underutilized space in their home on the second story. The internal
addition would create a dormer on the east-facing façade of the structure. This dormer would be
parallel to East 7th Street, which would create a street-facing façade. Per Section 3.13 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and approval authority for changes to a street facing
façade.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The dormer is being proposed on a Tudor Revival structure. A Tudor Revival structure was
predominantly seen from 1890 to 1940. The identifying features are a steeply pitched roof (usually side-
gabled), a façade with one or more front-facing gables, tall/narrow windows, massive chimneys, and
entry porches with a decorative Tudor arch.
Page 49 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 2 of 7
The proposed dormer utilizes materials (windows, trim, siding, and shingles) that match the existing
structure. The proposed dormer will be the same height as the existing dormer on the west façade. The
use of a dormer would be the differentiation of the change to the structure, since Tudor structures were
not typically constructed with dormers.
The Design Guidelines encourage the use of a dormer for second story additions, rather than creating a
full second story. The structure currently has a dormer on the west façade. The property dormer would
match and complement the existing dormer. The use of dormers is appropriate as it allows the two
front gables (which are a part of the Tudor Revival style) to be retained. Adding a full second story
would compromise the integrity of the structure.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE,
ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS FINDINGS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
The addition of a dormer to this
structure does not damage
historic features.
7.6 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 made 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.
The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should
match that of the original building, in appearance, detail,
and material.
Even applying a 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 Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-
exterior-additions.htm
Complies
Tudor structures were not
typically built with dormers;
therefore, the addition of a
dormer is a clear change to the
structure.
Page 50 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 3 of 7
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The proposed dormer is setback
from the front of the structure
and is in line with the existing
dormer on the west façade.
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented earlier in this chapter.
Complies
Original architectural details
and materials are not being
damaged, destroyed, or
removed.
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
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 facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
Complies
The proposed dormer is
identical to the existing dormer
on the west façade. The
materials being used match the
existing structure.
7.10 The roof form 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 are appropriate for
commercial buildings in the downtown area.
Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original
roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original
roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the
original building.
Complies
The proposed dormer is
identical to the existing dormer
on the west façade, including
pitch, materials, and height.
Page 51 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 4 of 7
CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL
CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN
OVERLAY DISTRICT
FINDINGS
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type 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 dormer is setback
from the front of the structure
and is in line with the existing
dormer on the west façade.
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
Original materials are not being
damaged, destroyed, or
removed.
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 of the proposed
dormer will match the siding of
the primary structure.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
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.
Complies
The addition of a dormer to this
structure does not damage
historic features.
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 dormer is
identical to the existing dormer
on the west façade. The
materials being used match the
existing structure.
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.
Complies
Tudor structures were not
typically built with dormers;
therefore, the addition of a
Page 52 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 5 of 7
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 Park
Service.
dormer is a clear change to the
structure.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from
the front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The proposed dormer is setback
from the front of the structure
and is in line with the existing
dormer on the west façade
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented in this document.
Complies
Original architectural details
and materials are not being
damaged, destroyed, or
removed.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
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 facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
Complies
The proposed dormer is
identical to the existing dormer
on the west façade. The
materials being used match the
existing structure.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-
defining façade.
Complies
Page 53 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 6 of 7
An addition should be to the rear of the building, when
feasible.
The proposed former is setback
from the primary, character-
defining façade and is in line
with the existing dormer.
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
The proposed dormer will use
the same roof materials as the
existing structure and the pitch
will match the existing dormer.
14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be
protected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting
architectural features.
Complies
The architectural features of the
existing structure remain
protected.
14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided.
Addition of a porch may be inappropriate
Complies
The architectural features of the
existing structure are not
damaged.
14.21 An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does
the following:
An addition should be set back from the primary, character-
defining façade, to preserve the perception of the historic
scale of the building.
Its design should be modest in character, so it will not attract
attention from the historic façade.
The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a
subtle way.
Complies
Tudor structures were not
typically built with dormers;
therefore, the addition of a
dormer is a clear change to the
structure. The proposed dormer
does not alter the character of
Tudor style roof, which are the
steep, nested gables on the
front-facade.
14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be
preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when
additions are proposed.
See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving
individual building elements.
Complies
The proposed dormer is
replicating the existing dormer
on the west façade.
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
Page 54 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-43-COA – 508 E 7th Street Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
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
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 55 of 95
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and pos sible actio n o n a reques t for a C ertificate of Approp riatenes s for an ad d ition to a
s treet fac ing faç ades at the property lo cated at 503 E 14th S treet, b earing the legal desc rip tion of Hughes
Ad d ition, BLO C K 5 (S W /P T ) (2019-42-C O A) – C helsea Irby, S enio r P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of the Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is c reating an ad d ition for a mas ter b athro o m, which affec ts the s o uth façade (s treet-facing).
T he applic ant is als o creating a covered porc h on the rear of the struc ture whic h affec ts the wes t façade
(s treet-facing). P er S ec tion 3.13 o f the Unified Develo p ment C ode (UDC ), HAR C has review and
ap p ro val autho rity for changes to a s treet fac ing façade.
Public Comments
To d ate, no p ublic c o mments have b een received.
S taff F indings
T he exis ting s truc ture is Minimal Traditio nal s tyle with a c ro s s -hipped ro of, c o ns truc ted mainly of b rick.
As no ted o n the His toric R esource S urvey, the s tructure has s o me alternations , b ut is s till s ignificant and
contributes to the neighborho o d c harac ter. Minimal Trad itional struc tures are known fo r their lo w o r
intermed iate pitc hed roofs (generally gabled), d o uble-hung wind o ws, and minimal ad d ed arc hitectural
features .
S o uth façade:
O verall, the p ro p o s ed additio n to the south faç ade is appropriate bec ause it is lo cated in the rear of the
s tructure, maintains the exis ting b uilding materials , and has a slight jog in the foundatio n which help s to
create a d ifferentiatio n. T his ad d ition wo uld be ad d ing onto a previo us expans ion of the original s tructure.
T he proposed additio n is also compatib le in s c ale. T he existing struc ture is approximately 1,400 sq. ft.
T he proposed c o vered p atio is 224 sq. ft. and the p ro p o s ed bathroom additio n is 184 sq. ft. T he
p ro p o s ed add ition will remove a wind o w from exis ting east faç ad e; however, the wind o w will b e re-
installed .
West faç ad e:
T he additio n of the c o vered p o rch to the rear o f the existing struc ture respec ts the o riginal struc ture in size
and s cale. To maintain the sc ale, the roofline is extend ed – however, this extens ion does not c reate
d ifferentiation. T he Des ign G uidelines do rec o mmend s ubtle differentiation, in this ins tance, the ap p licant
p ro p o s es shingle p lank siding (Hard ip lank) and an arch detail for the c o vered patio . W hile these p ro vide
the differentiation encouraged b y the Design G uidelines , the style is no t cons is tent with Minimal Trad itional
o r the existing b uilding materials.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne. T he applic ant has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Page 56 of 95
D escription Type
Staff Report Backup Material
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - His toric Res ource Survey Backup Material
Page 57 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 1 of 8
Meeting Date: August 8, 2019
File Number: 2019-42-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a
street facing façades at the property located at 503 E 14th Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes
Addition, BLOCK 5 (SW/PT) (2019-42-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Flagg House - Addition
Applicant: Travis Adams (Riata Builders)
Property Owner: Kristi Flagg
Property Address: 503 E 14th Street
Legal Description: Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5 (SW/PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: No notable case history
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of Construction: 1950
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A
2007 – Medium
2016 – Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is creating an addition for a master bathroom, which affects the south façade (street-
facing). The applicant is also creating a covered porch on the rear of the structure which affects the west
façade (street-facing). Per Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), HARC has review and
approval authority for changes to a street facing façade.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The existing structure is Minimal Traditional style with a cross-hipped roof, constructed mainly of
brick. As noted on the Historic Resource Survey, the structure has some alternations, but is still
significant and contributes to the neighborhood character. Minimal Traditional structures are known
for their low or intermediate pitched roofs (generally gabled), double-hung windows, and minimal
added architectural features.
Page 58 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 2 of 8
South façade:
Overall, the proposed addition to the south façade is appropriate because it is located in the rear of the
structure, maintains the existing building materials, and has a slight jog in the foundation which helps
to create a differentiation. This addition would be adding onto a previous expansion of the original
structure. The proposed addition is also compatible in scale. The existing structure is approximately
1,400 sq. ft. The proposed covered patio is 224 sq. ft. and the proposed bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft.
The proposed addition will remove a window from existing east façade; however, the window will be
re-installed.
West façade:
The addition of the covered porch to the rear of the existing structure respects the original structure in
size and scale. To maintain the scale, the roofline is extended – however, this extension does not create
differentiation. The Design Guidelines do recommend subtle differentiation, in this instance, the
applicant proposes shingle plank siding (Hardiplank) and an arch detail for the covered patio. While
these provide the differentiation encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the style is not consistent with
Minimal Traditional or the existing building materials.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE,
ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS FINDINGS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
The additions do not remove or
damage any historic features.
7.6 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 made 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.
The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should
match that of the original building, in appearance, detail,
and material.
Even applying a new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help
define the addition.
Partially Complies
South façade:
The proposed addition will
utilize the same materials as
the existing structure, which
is brick. It is important to
use the same materials since
the guidelines encourage
this. However, continuing
the use of brick will make
the addition hard to
differentiate. The addition
does have a slight jog in the
Page 59 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 3 of 8
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-
exterior-additions.htm
foundation and is placed in
the rear of the structure.
West façade:
The addition of the covered
porch is differentiated by
the use of shingle shake
siding and an arch design.
While the arch design does
help to create a
differentiation, it is not
consistent with the straight
lines of the Minimal
Traditional style of the
structure.
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The additions are located at the
rear of the structure.
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented earlier in this chapter.
Complies
The additions do not remove or
damage any architectural
details.
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
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.
Complies
The additions are compatible in
scale to the existing structure
and are placed in the rear and
use the same building materials.
The existing structure is
approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The
proposed covered patio is 224
sq. ft. and the proposed
bathroom addition is 184 sq. ft.
Page 60 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 4 of 8
An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from
competing with the primary facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
7.10 The roof form 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 are appropriate for
commercial buildings in the downtown area.
Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original
roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original
roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the
original building.
Complies
The additions maintain the roof
line of the existing structure by
extending them. The same roof
materials are proposed to be
used.
CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL
CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN
OVERLAY DISTRICT
FINDINGS
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type 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 additions are located in the
rear and meet the setback
requirements of the zoning
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
The additions do not remove or
damage any historic building
materials.
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 addition utilizes the same
building materials as the
existing structure, which is
brick. The Design Guidelines
encourage the use of the
original building material.
Page 61 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 5 of 8
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
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.
Complies
The additions do not remove or
damage any historic features.
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 additions are compatible in
scale to the existing structure
and are placed in the rear.
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 Park
Service.
Partially Complies
South façade:
• The proposed addition
will utilize the same
materials as the existing
structure, which is brick.
It is important to use the
same materials since the
guidelines encourage
this. However,
continuing the use of
brick will make the
addition hard to
differentiate. The
addition does have a
slight jog in the
foundation and is placed
in the rear of the
structure.
West façade:
• The addition of the
covered porch is
differentiated by the use
of shingle shake siding
and an arch design.
While the arch design
does help to create a
differentiation, it is not
Page 62 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 6 of 8
consistent with the
straight lines of the
Minimal Traditional
style of the structure.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from
the front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The additions are located at the
rear of the structure.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented in this document.
Complies
Original architectural details
and materials are not being
damaged, destroyed, or
removed.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
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 facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
Complies
The additions are compatible in
scale to the existing structure
and are placed in the rear.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-
defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of the building, when
feasible.
Complies
The additions are located at the
rear of the structure.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of
the primary building.
Complies
The additions maintain the roof
line of the existing structure by
extending them. The same roof
Page 63 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 7 of 8
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.
materials are proposed to be
used.
14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be
protected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting
architectural features.
Complies
The architectural features of the
existing structure remain
protected.
14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be avoided.
Addition of a porch may be inappropriate
Complies
The architectural features of the
existing structure are not
damaged.
14.21 An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does
the following:
An addition should be set back from the primary, character-
defining façade, to preserve the perception of the historic
scale of the building.
Its design should be modest in character, so it will not attract
attention from the historic façade.
× The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a
subtle way.
Partially Complies
The additions extend the
existing roofline of the
structure. The materials used
for the west façade provide
differentiation, which offsets
the lack of differentiation in the
roof. However, for the south
façade, the materials do not
provide differentiation – only
the slight jog in the foundation.
It may be appropriate to have a
change in the roofline of the
south façade, to create more
differentiation.
14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be
preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when
additions are proposed.
See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving
individual building elements.
Complies
The additions utilize the
existing building and roof
materials.
Page 64 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-42-COA – 503 E 14th Street Page 8 of 8
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved; Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 65 of 95
A
SH
S
T
EL
M
S
T
PI
N
E
S
T
E 15 T H S T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E 13 T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E U N I V E R S IT Y AVE
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 9 T H S T
E 11 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
E 16 T H S T
E 14 T H S T
W 9 T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
TW 1 7T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
W 11 T H ST
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
W 1 0T H S T
L
A
U
R
E
L
ST
E 1 8 T H S T
S O U L E D R
C Y R U S A V E
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
E 1 7 T H S T
A N N I E P U R L D V
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
GE
O
R
GE
ST
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E 1 4 T H S T
E 17 TH ST
E 1 4 T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 16 TH S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 16TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 11 T H S T
E 16T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
2019-42-COAExhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Feet
Page 66 of 95
The Flagg House
Letter of Intent
Title: Residential Addition in Old Town, 503 E 14th St.
Zoning District: RS (Residential, Single Family)
Texas Historical Commission Survey Preservation Priority: Medium
Project Information
Proposed Use: Residential
Zoning District: Residential, Single Family
Acreage: .2459 (10,711 sq. ft)
Proposed Total Impervious Cover: 3,316 sq. ft (31%)
Legal Description of Property: S3810 - Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES 0.2459
Project Participants
Builder/ Designer: Travis Adams c/o Riata Builders, 1799 CR 245 Georgetown, TX 78633
Phone: (512)-818-1117
E-mail: tadams.riata@hotmail.com
Owners: Kristi Flagg, 503 E. 14th St. Georgetown, TX 78626
Phone: (512)-948-6341
E-mail: khflagg@gmail.com
Utility Providers: City of Georgetown (electric, water, sewer) & Atmos (gas).
Purpose of Addition:
The proposed Addition will include 2 parts: Addition of a new master bathroom, and Addition of a new
covered patio. The purpose of these additions will be to provide the homeowner with a traditional
master suite that the existing house doesn’t offer and to allow some outdoor entertaining space.
Master Bathroom:
The addition of the new master bathroom will be on the East side of the house toward the north end
and will be visible from 14th street. The street facing facade will be painted brick to match the existing
structure. The roof over the new portion will tie into the existing and will use the same pitches and hip
style as the existing. To clearly differentiate the existing from the addition without sacrificing
appearance we have designed a jog in the foundation that will also provide a break in the roof line. The
Paint colors that will be used will be matched directly from the existing structure. The windows being
used on the east side of the addition will be removed from the existing bedroom and reused.
Covered Patio:
The patio addition will be on the north side of the house toward the east and will be visible from Ash st.
The patio will not be accessible from the house, but it will be connected to the existing roof line. The
new roof will be built with the same pitch as existing to correspond. The patio will be constructed with
open air walls up to 8 ft from grade but will have siding walls above that up to the roof line to provide
shade, Because the existing house is 100% masonry and does not have any siding to match we are going
to use a shingle shake type siding to complement the era of the existing. We plan on incorporating an
arch ceiling over a portion of the patio that will provide a distinction from the existing to the addition.
Paint colors are to match existing.
Page 67 of 95
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
NTS
Plan Info
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-01
The F la gg Res .
B a th room
Addition
503 E. 14th st
Georgetown, TX 78626
WCAD INFO:
Property Type: Residential
Legal Description: S3810 - Hughes Addition, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES 0.2459
Neighborhood: G618T60I - Central Georgetown Less than 1960 Year blt.
Account: R-20-5800-0000-0017
Map Number: 3-1127
Layout Page Table
Label Title Description Comments
P-01 Plan Info NTS
P-02 Existing 1/8"=1'
P-03 Existing Photos NTS
P-04 Proposed 1/8"=1'
P-05 3D Elevation NTS
P-06 Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1'
P-07 Ext. Elevations 1/8"=1'
P-08 Material Data NTS
P-09 Electrical 1/8"=1'
P-010 Roof Plan 1/8"=1'
P-011 Site Plan 1"=10'
Page 68 of 95
6030MU
2868
2868
2868
5068
4068
2868
2868
26682068
4068
11068
2668
2468
39'-6 1/4"
30'-10 3/4"
22'-10 3/4"
21'-4 3/4"
12'-7 1/4"
18'-9 1/2"
10'
2'-10 3/4"
18'-7"16'29'
17'-7 1/2"
2'-10 3/4"
15'-10 3/4"
26'
2'
6'
3'8'-3 3/4"4'-6"8'-3 1/2"20'-10 3/4"
2'
8'
19'-5 3/4"
23'
12'-1"
2'2'
5'-6"
2'-6"
16' X 23'
29' X 21'
17' X 15'
14' X 15'
28' X 17'
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
LIVING
KITCHEN
GARAGE
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1/8"=1'
Existing
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-02
Page 69 of 95
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
NTS
Existing Photos
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
Street Facing Photos
Rear of house
(location of proposed covered
patio)
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-03
Page 70 of 95
Full Ht
Linen
3040DC
3040DC
2868
2868
2650SH 2650SH
3068
3050SH3050SH2650SH
80708070
2868
5068
2868
26682068
4068
11068
2668
2468
2868 PKT
W/ Transom Abv
2668
2868
4068
UP
Arch Ceiling
22
11
''--77""
1122''--
55
""
33
22
''--11""
22''--55 11//22""77''--66 11//22""
11
66
''
1188''--22""2277''
1166''
1166''--
11
""
22
66
''
22''
66''
66''88''--33 11//22""44''--88 11//22""88''--22""2211''
88
''
1199''--55""
2233''
11
22
''--11""
22''22''
33''
55''
11
77
''--55 11
//22""
55
''
22''--77
11//22
""
55''--66
""
33''--99""44''--1100""22''--11""66''
66
''
33''--55
11//22
""
11
88
''--66""
1133''--
77
""
33
''
--33 11
//22""
99''--66
11//22
""
3300''--
11
00
33//44
""
33
99
''--55 11
//22""
2233''--11""1188''--55""
22''--33
""
88''
22''--66""88''--33""22''
44
''
--33""
55''
22''
33''--88
""
33''--66
11//22
""
11
22
''--55 11
//22""
22''
1133''--
11
11//22
""
55 11//22""1177''--33""55 11//22""
33''
55
''
--66""1166''--44 11//22""
11
55
''
44''--11
33//44
""
44''--88""77''44''--88 11//22""
16' X 23'
14' X 16'
29' X 21'
12' X 8'
14' X 15'
26' X 17'
26' X 6'
13' X 10'
17' X 15'
9' X 6'
COVERED PATIO
GARAGE
Ref
Full ht
Existing >< Addition
MASTER BATH
PORCH
Shelf Stack
2R2S
PORCH
Freestanding tub
8' ceiling 8' Ceiling
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
LIVING
BEDROOM
Linen
2R2S2R2S
CLOSET
Permitted Scope of workPermitted Scope of work
Existing window to stay
New plate line for covered patio
needs to be level with house
Existing >< Addition
Coffered Ceiling
W/ Transom Abv
2668
2668
2850SH
44
''
--88 11
//22""
11
55
''
22''--66
11//22
""
11
''
22''
66''
22''
1100''
77''
Ref
Full ht
Shelf Stack
2R2S
Freestanding tub
Linen
2R2S2R2S
Existing window to
stay
Existing ><
AdditionU/C
Refrigerato
r
Gas
Grill
Sink
Counter overhang
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1/8"=1'
Proposed
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-04
Alternate:
Finished outdoor kitchen
Page 71 of 95
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
NTS
3D Elevation
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
Street View of new Addition
View of new covered patio on rear of house
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-05
Page 72 of 95
Shingle Shake Siding
West Elevation
1133''--
44
""
11
11
''--11""
22
''
--66 11
//44""
66
''
--88""
1166''--
44
""
22''--66
11//44
""
88''--11
""
Existing><Addition
South Elevation
"Street View"
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1/8"=1'
Ext. Elevations
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-06
Page 73 of 95
Highest point of new
addition roof line.
From Grade
66
''
--88""
33
''
--00 11
//22""
11
00
''--99""
55''--77 11//22""
55
''
1133''--
33
11//44
""
Shingle Shake Siding
Grade Line
Existing Finish Floor Elev.
East Elevation
North Elevation
Section North Elevation
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1/8"=1'
Ext. Elevations
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-07
Page 74 of 95
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
NTS
Material Data
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-08
Exterior Brick Facade Soffit / Trim Covered Patio Siding
Exterior of new addition will be painted brick to
match existing. Paint color is unknown but we
will use a salvaged brick and match the color
exactly at Kelley Moore paints.
Soffit will be Tongue and groove pine to
resemble existing vinyl material and will be
painted to match existing
Window trim will be painted to match existing
New covered patio will have Hardie shingle siding
on front and rear, as well as the gable end.
New shingle siding will be painted to match
existing soffit and trim color
Roof Material will be matched as close as
possible to existing, Owens Corning - Aged
Cedar
There will be no NEW windows used, the
windows pictured here will be removed from
existing and reused on the addition.
Owens Corning -
Aged Cedar
Existing
Existing
Page 75 of 95
UP
Arch Ceiling
WPWP
WP
Permitted Scope of workPermitted Scope of work
Wall Fan
Wall Fan
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1/8"=1'
Electrical
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-09
Page 76 of 95
UP
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 123 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 12
COVERED PATIO
GARAGE MASTER BATH
PORCH
PORCH
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
LIVING
BEDROOM
CLOSET
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1/8"=1'
Roof Plan
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-010
Page 77 of 95
Existing Concrete driveway
SB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / LSB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
SB / L
w / W
w / Ww / W
w / W
w / W
31'-7"
7'
90'
120'
6'
20'
15'
12'
22''--88""
11''--44""
44''--44""
1133''--33""
22''--66""
11'
Existing Garage
Existing SFR
Proposed
Addition
Existing Tree
Existing Tree
Proposed Covered
Patio Addition
Existing Waste Water line (estimated)
Proposed Waste Water yard line
"Rear
Yard"
PAGE:
SCALE:
DATE:
7/11/2019
1"=10'
Site Plan
Flagg Res.
503 E 16th st
Georgetown, TX
78626
Totals:
Total Lot - 10,711 sq ft (WCAD)
"Rear yard" - 3,873 sq ft
Impervious Coverage:
House (existing) - 2,182 sq ft
House (proposed) - 2,393 sq ft
Covered Patio (proposed) - 255 sq ft
Garage - 668 sq ft
Proposed Lot-31% @ 3,316 sq ft
Proposed Rear yard-24% @ 923 sq ft
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
Travis Adams
Riata Builders
Tadams.riata@hotmail.com
512.818.1117
SHEET:
11"x17"
P-011
Page 78 of 95
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address FLAGG, KRISTI D, 503 E 14TH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-6818
Latitude:30.631822 Longitude -97.672874
Addition/Subdivision:S3810 - Hughes Addition
WCAD ID:R042788Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES ADDITION, BLOCK 5(SW/PT), ACRES .2459
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1950
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: North
Page 79 of 95
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story brick house with an irregular plan, cross-hipped roof, and partial-width porch with stone piers and a metal
balustrade; single front door below a front gable.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Windows replaced
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #1 or more
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage 1 Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Hipped
Vinyl
Masonry
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 80 of 95
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457
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: some windows replaced with wood)
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:Despite some alterations, 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:343
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 81 of 95
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:503 14th St 2016 Survey ID:124457
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 82 of 95
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 8, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a req ues t for a C ertific ate of Appropriateness fo r a fenc e at the
p ro p erty lo cated at 1103 Elm S treet, b earing the legal des c rip tion o f Lo t 8, Blo ck 25 o f the G lassc oc k
Ad d ition (2019-50-C O A) – C hels ea Irb y, S enio r P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of the Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is reques ting to cons truct a fenc e which does not meet the Unified Develo p ment and
Do wntown Des ign G uid elines criteria for height and materials.
P ublic Co mments
To d ate, no p ublic c o mments have b een received.
S taff F indings
F enc es in the O ld To wn O verlay District are regulated by S ec tion 8.07.040 of the Unified Develo p ment
C o d e (UDC ). T he UDC s tates that fences loc ated in a front yard o r side s etb ac k abutting a lo cal o r
collec tor-level s treet are allo wed with the follo wing limitatio ns:
1. F enc es s hall b e limited to four feet in height, exc ep t in the O ld To wn O verlay Dis tric t where height is
limited to three feet.
2. F enc es s hall b e at least 50 p ercent (50%) trans p arent. F o r examp le, a wrought iro n fenc e or p icket
fenc e that has o p enings the wid th of the p ic ket.
3. C hainlink fenc es are p ro hibited in thes e loc ations .
T he property at 1103 Elm S treet, which c o ntains a med ium p rio rity struc ture, had a 6’ fenc e whic h was
recently remo ved. T he o riginal fence was co ns idered legal non-confo rming b ec aus e it did not meet the
UDC requirements as it was loc ated in the sid e s treet s etbac k and 6’ in height and not 50% trans p arent.
Ho wever, S ec tio n 14 of the UDC s tates that legal non-confo rming status is no longer valid when the no n-
confo rmity has b een expand ed or remo ved.
T he original fenc e was remo ved and the app lic ant is reques ting to cons truc t a new 6’ fenc e in the
ap p ro ximate lo c atio n, whic h is 3’ higher than allo wed b y the UDC . S ec tion 3.13 of the UDC gives HAR C
the autho rity to ap p ro ve fenc es that are inc ons is tent with the overlay d is tric t’s c harac teristics and the
ap p licable guidelines .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne. T he applic ant has paid all required fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
C helsea Irby, S enior P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Plans and Renderings Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - His toric Res ource Survey Backup Material
Page 83 of 95
Staff Report Exhibit
Page 84 of 95
EL
M
S
T
ASH S
T
PINE ST
S M
AIN
S
T
E 15TH ST
E 1 3 TH S T
E 8TH S T
S MYRTLE ST
S CHUR
CH ST
S AUSTIN AVE
ROCK S
T
S
CO
LLE
G
E
S
T
E UNIV E RS IT Y AV E
WALNUT
ST
E 11TH S T
E 10TH S T
E 14TH ST
W 9TH S T
W 8 TH S T
W 11TH S T
W 10TH S T
W UNIV E RSI T Y AV E
E 9 T H S T
E 9TH 1/2 ST
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
E 8 T H S T
E 1 4 TH S T
E 11TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 1 4 T H S T
E 9TH ST
E 9 T H S T
2019-50-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 85 of 95
Page 86 of 95
Page 87 of 95
Page 88 of 95
Page 89 of 95
Page 90 of 95
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:1103 S Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123877
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042527Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Sanborn (not present 1925)Construction Date:1930
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: new wrought iron stoop rails)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:909
ID:617
*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:123877 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.633955 Longitude -97.673897
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: West
Page 91 of 95
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:1103 S Elm St 2016 Survey ID:123877
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Page 92 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-50-COA – 1103 Elm Street Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: August 8, 2019
File Number: 2019-50-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a fence at the
property located at 1103 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 8, Block 25 of the Glasscock
Addition (2019-50-COA) – Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : 1103 Elm Street - Fence
Applicant: John Lawton (Green Earth Builders, LLC)
Property Owner: Jennifer White
Property Address: 1103 Elm Street
Legal Description: S3677 - Glasscock Addition, BLOCK 25, Lot 8, ACRES 0.16
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: No notable case history
HISTORIC CONTEXT
The information below is for the historic structure located on the property.
Date of Construction: 1930
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low
2007 – Medium
2016 – Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to construct a fence which does not meet the Unified Development and
Downtown Design Guidelines criteria for height and materials.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Page 93 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-50-COA – 1103 Elm Street Page 2 of 3
Fences in the Old Town Overlay District are regulated by Section 8.07.040 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC). The UDC states that fences located in a front yard or side setback abutting a local or
collector-level street are allowed with the following limitations:
1. Fences shall be limited to four feet in height, except in the Old Town Overlay District where
height is limited to three feet.
2. Fences shall be at least 50 percent (50%) transparent. For example, a wrought iron fence or
picket fence that has openings the width of the picket.
3. Chainlink fences are prohibited in these locations.
The property at 1103 Elm Street, which contains a medium priority structure, had a 6’ fence which was
recently removed. The original fence was considered legal non-conforming because it did not meet the
UDC requirements as it was located in the side street setback, was 6’ in height and not 50% transparent.
Section 14 of the UDC states that legal non-conforming status is no longer valid when the non-conformity
has been expanded or removed.
The original fence was removed and the applicant is requesting to construct a new 6’ fence in the same
location, which is 3’ higher than allowed by the UDC. Section 3.13 of the UDC gives HARC the authority
to approve fences that are inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and the applicable
guidelines.
The original fence was removed and the applicant is requesting to construct a new 6’ fence in the
approximate location. The applicant is proposing extending the fence beyond the footprint of the
previous fence. The applicant is requesting to have the fence is 3’ higher than allowed by the UDC.
Section 3.13 of the UDC gives HARC the authority to approve fences that are inconsistent with the
overlay district’s characteristics and the applicable guidelines.
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:
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies
Page 94 of 95
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
2019-50-COA – 1103 Elm Street Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
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;
Does Not
Comply
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
Partially
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district. N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the integrity and character of the District be prioritized. The proposed 6’ fence
would be in the street-facing side setback along 11th Street. Allowing a 6’ fence in the street-facing side
setback on this property would be inconsistent with the context of the surrounding properties. There are
three other homes that front 11th Street near the property which appear to maintain appropriate heights
and setbacks. There are four options to consider:
1. Approve a fence in the proposed location, but limit to 3’ in height and 50% transparent (per the
UDC and Design Guidelines)
2. Approve a 6’ fence outside of the 15’ side street setback and require 50% transparent (per the
UDC and Design Guidelines)
3. Approve the request as-is
4. Approve the request with other modifications
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Plans and Renderings
Exhibit 3 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Chelsea Irby, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 95 of 95