HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.14.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
May 14, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Video conference
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 r egul ar mee ting will conve ne at 6:00pm on M ay 14, 2020 via
te le confe r e nce . To par tic ipate , pl e ase c opy and paste the webli nk into your
browse r : https://bit.l y/39D VbV 2
If you'r e atte nding the live eve nt on the we b, use a me dia-sour ce exte nsion
(M S E ) - e nable d web br owser l ike C hrome, F ire fox, or E dge . S afar i is not
c ur re ntly suppor ted.
To partic ipate by phone :
C all in number : 512-672-8405
C onfe re nc e I D : 141 493 630#
P ublic c omment wi ll be allowe d vi a the above c onfer e nc e c all number or the
“ask a que stion” func tion on the vi de o confe re nc e opti on; no in-pe rson input
will be all owe d.
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 (Instructi ons for joini ng m eeting attached)
D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
B T he Histo ric and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission, appointed by the Mayo r and the C ity C ounc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final actio n o n applic ations , b y is s uing C ertificates o f Ap p ro p riatenes s
based upo n the C ity C o uncil ad o p ted Downto wn Design G uid elines and Unified Develo p ment C ode.
Welcome and Meeting P ro cedures :
· S taff P res entation
· Applic ant P resentatio n (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the C o mmis s io n.)
· Q ues tions from C o mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
· C o mments from C itizens *
· Applic ant R espons e
· C o mmis s io n Delib erative P roc es s
· C o mmis s io n Ac tion
Page 1 of 138
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed ques tions from the C o mmis s io ners, the C hair of the
C ommissio n will open the pub lic hearing. If a member of the pub lic would like to provid e c o mments o n
the agenda item under disc ussion, the c hair will as k if anyo ne wo uld like to s peak. To s p eak, unmute
yo urself b y p res s ing *6 on yo ur pho ne and s tate your name and addres s . O nce the C hair has the names
of everyo ne who wo uld like to speak, the C hair will c all the names in order, and when your name is c alled
yo u will have up to 3 minutes . A s p eaker may allo t their time to another s p eaker for a maximum o f 6
minutes . I f a memb er of the pub lic wished to allo t their time to ano ther s p eaker, they may d o so when their
name is called b y the C hair. P lease rememb er that all c o mments and q ues tio ns mus t be addressed to the
C ommissio n, and please b e patient while we organize the speakers during the pub lic hearing p o rtion.
• T he pub lic als o has the opportunity to provid e comments thro ugh the Q &A s ection o f the Live
Meeting, loc ated o n the right-hand side o f yo ur c o mp uter s creen. P lease provid e your full name and
address for the rec o rd , and your c o mment will b e read b y S taff.
•After everyo ne who has asked to s p eak has s poken, the C hair will close the pub lic hearing and provid e a
few minutes o f rebuttal time to the ap p lic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the April 23, 2020 regular meeting o f the
Histo ric and Architec tural R eview C o mmis s ion. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analys t
D P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C OA) for a
0.3' setb ack encro ac hment into the required 6' side (eas t) s etbac k to allo w a residential s tructure 5.9' from
the s id e (eas t) p ro p erty line; and a 1'-0" setb ack enc ro achment into the req uired 6' s ide (west) setb ack to
allow the c ons tructio n of a d etac hed c arp o rt 5'-0" from the s id e (wes t) pro p erty line at the p roperty
loc ated at 303 E. 19th S treet, bearing the legal des c rip tion of Lot 1, Bloc k 2 of the P eters on Ad d ition. –
Britin Bos tic k, Do wntown & His toric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action o n a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C OA) fo r an
additio n that adds to o r c reates a new s treet-fac ing faç ad e, and a 4'-6" s etb ac k encroac hment into the s ide
(east) setbac k to allo w the c o nstruc tion o f a d etac hed carport 1'-6" from the s ide (eas t) p ro p erty line at
the p ro p erty lo c ated at 507 E. 7th S treet, b earing the legal d es criptio n of 0.32 ac res out o f a p o rtion of
lots 2-7 in Blo c k 35 o f the G lassc o ck Additio n. - Britin Bostick, Do wnto wn & Histo ric P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C OA) for
new signage that is inc o nsistent with an approved Master S ign P lan or ap p lic able guidelines fo r the
property loc ated at 815 S . Main S treet, b earing the legal desc riptio n o f Lot 6B1, Blo ck 52, Amending
P lat Lot 6, Blo c k 52 C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn & His toric P lanner
G Updates , C ommis s ioner ques tions , and c o mments . - 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 _________________, 2020, 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.
Page 2 of 138
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 3 of 138
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
(Instructions for joi ning meeti ng attached)
D iscussion on how the H istoric and Architectural R eview C ommission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommission -- S ofia N elson,
C N U -A, P lanning D irector
IT E M S UMMARY:
Attached is a s et o f meeting ins tructio ns and proc ed ures to as s is t in jo ining and participating in the meeting.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ins tructions on How to Participate Cover Memo
Page 4 of 138
Participating in a Public Meeting
Commissioners and Public
4.2.2020 Draft (we will continuing update to improve- if you have suggestions for improvement after use
please email sofia.nelson@georgetown.org so the sheet can be updated)
Each agenda will have the following link to access the meeting. Agenda links can be found at
www.agendas.georgetown.org :
• WEBSITE
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated link will be posted with each agenda
• CALL IN NUMBER
o this will change for each meeting/ an updated phone number and conference id will be
posted with each agenda
EXAMPLE:
FAQs for Participating in a Meeting.
• If I log into the meeting on my computer can you see me? NO. Logging into the meeting via the
computer is the equivalent of watching the meeting on your TV. We cannot see you and we
cannot hear you. If you want to participate in public comment or as a commissioner in voting
and discussion you need to follow both the phone and /or web instructions below.
• If I do not have a computer to log into the meeting can I still participate via phone? YES. Please
use the dial in number and listen along to the meeting and speak as directed by the Chair of the
commission.
• If I would like to sign up to speak during public comment- how do I do that on this platform?
Please join the meeting (via below instructions15 minutes in advance of the start of the meeting
and announce your name and the agenda item you would like to speak on. The chair will
announce the public hearing for that item at the appropriate time. You will need to share your
name and address and the time limits associated with a physical meeting still apply.
see instructions below
Commission name
Date and Time of Meeting
Website to
access
meeting
Call In # &
Conference
ID #
Please MUTE when
NOT speaking!
Page 5 of 138
Steps for joining the meeting
• Step 1- Join by copying and pasting the weblink into your browser.
If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-enabled web
browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• Step 2: The below screen will come up:
Click watch on the web instead (circled in red below)
• Step 3: You will enter the meeting and see this screen. Wait here until the event starts. If you
intend on participating in the meeting (public comment/ commissioner deliberations), please
take this time to also call in via the dial in number above.
Turn down your volume on your computer and listen via phone. There will be a 20-40 second lag-
we are working on it.
Page 6 of 138
• Step 4: Prepping for the Meeting - mute your mic until you need to speak. To unmute yourself
when you are on the phone, press the unmute button on your screen & PRESS *6 in your
key pad.
To mute your device-
To unmute- press the screen unmute button AND then *6 ( WE WILL NOT HEAR
YOU IF YOU DO NOT PRESS *6) you should keep your keypad on your phone
up/open and be ready to respond on the phone. Then mute when you are done talking, to
avoid external noises coming into the meeting
• Step 5 Meeting Starts. Orientation to meeting screen
This is the meeting screen.
Meeting title
Ask a question Function--IF you attend late please announce yourself
using this function.
If you would like to submit written comments during public hearing for
the commission please alert the recording secretary using this box
Q&A selection
button
Page 7 of 138
Quick Tips
You do NOT need to download Microsoft Teams-
• If you are watching the meeting in the web browser on your computer, any click on your
screen may make the meeting pause momentarily. The video will then be a few seconds
behind. If this happens, click “LIVE” at the bottom right of the screen to jump to the live
recording.
• If you already have TEAMS, please sign out completely from the Microsoft suite &join
anonymously on the web.
• If you're attending the live event on the web, use a media-source extension (MSE)-
enabled web browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge. Safari is not currently supported.
• If participating by web browser and phone, be sure to turn down the volume of your
computer to avoid an echo.
Page 8 of 138
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the April 23, 2020 regular meeting of 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 9 of 138
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: April 23, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
April 23, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference meeting: https://bit.ly/34967st
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on April 23, 2020 via teleconference
at: https://bit.ly/34967st
To participate by phone: Call in number: +1 512-672-8405 Conference ID#: 684743473#.
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Art Browner; Faustine Curry; Pam
Mitchell; Steve Johnston; Terri Asendorf-Hyde; Karalei Nunn; Robert McCabe
Staff present: Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst;
Britin Bostick, Historic Planner
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:06 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public
comments and how the public may address the Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide comments
Page 10 of 138
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: April 23, 2020
on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, unmute yourself by pressing *6 on your phone and state your name and address. Once the
Chair has the names of everyone who would like to speak, the Chair will call the names in order, and
when your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another
speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the public wished to allot their time to another
speaker, they may do so when their name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments
and questions must be addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the
speakers during the public hearing portion.
• The public also has the opportunity to provide comments through the Q&A section of the Live
Meeting, located on the right-hand side of your computer screen. Please provide your full name and
address for the record, and your comment will be read by Staff.
•After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and
provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 9, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes as presented by Commissioner Morales. Second by
Commissioner Curry. Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature and the
addition of an awning or canopy for the property located at 224 W. 8th Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.2983 acres out of part of Lots 6 and 7 of Block 50 of the City of Georgetown. –
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval to alter the
storefront entrance in the western-most lease space of the building addressed at 224 W. 8th Street
and to remove the existing double entrance doors and replace them with a recessed single -door
storefront section with sidelights, which would retain the existing historic brick below the
current storefront windows, and frame out a new, wood, recessed entrance with wood kick
plates, windows in the sides of the recessed entrance and a single entrance door with windows
on either side of the wood door. The applicant has pointed out that recessing the entrance could
assist with weather-related water infiltration issues, which can be common to north-facing
entrances that are not covered in Downtown Georgetown, especially when the entrance has
wood doors that do not have the same weather seal as a new storefront door may. The applicant
is also requesting HARC approval for the addition of a 6’ deep wood and metal flat canopy over
the entire section of storefront in the lease space. The new canopy would be installed between
the existing storefront windows and transom windows, with metal tie rods for support.
The applicant, Davin Hoyt addressed the Commission and explained the reason for the request.
To replace the existing doors. He explained that this alteration would help with weather related
Page 11 of 138
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: April 23, 2020
issues. There is currently wood rot due to the rain. Chair Parr asked if a canopy will mitigate the
problem, and the applicant explained it would somewhat but not entirely. Commissioner
Morales asked if other storefronts are experiencing the same damage, and the applicant
explained they are.
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve the replacement of storefront doors requested in Item D (2020-11-COA) by
Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Curry. Approved (7-0).
Motion to deny the applicant’s second request for an addition of a 6’ deep wood and metal
flat canopy in Item D (2020-11-COA) by Commissioner Browner. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Denied (7-0).
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
a 6’ setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (west) setback to allow the expansion of a
residential accessory structure 0’ from the side (west) property line at the property located at
1202 E 15th St., bearing the legal description of 0.517 acres out of Block 9 out of Outlot Division B
– Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report presented by Bostick. The subject property includes the Chesser-Morgan House,
which is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as included in the
Olive Street National Register Historic District. On the property are two accessory structures, a
detached carport and a detached accessory structure that may have previously been used as a
garage, barn or storage outbuilding. The carport is not historic, but the accessory structure is
listed as a medium priority structure on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey, with an estimated
construction date of 1920. The structure is a simple rectangular form with board and batten
siding and a gable roof, which is presently a red standing seam metal roof. When the applicant
purchased the property in 2019 the subject structure had an addition to the rear or south side of
the structure with a flat roof, which is not consistent with the style of the historic structure and
which has been discovered to have structural issues related to water infiltration and
construction. As it is situated along the west property line and in the 6’ side setback required by
the Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning district, a proposed addition and alteration to correct
the deficiencies of the addition requires approval by HARC. The applicant would like to extend
the gable roof of the original portion of the structure over the addition, as well as build out the
addition so that the exterior walls complete a rectangle, consistent with the form of the original
structure. Due to the its current placement within the side setback, the extension of the roof
proposed would also be within the required side setback. Therefore, the applicant requests a
setback modification to allow for the additional square footage and roof extension.
Chair Parr opened the Public Hearing.
Jerry, public speaker, supports the request.
Michael Walton also supports the request.
Chair Parr closed the Public Hearing.
Page 12 of 138
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: April 23, 2020
Motion to approve Item E (2020-22-COA) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (7-0).
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
No updates at this time.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Meeting adjourned at 6:57pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 13 of 138
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r a
0.3' s etbac k encroac hment into the required 6' side (eas t) s etb ack to allow a res idential s tructure 5.9' from
the side (eas t) property line; and a 1'-0" s etb ack encroac hment into the req uired 6' s id e (wes t) setb ack to
allo w the cons tructio n of a detached carport 5'-0" from the s id e (wes t) property line at the property lo cated
at 303 E. 19th S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f Lot 1, Blo ck 2 o f the P eters o n Additio n. – Britin
Bostick, Do wnto wn & Histo ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he sub ject p ro p erty is lo cated alo ng the s o uthern b o rd er of the O ld Town O verlay Dis tric t, o n the north
s id e of E. 19th S treet. It is lis ted as a lo w prio rity s truc ture on the Histo ric R es ourc e S urvey, whic h notes
that the pro p erty lacks s ignificance. T he s truc ture is es timated to have b een c o nstruc ted in 1960 and is a
rectangular residential struc ture with a simple gab le ro o f, asbesto s s id ing, vinyl wind ows and as p halt
s hingle ro o f.
T he applic ant is req uesting app ro val o f a C ertific ate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s for an ad d ition to the rear of the
main struc ture, alterations to the exterior, and the additio n of a detac hed c arport. T he existing res id ential
s tructure enc ro aches 0.3’ into the req uired 6’ side (eas t) s etbac k, and as the proposed 10’ wid e rear
ad d ition c o ntinues the line o f the b uilding that enc ro aches into the s ide setbac k, the applic ant is req uesting
a s etbac k modific ation fo r the exis ting s truc ture s o that the ad d ition c an be c o nstruc ted. T he ap p licant is
als o req ues ting a 1’ setb ack enc ro achment into the required 6’ s id e (rear) s etb ack for the cons truction of a
d etac hed, pre-fabric ated metal c arp o rt 5’ fro m the wes t property line. T he c arport is p ro p o s ed to be s et
b ack from the faç ade o f the main s tructure. Its d imens io ns are 21’ lo ng by 12’ wid e by 8’ high, and the
ro o f is p ro p o s ed to b e a c olor s imilar to that of the as p halt s hingle roof. HAR C is the review authority for
req uested setbac k mo d ificatio ns.
As the sub ject s truc ture is lis ted as a Low P rio rity S truc ture o n the His toric R es ourc e S urvey, the
p ro p o s ed additions and modific ations to the exterio r are reviewed by the HP O , includ ing the d es ign o f the
carport additio n. T he proposed changes includ e the removal of the existing asbesto s s iding and
rep lacement with c o mp o s ite fiber lapped siding with a manufac tured s tone wains c o t on the fro nt façade, as
well as the ins tallatio n o f new doub le-p aned, white vinyl wind o ws in the addition to match the existing
wind o ws. T he propo s ed additio n to the rear would change the rear-fac ing ro o f slope of the existing gable
ro o f to a lower s lope to extend over the ad d ition, while the exis ting fro nt-facing ro o f s lope would be
retained .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
Page 14 of 138
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Res ource Survey Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 15 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
File Number: 2020-13-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a 0.3'
setback encroachment into the required 6' side (east) setback to allow a residential structure 5.9' from the
side (east) property line; and a 1'-0" setback encroachment into the required 6' side (west) setback to allow
the construction of a detached carport 5'-0" from the side (west) property line at the property located at
303 E. 19th Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 1, Block 2 of the Peterson Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 303 E. 19th St. Addition
Applicant: Michael Catherwood (Red Trailer Properties, LLC)
Property Owner: Red Trailer Properties, LLC
Property Address: 303 E. 19th Street
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2 of the Peterson Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1960 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modifications
HPO:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing facade
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property is located along the southern border of the Old Town Overlay District, on the north
side of E. 19th Street. It is listed as a low priority structure on the Historic Resource Survey, which notes
that the property lacks significance. The structure is estimated to have been constructed in 1960, but the
1964 aerial photo of Georgetown does not show any structures on that lot. It is a rectangular residential
structure with a simple gable roof, asbestos siding, vinyl windows and asphalt shingle roof.
Page 16 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 2 of 7
The applicant is requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the rear of the
main structure, alterations to the exterior, and the addition of a detached carport. The existing residential
structure encroaches 0.3’ into the required 6’ side (east) setback, and because the proposed 10’ wide rear
addition continues the line of the building along the side setback that encroaches into the east side
setback, the applicant is requesting a setback modification for the existing structure so that the addition
can be constructed. The applicant is also requesting a 1’ setback encroachment into the required 6’ side
setback for the construction of a detached, pre-fabricated metal carport 5’ from the west property line.
The carport is proposed to be set back from the façade of the main structure. Its dimensions are 21’ long
by 12’ wide by 8’ high, and the roof is proposed to be a color similar to that of the asphalt shingle roof.
HARC is the review authority for requested setback modifications.
As the subject structure is listed as a Low Priority Structure on the Historic Resource Survey, the
proposed additions and modifications to the exterior are reviewed by the HPO, including the design of
the carport addition. The proposed changes include the removal of the existing asbestos siding and
replacement with composite fiber lapped siding with a manufactured stone wainscot on the front façade,
as well as the installation of new double-paned, white vinyl windows in the addition to match the
existing windows. The proposed addition to the rear would change the rear-facing roof slope of the
existing gable roof to a lower slope to extend over the addition, the existing front-facing roof slope would
be retained.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.10 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.
Partially Complies
The proposed siding materials are fiber
composite lapped siding with a
manufactured stone wainscot across the
front façade. While artificial stone is
typically not appropriate, the manufactured
stone will be difficult to distinguish from
real stone and the primary structure on the
property to the west also has a stone veneer
on the front façade. The proposed removal
of the asbestos siding is an improvement in
the street-facing façade.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Complies
This low priority structure lacks historic or
architectural significance; however, the
Page 17 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period
than that of the building are inappropriate.
proposed alterations retain the building
form as well as the window openings on the
front façade, and the proposed alterations
do not imply a different design character.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
• An addition shall relate to the historic
building in mass, scale and form. It should be
designed to remain subordinate to the main
structure.
While a smaller addition is visually
preferable, if a residential addition would be
significantly larger than the original building,
one option is to separate it from the primary
building, when feasible, and then link it with
a smaller connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the prima ry
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale pf the
building by adding a full second floor.
Partially Complies
The proposed rear addition as well as the
proposed carport addition are compatible in
scale, character and architectural style with
the existing structure, and are subordinate
to the main structure as the proposed rear
addition is fully to the rear and the
proposed carport is set back approximately
24’ from the front façade. However, the
carport is proposed to be a prefabricated
metal structure , and the use of pre-
fabricated metal, while providing for a
simple design and roof form that relates to
the historic structure, is not consistent with
the exterior materials of the primary
structure.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any
primary, character-defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of a
building, when feasible.
Complies
The proposed rear addition is fully to the
rear of the existing structure and the
proposed carport is set back approximately
24’ from the primary façade.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
Page 18 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 4 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed rear addition and carport
addition require setback modifications.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards fo r the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
In this case the proposed rear addition
alters the rear roof pitch, however that does
not alter the street-facing façade and the
proposed carport addition is differentiated
from the main structure . Additionally, this
structure lacks significance per the Historic
Resource Survey entry.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Complies or partially complies with
applicable Guidelines in Chapter 14.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The Historic Resource Survey entry notes
the primary structure to have no design
influence, and to lack significance. The
proposed rear addition does not alter the
street façade, and the proposed exterior
alterations are a cosmetic improvement to
the structure while retaining the form, roof
form and window openings, and the
proposed addition, alterations and carport
are consistent with surrounding properties.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
Most surrounding properties along E. 19 th
Street do not have carports or carport
additions; however, the proposed carport
Page 19 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
addition is similar to other surrounding
properties in the Old Town Overlay
District.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed setback modifications do not
negatively impact the character of the
historic district.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The proposed setback encroachment for
the addition is due to the existing
structure’s encroachment into the side
setback. The proposed setback for the
carport is for the convenience of having
a detached carport structure.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The proposed addition would have to be
configured differently due to the
condition of the existing side setback
encroachment by the main structure,
which would be feasible but which may
not be as consistent with the simple form
of the existing structure and which may
not provide sufficient space for the
proposed interior alterations. The
proposed carport could be added
without encroaching into the side
setback, either by being placed outside
of the setback or by being constructed as
an attached addition to the main
structure.
Page 20 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The proposed setback modifications,
which are 1’-0” or less, are compatible
and consistent with other properties in
the block which have primary or
accessory structure in the side setbacks.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
Proposed addition and carport are not
closer to the street than the existing main
house.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures have been removed on this
property.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
No structures are proposed to be replaced
with this project, setback encroachments
are for an addition to an existing structure
and a new detached carport.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Not Applicable
No structures are proposed to be replaced
with this project, setback encroachments
are for an addition to an existing structure
and a new detached carport.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
The proposed rear addition is 10’ wide
and 435 sq. ft. compared to the existing
1008 sq. ft. structure and is situated to
the rear of the main structure. The
proposed carport is 252 sq. ft.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
Proposed addition would not cause the
main structure to be larger than other
structures within the same block, and
proposed detached carport is a
compatible size with the main structure
and other structures within the block.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
Proposed addition and new carport
would not negatively impact the
adjoining property or the maintenance of
existing buildings.
Page 21 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -13-COA – 303 E. 19th Street Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
Proposed setback encroachments would
allow sufficient room for maintenance
within the subject property.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or other significant
features of the lot are proposed to be
preserved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the reasons stated
above. In addition, the proposed alterations and additions fit within the context of the surrounding
structures both in the same block (inside the Old Town Overlay District) and across the street (outside
the Old Town Overlay District), and are compatible with the design and character of structures and
properties in this part of the overlay district.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 22 of 138
Location
2020-13-COA
Exhibit #1
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 21ST S
T
KN
I
G
H
T
S
T
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E 18TH ST
AS
H
S
T
E 17TH 1/
2
S
T
E 20TH S
T
EU
B
A
N
K
S
T
W 18TH ST
W 19TH ST
W 20TH ST
HO
G
G
S
T
E 19TH S
T
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
PAI
G
E
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
E 20TH ST
E 19TH 1
/
2
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 23 of 138
Red Trailer Properties, LLC
March 4th, 2020
Britin Bostick
Downtown and Historic Planner
Georgetown Planning and Development,
406 W 8th St.,
Georgetown, TX 78628
Dear Britin,
Subject: COA letter of Intent Regarding 303 E. 19th St
Per the COA Application checklist, this letter includes a description of the project to be reviewed, and provides
information with regard to how it meets the requirements outlined in the UDC Section 3.13.030, Subsections B
E. Not all Subsections are applicable, so only those that are relevant to the application are discussed.
General Description: The proposal is for a 43Ssqft addition to the rear of the existing property which will change
it from a 1008sqft 3/1 to a 1443sqft 3/2 house. The addition will add ~gft to the entire length of the house as
shown in the accompanying draft plan. The additional living area will extend the kitchen and master bedroom,
and add a master bath and laundry/pantry room. The family bath will also be reconfigured and the hot water
tank relocated to create a more efficient layout. Included in the renovation will be new siding for the entire
house and a new HVAC system. The plan also calls for a single width carport to be added, and the existing fence
to be reconfigured accordingly.
Siding and Trim: The siding will be 8.25" HardyPlank Select Cedarmill fiber cement lap siding. The fac;:ade will be
a mix of lap siding and stone veneer with cap as shown in the elevation. We believe this to be in keeping with
Subsection 85, 86 and 87.
Stone veneer: Norwich Colorado polyurethane stacked stone veneer panels, Model #NWSSPNTS
Siding paint color: Kelly-Moore Corkscrew Willow KM4515
Trim paint color: Kelly-Moore Whitest White KMW43
Roof Modification: The roof line will be modified to extend a new roof from the ridge to cover the addition,
creating an asymmetric gable. The gable vents will be removed and sided in lieu of a new ridge vent. The existing
roof is essentially new, so only the rear roof shingles will be replaced to match those of the front. We believe
this to be in keeping with Subsection BS, 86 and 87 (when compared to adding an extension to the existing
roofline).
Parking: The proposal includes the addition of a single width 7' high carport of conventional metal design. The
dimensions will be 12' x 21' (i.e., an area of 252sqft which Is less than 25% of the proposed house area per UDC
Section 6.05.0l0C). Set back is such that we believe it will satisfy UDC Section 6.05.0l0D. Carport roof color will
be chosen to match house trim as closely as possible (i.e., white). Concrete flatwork per draft plan to be added
for both carport and an additional parking area in front of it.
LI 1530 Sun City Blvd LI Ste 120-116 LI Georgetown LI TX 78633 LI Tel: 978-302-5918/0967 LI
LI mailbox@redtrailerproperties.com U Page 24 of 138
Page 25 of 138
10.0’
Page 26 of 138
WH
R4
R4
R4
R4
R4
R4 R4
R4 R4
WP
3
R4 R4
R4R4
3
3
3
3
3
R4R4
R4
GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI
GFI
8'-2 5/16"2'-8"6 7/8"9 5/8"3'6'-2 3/4"
19'-1 9/16"
11'-8 3/8"10'-3 1/2"
3'-7 9/16"2'2"3'2"2'2'-4 5/8"3'6 3/4"
16'-10 15/16"10'-3 1/2"2'-5"11'-8 3/8"
42'-2 5/16"
24'-2 3/8"
34'-2 3/8"
14'-9 5/16"
14'-9 5/16"
19'-1 9/16"
34'-2 3/8"
4'-4 3/16"2'-6"2"2'-6"4'-4 1/16"
13'-10 1/4"10'-0 3/8"11'-5 3/16"6'
42'-2 5/16"
12'-2 7/16"
72'-2"
21'-1 5/8"
5'10'
20'
5'
3'-11"
16'
10'
1443 SQ FT
LIVING AREA
Existing LB ext. wall Existing LB ext. wall
Beam
303 East 19th St, Georgetown TX 78626303 East 19th St, Georgetown TX 78626
8' x 10' Shed
Existing flatwork
(replace)
New
Flatwork
New
Flatwork
Uncovered Concrete Patio
Location of
original
back-door
New
Flatwork
Beam
GD
Existing flatwork
(replace)
Page 27 of 138
Page 28 of 138
Page 29 of 138
Page 30 of 138
Page 31 of 138
PRIMED FOR PAINT
James Haroie's primed for paint collection gives you the power w cnoose paint for yoL-r
home's exterior. It's primed. It's ready ;or field painting. ll's a durable. 1ign-performance
canvas.
--
---
AVAILABLE SIZES
THICKNESS: 0.312"
LENGTH: :44" boards
WIDTHS: 6.25" 8.25"
EXPOSURES: 5" 7"
9.25" 12"
8" 10.75"
5.25 " 7.25"
4" 6"
Warranty Information >
Request a Quote >Request a Sample >
Page 32 of 138
Page 33 of 138
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:303 W 19th St 2016 Survey ID:125034
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address VILLAREAL, MERCEDIA, 305 E 19TH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-7908
Latitude:30.626454 Longitude -97.674739
Addition/Subdivision:S4372 - Peterson Addition
WCAD ID:R044914Legal Description (Lot/Block):PETERSON ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOT 1
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/16/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1960
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: North
Page 34 of 138
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:303 W 19th St 2016 Survey ID:125034
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular house with no particular style clad in asbestos shingle siding; side-gabled roof with a shed roof
extension over a flush entry, single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Door 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 #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Metal
N/A
N/A
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 35 of 138
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:303 W 19th St 2016 Survey ID:125034
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks significance
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:Not Recorded
2007 Survey Priority:Not Recorded 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 36 of 138
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:303 W 19th St 2016 Survey ID:125034
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 37 of 138
303 E. 19th Street Addition
2020-13-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
May 14, 2020
Page 38 of 138
Item Under Consideration
2020-13-COA –303 E. 19th Street Addition
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for a 0.3' setback encroachment into the required 6'
side (east) setback to allow a residential structure 5.9' from the side (east)
property line; and a 1'-0" setback encroachment into the required 6' side
(west) setback to allow the construction of a detached carport 5'-0" from the
side (west) property line at the property located at 303 E. 19th Street, bearing
the legal description of Lot 1, Block 2 of the Peterson Addition.
Page 39 of 138
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Setback modifications
HPO:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing facade
Page 40 of 138
Item Under Consideration
Page 41 of 138
Getsemani
Center
Page 42 of 138
Current Context
Page 43 of 138
303 E. 19th Street –1964 Aerial Photo
Page 44 of 138
303 E. 19th Street
Property Survey Proposed Floor Plan
Proposed Carport
Fence
Page 45 of 138
303 E. 19th Street –Proposed Elevations
Front (south) Elevation
Rear (north) Elevation
Side (west) Elevation
Side (east) Elevation
Page 46 of 138
303 E. 19th Street –Proposed Carport & Materials
Fiber Composite Siding
Rear (north) Elevation
Proposed Carport
Page 47 of 138
Current Context
Page 48 of 138
Current Context
Other nearby structures in the same block
and across the street have stone veneers
and/or manufactured stone wainscot similar
to what is proposed, as well as detached,
prefabricated carport structures.Page 49 of 138
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
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/APage 50 of 138
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
Page 51 of 138
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
Page 52 of 138
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•30 letters mailed
•No comments received
Page 53 of 138
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of both setback modifications.
Page 54 of 138
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
Page 55 of 138
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action o n a req ues t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) fo r an
ad d ition that ad d s to or creates a new street-fac ing façade, and a 4'-6" setbac k enc ro achment into the side
(eas t) s etbac k to allow the cons tructio n o f a detac hed c arp o rt 1'-6" from the s id e (eas t) property line at the
p ro p erty loc ated at 507 E. 7th S treet, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.32 ac res out o f a p o rtion of lo ts 2-7
in Bloc k 35 o f the G las s c o ck Ad d ition. - Britin Bos tick, Do wntown & His to ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he main s tructure o n the s ubjec t p ro p erty is listed as a med ium p rio rity s truc ture o n the His toric
R es o urc e S urvey, with an es timated co ns truc tion d ate of 1890. T he 1916 S anborn F ire Ins urance Map
s hows that the main s truc ture was one of o nly two ho uses on the b loc k at that time, and the hous e direc tly
eas t, whic h is featured on the 1916 map , is als o estimated to have b een cons tructed in 1890, although the
two ho us es are o f d ifferent arc hitectural styles . T he simp le fo rm of the subjec t property’s main struc ture
and its s ituatio n on s uc h a large lo t ind icate that it may be the oldest s truc ture o n the b lo ck, and it can be
s een in a 1934 p hoto in whic h the hous e is no t o bs c ured b y any fro nt yard trees . T he original s id ing and
wind o ws have b een rep laced, as has the add res s , which was no ted as 602 E. 7th S t. o n the S anb o rn Map.
T he applic ant is propos ing to ins tall two p refab ricated metal carport s truc tures on their exis ting driveway,
s ituated at the front right corner o f the his toric main s tructure as viewed fro m E. 7th S treet. T he carpo rt
s tructure would be detac hed from the main s truc ture, with metal c o lumns and curved metal ro o fs . T he two
carport s truc tures are propos ed to c o ver the applic ant’s two vehic les , with a 6” spac e in b etween. T he
carport struc tures are two d ifferent sizes to ac c ommodate the needs o f the family and the vehicle uses, with
the c arp o rt lo c ated clos er to the ho us e being 11.9’ wide and 16.5’ d eep and the c arport propos ed to
enc ro ach 4’-6” into the 6’ side (eas t) s etb ack being 9.5’ wid e and 16.4’ deep. Both carports are jus t under
8’ tall. T he c arp o rts are p ro p o s ed to b e loc ated at the front o f the main struc ture to make us e of the
existing driveway and leave the exis ting fro nt yard and p rivac y fenc es in plac e.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Res ource Survey Exhibit
Page 56 of 138
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 57 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: May 14, 2020
File Number: 2020-16-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition that adds to or creates a new street-facing façade, and a 4'-6" setback encroachment into the side
(east) setback to allow the construction of a detached carport 1'-6" from the side (east) property line at
the property located at 507 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.32 acres out of a portion of lots
2-7 in Block 35 of the Glasscock Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Carport Installations at 507 E. 7th
Applicant: Roger Davis
Property Owner: Roger & Marci Davis
Property Address: 507 E. 7th Street
Legal Description: 0.32 acres out of a portion of lots 2-7 in Block 35 of the Glasscock Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1890 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Addition that adds to or creates a new street-facing façade
Setback modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The main structure on the subject property is listed as a medium priority structure on the 2016 Historic
Resource Survey, with an estimated construction date of 1890. The 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
shows that the main structure was one of only two houses on the block at that time, and the house directly
east, which is featured on the 1916 map, is also estimated to have been constructed in 1890, although the
two houses are of different architectural styles. The simple form of the subject property’s main structure
and its situation on such a large lot indicate that it may be the oldest structure on the block, and it can be
seen in a 1934 photo in which the house is not obscured by any front yard trees. The original siding and
windows ha ve been replaced, as has the address, which was noted as 602 E. 7th St . on the Sanborn Map.
Page 58 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 2 of 7
The applicant is proposing to install two prefabricated metal carport structures on their existing
driveway, situated at the front right corner of the historic main structure as viewed from E. 7th Street. The
carport structures would be detached from the main structure, with metal columns and curved metal
roofs. The two carport structures are proposed to cover the applicant’s two vehicles, with a 6” space in
between. The carport structu res are two different sizes to accommodate the needs of the family and the
vehicle uses, with the carport located closer to the house being 11.9’ wide and 16.5’ deep; and the carport
proposed to encroach 4’-6” into the 6’ side (east) setback being 9.5’ wide and 16.4’ deep. Both carports
are just under 8’ tall. The carports are proposed to be located closer to the street than the main structure ,
in order to make use of the existing driveway and leave the existing front yard and privacy fences in
place.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.12 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.
Partially Complies
The proposed detached carport additions
are of a scale that is compatible with the
main structure, and do not overwhelm or
detract from the historic structure.
Although the form of the proposed carports
is not similar to the main structure, it is not
incompatible with it; however, the proposed
carports are prefabricated metal structures
and not consistent with the materials,
character or architectural style of the main
building.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
• This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
Does Not Comply
Although the proportions and character of
the main structure are still visible and
prominent, the proposed location of the
carports to the front of the main structure
will cause them to be prominent from the
street view.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
• An addition shall relate to the historic
building in mass, scale and form. It should be
Partially Complies
The proposed detached carport additions
are of a scale that is compatible with the
main structure, and do not overwhelm or
detract from the historic structure; however,
Page 59 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
designed to remain subordinate to the main
structure.
While a smaller addition is visually
preferable, if a residential addition would be
significantly larger than the original building,
one option is to separate it from the primary
building, when feasible, and then link it with
a smaller connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale pf the
building by adding a full second floor.
the structures are prefabricated metal and
not consistent with the materials, character
or architectural style of the main building.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any
primary, character-defining façade.
• An addition should be to the rear of a
building, when feasible.
Partially Complies
The proposed carport additions are to be
fully in front of the main structure, although
still located within the required 25’ front
setback. The existing driveway is also to the
front of the main structure. According to the
applicant , placing of the structures on the
existing driveway is significantly more cost
effective than is extending the paving to
install the carports further back and to the
side of the house. The lot appears to have
sufficient space to set the carports further
back on the site, however.
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 ap-
propriate 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 symmetri-
cally proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Partially Complies
The roof of the main structure is a gable
roof with a symmetrical slope that faces east
and west. The proposed carports have
symmetrical curved roofs and are proposed
to have north – south orientations .
Page 60 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 4 of 7
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff determined the application to be
complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
One of the proposed carport structures
encroaches into the side setback.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The prefabricated metal carport structures
are differentiated from the historic main
structure and are not connected but are of a
different style and material than the historic
main structure.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Partially complies with applicable
Guidelines, except does not comply with
Guideline 14.14: “Place an addition at the
rear of a build ing or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.”
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
Although the historic main structure is not
directly impacted as the proposed carports
will be detached, the prefabricated metal
structures will be prominent on the front of
the property.
Page 61 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies
The proposed carports are of a compatible
scale with surrounding properties, and
there are other accessory structures,
including carports, on surrounding
properties. However, the contemporary
prefabricated metal design is not the most
compatible material and form for the
surrounding historic properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed carports do not diminish the
overall character of the Old Town Historic
District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is
solely a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The proposed encroachment is for the
convenience of parking vehicles
underneath a carport, however the
property does not currently have a garage
or carport, and the location of the driveway
as well as the historic house lend
themselves to parking along the east side of
the property.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow
the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The main structure is situated 29.8’ from
the side (east) property line, which has a
required 6’ setback, leaving 23.8’ for vehicle
parking between the main structure and the
setback line. While 23.8’ is sufficient width
for parking two vehicles, and the width of
the proposed carport structures with the 6”
space in between is 21.9’, the applicant is
proposing to leave 6.4’ between the carport
Page 62 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
structures and the main structure in order
to work around the existing driveway and
fence locations.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is
compatible and in context with both the
block in which the subject property is
located as well as surrounding blocks,
which have other accessory structures that
encroach into side setbacks.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure
will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;
Complies
Other accessory structures, including an
accessory structure on the adjacent
property to the east, are closer to the street
than the proposed new carports. The
request does not include the modification
of the required front setback.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures are proposed to be replaced
with this request.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively
the same footprint and encroachment as
proposed;
Not Applicable
No previous structures are known to have
existed in this location.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that
is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the
original;
Not Applicable
No structures are proposed to be replaced
with this request.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Complies
The main structure is approximately 2,450
sq. ft. and the proposed total size of the
carports is 352.15 sq. ft., or approximately
14.4% of the square footage of the main
structure. The scale of the proposed
carports does not overwhelm the main
structure.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to
similar structures within the same block;
Complies
The proposed carports are similar in size or
slightly smaller than other accessory
Page 63 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -16-COA – 507 E. 7th Street Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
structures on the block and adjacent blocks,
including the adjacent property to the east.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
Proposed new carport structures do not
negatively impact the adjoining property
sharing the east property line, and no
limitations to the maintenance of existing
buildings is anticipated. In addition, the
applicant has included a letter of support
from the adjoining property owner
expressing their support for the proposed
project.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of
the proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
Although the carport structure proposed to
encroach into the side setback would be
only 1.5’ from the side (east) property line,
the carport has an open side that would not
preclude room for maintenance or hinder
the maintenance of adjacent structures.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing
large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Not Applicable
No trees or other significant features are
proposed to be preserved with this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the addition of the
carports and the setback modification WITH THE CONDITION that the carports be placed behind the
front (south) face of the main structure , on the east side of the main structure, so that the carport
structures are not prominent on the site .
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 64 of 138
Location
2020-16-COA
Exhibit #1
WALNUT
ST
PINEST
SCOLLEGEST
E 8TH ST
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
E 7TH ST
E 6TH ST
E 5TH ST
ELM
S
T
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
PI
N
E
S
T
ASH
S
T
E 8TH ST
E 9THST
E 9TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 65 of 138
1
Roger Davis
507 E 7th St, Georgetown, TX 78626
rjusme@gmail.com 512-788-1690
03-11-20
Letter of Intent: Carport Installations
To Whom It May Concern:
This correspondence is provided to state my intent to install 2 single car carports in the
driveway of my personal residence at 507 East 7th Street in Georgetown, TX.
The installation will consist of 2 complementary carports manufactured by Palram
Americas headquartered in Kutztown, PA. (https://www.palram.com/us/)
2 different carports will be installed to address size constraints and functional needs of
the residents. The larger carport will be used by Mrs. Davis providing more room to allow our
children to enter and exit the cars as well as support the vehicle that enters and exits the property
the most.
The carports will be installed at the bottom of the driveway near the residence. It is
understood that this request requires and exception to the side setback but this is required to
accommodate current parking for the residence based on the legacy layout and location of the
driveway. Our adjacent next door neighbor has provided his approval for a written support of
same.
Page 66 of 138
2
CARPORT 1: Palram Vitoria 5000. Dimensions 196.4 “L x 114.1”W x 94.5” H
This is the smaller of the 2 carports and will be installed on the East side of the property
approximately 1 foot away from the side fence .
Fig.1 – Vitoria Diagram Pic. 1- Example Vitoria carport
************************
CARPORT 2: Palram Arcadia 5000. Dimensions 197.6” L x 142.5”W x 95.3” H
This slightly larger (wider) carport will be installed parallel to Carport 1 with a gap of
approximately 6 inches to allow for leaf and tree debris to fall between the carports. This
positions the carport approximately 11 feet from the fence on the east side of the property.
Fig. 2- Arcadia Diagram Pic. 2- Example Arcadia Carport
Page 67 of 138
To: City of Georgetown Texas, Planning and Permits
l, Thomas Cavness, I am the owner of the property at 604 S Coltege St, Georgetown,
TX, 78626 as show in the records of Williamson County, Texas.
I agree with and support the installation of the carport by Roger and Marci Davis at 507
E. 7Th street, understanding that this carport will be only about one foot off my western
side property line.
%A 0**-Thomas Ca\)qress
Date:3/L2/2O2O
Page 68 of 138
Additional information as well as specific responses to remarks and questions below.
With no carport, I am forced to park my vehicle near the sidewalk to avoid debris from the
heritage pecan tree as well as detritus from the birds and squirrels perching in the branches. A
carport will allow me to park in the driveway proper clearing the view from the street and
sidewalk to our property.
From a visual appearance perspective, I would suggest that no carport is worse than what I am
requesting. (Below: current parking placement with no carport.)
Pic 1- Current Parking Arrangement Pic 2- Current Parking Arrangement
The proposed carports have minimal fascia when seen from the front. The images below show
how the cars could be parked with the carport in place.
Pic 3- Proposed Future Parking Arrangement Pic 4- Proposed Future Parking Arrangement
Page 69 of 138
Based on placement, the carports will be barely visible from the College Street side based on
the existing carriage house on the property next door. (Below: view from College St.)
Pic 5- View from College St (black car on far side of carriage house in Future Parking Arrangement)
The same carriage house already obstructs views facing College St. from the other direction.
The requested carports would not add any visual obstruction. (Below: view from 7th St.)
Pic 6- View from 7th St. (Proposed Future Parking Arrangement)
Page 70 of 138
COMMENT 1: The Unified Development Code requires that all parking be on an approved paved
surface (concrete, asphalt or engineered pavers). Installing cover for parking will require
compliance with the parking surface requirements.
RESPONSE: The original crushed granite drive was replaced with a concrete driveway
upon which the carports would be installed.
COMMENT 2: Is the fence proposed to be moved to accommodate driveway space to fit the
vehicle into the carport?
RESPONSE: I am not proposing to move any fences to install the carport. The future
parking arrangement depicted in the pictures above takes into account clearance
included in proposed carports.
COMMENT 3: Design Guideline 14.14: "Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back
from the front to minimize the visual impacts." Is it feasible to move the carports further back in
the yard and behind the front of the house?
COMMENT 4: Proposed design is not consistent with Design Guideline 14.12: "An addition shall
be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building."
RESPONSE (3 & 4): I frankly cannot afford to put in a more costly custom-built carport
architected to specifically match the house style. Additional, burdensome, expenses
would also be required to place the carports behind the front of the house. This would
require removing and replacing the existing fence and irrigation. I would also have to
pour a significant amount of concrete as the backyard slope is steep. This would reduce
the play area for our children. Based on the evidence provided above, all this would
come at a significant cost for minimal additional visual appeal mostly hidden by existing
structures.
In closing, I have requested what I can afford and sought to maximize style and appeal as well
as usability. I again suggest that no carport is worse than what I am requesting and humbly seek
your approval for our plan.
Thanks for your consideration.
Roger and Marci Davis
Page 71 of 138
LTL
;*
l)
{.
ttIItIItIifiItT$.(
IIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlr
ItIIItI
-.
,
,
-:
i
1+
t.
l
I
.,
|
l:
II1.
.
>l
t'
.
"
t.
'
It
l^
(
lr
.t
'l5l*l-
t
lu
\
l>t-
ls
r
la
l-
,
\ns
-\
d
-
.
e,
IIIIINiIII{irII
)
rl€J
c.
.
lFg0(:
-e.
\J
t\.r
t=$
-s
_5
/
,
f-
J\
\*
r
\r
\
i
q
44
<
*
-
;
}-
j
;{
A
r
?
\\.
\9
\^dr
IIlII
.1
IiII
rlrs4CG_
L€-{
\)
,,
Z'
'
{
"
t
u
dV
I
te
?
N
t*
i
i-
L
z
t
Sd
o
i
d
Page 72 of 138
Page 73 of 138
Page 74 of 138
Page 75 of 138
Page 76 of 138
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:507 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:124997
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R042587Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 5/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1890
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: vinyl siding & shutters; porch changed; rear addition)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:140
ID:48
*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:124997 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.637807 Longitude -97.672744
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: North
Page 77 of 138
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:507 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:124997
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Shed
NorthPhoto Direction
Page 78 of 138
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY
1. County W-i 111 arnqon
FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
5. USGS Quad No. '11)Q7-11
(rev. 8-82)
Site No 4.R
City/Rural C.Pnreftnwn UTM Sector 627-1-iric)
2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est 1890
Address 507 E. 7th 7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner Simon Correa 8 Style/Type vernacular
Address Same. 78626 9. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Glasscock/Blk. 35/Lot p. 4,5 Present Use residential
10. Description One-story wood frame dwelling; I-house plan w/ additions; exterior walls w/
weatherboard siding; gable roof w/ composition shingles; front elev. faces S.; aluminum
sash single-hung windows w/ 2/2 lights; single-door entrance w/ transom; one-bay porch
w/ hip roof on S. elev., wrought-iron supports. Other noteworthy features include >
11. Present Condition Good; altered--porch changed; rear additions
12. Significance Primary area of signficance: architecture. A good example of a late nineteenth
century vernacular dwelling w/ I-house plan.
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date
or Original Site x (describe)
14. Bibliography Tax rolls, Sanborn Maps 15. Informant
July 1984
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TN RIS No Did THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL 0 HABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
NR: 0 Individual 0 Historic District YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource 1 33A to
NR File Name 26 27 to
to Other
CONTINUATION PAGE No 2 0f
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
Williasmon 1. County LI 5. USGS Quad No.-ing 7-113 Site No 48
City/Rural Georgetown
2. Name
#10. Description (cont'd): stone block foundation; symmetrical three-bay facade.
Outbuildings include modern wood frame storage bldg.
16. Recorder A. Taylor/HHM Date
Page 79 of 138
Carport Installations at 507 E. 7th
2020-16-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
May 14, 2020
1Page 80 of 138
Item Under Consideration
2002-16-COA–Carport Installations at 507 E. 7th
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that adds to or creates a new street-
facing façade, and a 4'-6" setback encroachment into the side (east) setback
to allow the construction of a detached carport 1'-6" from the side (east)
property line at the property located at 507 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal
description of 0.32 acres out of a portion of lots 2-7 in Block 35 of the
Glasscock Addition.
2Page 81 of 138
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Addition that adds to or creates a new street-facing façade
•Setback modification
3Page 82 of 138
Item Under Consideration
4Page 83 of 138
Historic
Courthouse
5Page 84 of 138
Current Context
6Page 85 of 138
507 E. 7th Street –Historic Map & Photo
7
From page 6 of the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of the City of Georgetown
Slide from 1984 Historic Resource Survey
Page 86 of 138
507 E. 7th Street –Historic Map & Photo
8
Photo c. 1934
Page 87 of 138
507 E. 7th Plan & Drawings
9Page 88 of 138
Proposed Carport Location
10Page 89 of 138
Current Context
11Page 90 of 138
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 12Page 91 of 138
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
13Page 92 of 138
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
14Page 93 of 138
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•39 letters mailed
•No comments received
15Page 94 of 138
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the addition of the
carports and the setback modification WITH THE CONDITION that the
carports be placed behind the front face of the main structure and to
the east side of the main structure.
16Page 95 of 138
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
17Page 96 of 138
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
May 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and possible action o n a req ues t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new
s ignage that is inc o ns is tent with an approved Mas ter S ign P lan o r applic able guid elines fo r the p ro p erty
lo cated at 815 S . Main S treet, bearing the legal des c riptio n of Lo t 6B1, Blo ck 52, Amending P lat Lo t 6,
Bloc k 52 C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bostic k, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he new s tructure at 815 S . Main S treet, called the “Watkins Build ing”, was approved b y HAR C in 2017
and is now nearing c o mp letion. T he firs t flo o r has a res taurant and bar leas e s p ac e o n the s o uth p art o f the
b uilding, whic h is o cc upied b y Ko rk Wine Bar. T he north p art of the first floor and the s econd floor are
o wner-o cc upied by the Watkins Insuranc e G roup . T he applic ant is proposing a b uilding sign pac kage that
inc ludes s ignage for both tenants , whic h inc lud es the ins tallatio n o f illuminated flus h-mounted primary
s ignage, illuminated ab o ve-c anopy signage, and vinyl window signs.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downto wn & Histo ric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 97 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 1 of 8
Meeting Date: May 14, 2020
File Number: 2020-15-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines for the property
located at 815 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 6B1, Block 52, Amending Plat Lot 6,
Block 52 City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: The Watkins Building
Applicant: Chris Scott (Watkins Insurance Group)
Property Owner: 815 Main Street LLC
Property Address: 815 S. Main Street
Legal Description: Lot 6B1, Block 52, Amending Plat Lot 6, Block 52 City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District
Case History: HARC approved the new building via COA-2017-021 in August 2017
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 2020
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Noncontributing
National Register Designation: Located in Williamson County Courthouse National
Register Historic District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines
HPO:
Master Sign Plan
New signage, to include new signage that is consistent with an approved Master Sign Plan
STAFF ANALYSIS
The new structure at 815 S. Main Street, called the “Watkins Building”, was approved by HARC in 2017
and is now nearing completion. The first floor has a restaurant and bar lease space on the south part of
the building, which is occupied by Kork Wine Bar. The north part of the first floor and the second floor
are owner-occupied by the Watkins Insurance Group. The applicant is proposing a building sign package
Page 98 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 2 of 8
that includes signage for both tenants, which includes the installation of illuminated flush-mounted
primary signage, illuminated above-canopy signage, and vinyl window signs.
The signage proposed for the Watkins Insurance Group which is reviewed by HARC includes an
illuminated primary sign, mounted flush to the building façade on the northwest corner of the building
facing S. Main Street (a second sign shown in the project drawings on the southeast corner of the building
facing E. 9th Street has been removed from the request). The sign is proposed to be 36 sq. ft. in size, and
illuminated with a “halo” illumination style, in which the lighting is in the sign letters and projects
toward the face of the building, creating a glow or “halo” effect around the sign. The “W” portion of the
Watkins logo would be illuminated, and the “Insurance Group” letters would have a pushthrough
illumination effect, in which the sides of the letters rather than the front of the letters is illuminated, to
create a glow around the letters. This sign would be located approximately 30’ above ground level. The
building façade is 40’ wide, and per the Design Guidelines 1 sq. ft. of flush-mounted sign area is allowed
per 1 sq. ft. of façade width. The flush-mounted primary sign facing S. Main Street complies with the
allowed sign area of 40 sq. ft. The building is 119’ in depth, which provides a long, exposed building side
due to its location adjacent to City property and the Grace Heritage Church building. The side of a
building that is not abutting a street or right-of-way is not considered a façade and does not provide
façade width for the calculation of allowed sign width. The proposed window signs for the Watkins
group are reviewed by the HPO and comply with the Design Guidelines.
The signage proposed for Kork Wine Bar that is reviewed by HARC is an illuminated primary sign
mounted atop the corner of the 5’ deep flat metal canopy that wraps the southwest corner of the building.
The entrance to Kork is on the south façade of the building and faces the wide walkway rather than
facing S. Main Street. The “Kork” portion of the sign is proposed to be mounted at the front edge of the
canopy facing S. Main Street and be 13.5 sq. ft. The “Wine Bar” portion of the sign is proposed to be
mounted to the perpendicular edge of the canopy facing south and be 12.2 sq. ft. The wine bar sign is
proposed to have the face of the letters illuminated. The combined size of the sign sections is 25.7 sq. ft.
Per the Design Guidelines, awning and canopy signs shall not exceed one square foot of sign per one
linear foot of façade width (40’), and the size of an awning or canopy sign shall be included in the
calculation for total allowable building signage. The proposed window signs for Kork Wine Bar are
reviewed by the HPO and comply with the Design Guidelines.
The combined building primary signage, both flush-mounted and canopy signage, totals 61.7 sq. ft., or
54% more than the signage allowed by the 40’ façade width. However, the building has a unique situation
in that while it is not located on a corner lot, it does have a corner condition and the two primary
entrances are located on both the west and south facades. Additionally, the building has a flat canopy
that wraps the southwest corner and extends along the south side of the building.
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:
Page 99 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 3 of 8
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
9.1 Consider the building as part of an overall sign
program.
Coordinate a sign within the overall façade
program.
A sign should be in proportion to the building,
such that it does not dominate the appearance.
Develop a master sign plan for the entire
building; this should be used to guide indi-
vidual sign design decisions.
This is especially important in Area 2 where the
use of contemporary building forms and styles
and several colorful, attention-getting signs
have appeared in the past. Such a typical “strip-
commercial” development pattern is
inappropriate in the Downtown and Old Town
Overlay Districts.
Complies
Proposed signage is coordinated with the
building design and has a cohesive sign
program.
9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall
building composition.
A sign should appear to be in scale with the
facade.
Locate a sign on a building such that it will
emphasize design elements of the facade itself.
Mount a sign to fit within existing
architectural features. Use the shape of the
sign to help reinforce the horizontal lines of
moldings and transoms seen along the
street.
Complies
Proposed signage is in scale with the
building façade and emphasizes the
building’s architectural design.
9.3 A primary sign should identify the services or
businesses offered within.
To avoid driver confusion, the information on
the primary sign should be in a large enough
font or design that it is easily viewable from a
vehicle.
The sign should contain only enough in-
formation to alert the viewer in a vehicle to
the location of the business or entity at the
building.
Complies
Proposed primary signs are simple, easy to
read and oriented to the street view.
Page 100 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 4 of 8
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
Whenever possible, other signs should be
utilized for information geared towards pe-
destrian or other viewers.
The primary sign should be easily viewable
from a vehicle with as little visual clutter as
possible.
9.7 A flush-mounted wall sign shall not exceed one
square foot for every one foot of linear façade width.
For instance, a building with twenty feet of
street frontage would be eligible for a sign of
twenty square feet (20 x 1 = 20). In true sign
dimensions, this would be a sign of ap-
proximately two feet by ten feet.
Note that the formula establishes the maxi-
mum permitted sign area, when all other
factors of scale, proportion, and compatibility
are met. A sign does not have to be as large as
this equation allows. The first consideration
shall be compatibility with the size and
character of the facade.
In a case where a building has more than one
face exposed to a public way, the allowed sign
area may not be combined.
Complies
The building façade width is 40’, allowing
for 40 sq. ft. of flush-mounted wall signage.
The proposed flush-mounted sign is 36 sq.
ft.
9.11 Awning and canopy signs may be considered.
An awning or canopy sign shall not exceed one
square foot for every one linear foot of facade
width. In no case should an awning or canopy
sign exceed the size of the awning or canopy
surface to which it is applied.
• The size of an awning or canopy sign shall be
calculated by its actual area and shall be
included in the calculation for total allowable
building signage.
Consider mounting a sign centered on top of a
building canopy where a flush-mounted sign
would obscure architectural details.
• A sign mounted on top and affixed to a build-
ing canopy, and located perpendicular to the
building shall not be allowed.
Partially Complies
The building façade width is 40’, allowing
for 40 sq. ft. of canopy signage; however,
the canopy signage is part of the total
allowed signage calculation. The combined
size of the canopy sign sections is 25.7 sq.
ft., and when combined with the flush
mounted sign size is 61.7 sq. ft. total, or 54%
more than the signage allowed by the 40’
façade width. However, the proposed
canopy sign design fits the entrance
configuration and the building design.
Page 101 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 5 of 8
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
Appearance of a sign as viewed from an upper
level out must be considered.
9.12 A directory sign for multi-tenant buildings
must be considered.
A Master Sign Plan is required for multi-ten-
ant buildings.
• Where several businesses share a building,
coordinate the signs. Align several smaller
signs, or group them into a single panel as a
directory.
• Use similar forms or backgrounds for the signs
to tie them together visually and make them
easier to read.
• The manner in which a directory sign is
mounted to a building, either flush to or
projecting from a wall, will determine the
maximum allowable sign area.
Electronic message centers are not allowed.
• Signage allocation must be considered when
setting up a building for multiple tenants, and
the appropriate distribution of allowable sign
square footage and sign sizes and locations
planned for the various tenants.
- For the maximum area of a flush-mounted sign
see design guideline 9.7.
- For the maximum area of a projecting sign see
design guideline 9.10.
Partially Complies
Although directory signs should be
considered for multi-tenant buildings, in
this instance the building has only two
tenant spaces, and the multi-tenant sign is
not a fitting signage solution. The proposed
signage has coordinated signage styles and
colors that are consistent with the building
design.
9.16 Signs that are out of character with those seen
historically and that would alter the historic
character of the street are inappropriate.
Animated signs are prohibited.
Any sign that visually overpowers the build-
ing or obscures significant architectural
features is inappropriate.
Murals that include signage may be consid-
ered appropriate and HARC may exclude
portions of the mural from the size calcula-
tions of Guideline 9.7.
Complies
Proposed signage is consistent with
adjacent building signage.
Page 102 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 6 of 8
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
Murals shall not be painted onto previously
unpainted brick or masonry of historical sig-
nificance.
9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that
of the building façade.
A simple, easy-to-read sign design is pre-
ferred.
Typefaces that are in keeping with those seen
in the area traditionally are encouraged.
Select letter styles and sizes that will be
compatible with the building front. Generally,
these are typefaces with serifs.
Avoid hard-to-read or overly intricate type-
face styles.
Painted wood and metal are appropriate
materials for signs. Their use is encouraged.
Unfinished materials, including untreated
wood, are discouraged because they are out of
character with the context of the Overlay
Districts.
• Plastic is not permitted, except for flush,
adhesive, professionally installed lettering.
Highly reflective materials that will be
difficult to read are inappropriate.
Painted signs on blank walls were
common historically and may be
considered.
Partially Complies
Proposed signage has acrylic elements for
illumination as well as aluminum elements
and will be professionally constructed and
installed.
9.19 Use colors for the sign that are compatible with
those of the building front.
Sign colors should be limited. In general, no
more than three colors should be used. For
these Guidelines, black and white are not
counted as colors.
HARC may consider different shades of a
color similar enough to count as one color in
the determination of the number of colors
being allowed.
Complies
Proposed signage has no more than three
colors and compliments the building façade.
Page 103 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 7 of 8
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
Signs with photo images, including multiple
colors, are appropriate on A -frame/ sandwich
board type signs only.
9.21 If internal illumination is used, it should be
designed to be subordinate to the overall building
composition.
• Internal illumination of an entire sign panel is
discouraged. If internal illumination is used, a
system that backlights only the sign text is
preferred.
Neon and other tubular illumination may be
considered. However, use neon in limited
amounts so it does not become visually
obtrusive.
Internal illumination of an awning is inap-
propriate.
Partially Complies
The proposed “halo” illumination style will
cast light against the building and backlight
the sign letters by outlining them, and the
pushthrough lighting of the letters on the
Watkins “Insurance Group” letters has a
similar effect to the “halo” lighting style in
which the outline of the letters is
illuminated, but through the letter edges.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed total area for flush mounted and
canopy signs is greater than the allowed
area per the width of the building façade.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
Property is not historic.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Complies or partially complies with the
applicable Design Guidelines .
Page 104 of 138
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020 -15-COA – 815 S. Main Street Page 8 of 8
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed signage is consistent with the
style and character of the building, as well
as its architectural features.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
New building was previously approved by
HARC.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The Downtown Overlay District has other
business signage with a similar illumination
style, and the size of the proposed signage
is not out of scale with the building façade.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Partially Complies
The proposed building signage size,
locations and illumination style partially
comply with the applicable Guidelines, but
are consistent with the building design and
with signage on adjacent buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 105 of 138
Location
2020-15-COA
Exhibit #1
W 8TH ST
W 9TH ST
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
E 9TH ST
E 8TH ST
0 10050
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 106 of 138
Page 107 of 138
Page 108 of 138
K Ö RK WINE BAR / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE A / BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
MAIN STREET ELEVATION
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"4 SECTION
Scale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"5
FACE VIEW
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"1 FACE VIEW
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"2
SIGN TYPE A
Qty 1 each
SCOPE:
Fabricate and install (1) of each channel letterr
set per specications below.
SPECIFICATIONS:
A) Face illuminated channel letters with 5"
returns and trim caps painted to match 3M
translucent Burgundy 3630-49.
B) Both sets have white acryilc faces; "wine bar"
to have translucent vinyl with 3M translucent
Burgundy vinyl; inset 1/2" from letter edges.
C) Bottom of letters are fastened to 3" x 3"
aluminum tube painted to match canopy.
D) Letter mount tube is welded to 3" x 5"
aluminum angle; angle is mechanically
fastened to canopy.
NOTES:
• Power supplies/enclosure located inside
building.
• Canopy survey needed prior to fabrication to
conrm proposed install method.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1.
0
0
A
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.3.20
Last Revision:
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10828AV1S1
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
PROJECT COLORS / FINISHES
3M trans
Burgundy
3630-49
White Color to
match
canopy
MONDAYTUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
CLOSED4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 8:00 PM
HOURS OF OPERATION
1/2" stroke
1/2" tube support
on/o switch
canopy
to primary
po
w
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
en
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Acrylic Face
LEDs
Input To Power
Aluminum Return
Trim Cap
5"
See DWG 5
2 ft - 0 in
1 ft - 1 in
3 in
6 ft - 0 in 9 ft - 9 in
3 in
5 in
3 in
Page 109 of 138
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2.
0
0
A
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
K Ö RK WINE BAR / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE A / BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.3.20
Last Revision:
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10828AV1S2
MAIN STREET SOUTH FACING
DAY NIGHTDAYNIGHT
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
CLOSED
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 8:00 PM
HOURS OF OPERATION
Renderings are used to show intent; actual scaling may vary.
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
CLOSED
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 8:00 PM
HOURS OF OPERATION
Page 110 of 138
K Ö RK WINE BAR / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE B / VINYL GRAPHICS
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 WINDOW GRAPHICS
Scale: ~1/2" = 1'-0"2
SIGN TYPE B
Qty 1
SCOPE:
Install (1) set of vinyl graphics
SPECIFICATIONS:
A) High performance white vinyl applied
directly to exterior glass.
Notes:
Graphics include logo and hours of operation
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1.
0
0
B
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.3.20
Last Revision:
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10828BV1S1
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
CLOSED
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 8:00 PM
HOURS OF OPERATION
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
CLOSED
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 8:00 PM
HOURS OF OPERATION
2 ft - 7 in
(assumed)
2 ft - 0 3/4 in
(assumed)
4 ft - 3 1/2 in (assumed)
7 ft - 4 in (assumed)
3 ft - 6 3/4 in
Page 111 of 138
COPY LAYOUT
Scale: NTS1
K Ö RK WINE BAR / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE B / VINYL GRAPHICS
SIGN TYPE B
Qty 1
SCOPE:
Install (1) set of vinyl graphics
SPECIFICATIONS:
A)High performance white vinyl applied
directly to exterior glass.
Notes:
Graphics include logo and hours of operation
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
0.0
0
B
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.3.20
Last Revision:
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10828BV1S2
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
1/2 in
10 1/4 in
EQ.EQ.
EQ.
1ft - 3/4 in
Page 112 of 138
WATKINS INSURANCE GROUP / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE A / BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
MAIN STREET ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"1
FACE VIEW
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"2
SECTION - CHANNEL LETTERS
Scale: NTS3 SECTION - PUSH THROUGH LETTERS
Scale: NTS4
SIGN TYPE A
Qty 2 (Main Street & South Facing)
SCOPE:
Fabricate and install (2) channel letter sets and
push through cabinets per specications below.
SPECIFICATIONS:
A) "WATKINS" - Illuminated reverse channel
letters with 3" returns; painted to match PMS
Cool Grey 2 C; stud mounted with 2"
projections. Back of letters to have clear lexan
for optimal illumination on brick.
B) "INSURANCE GROUP" - Illuminated reverse
aluminum cabinet with 3" returns; painted PMS
Cool Grey 2 C; stud mounted with 2"
projections. Back of cabinet to have white lexan.
Letters are 1/2" thick white acrylic push through
letters with .040 aluminum faces painted to
match 3M Burgundy 3630-49 with halo
illumination.
C) Round logo - lluminated reverse channel
with 3" returns; painted to match 3M
translucent burgundy; stud mounted with 2"
projections. Back of logo to have clear lexan for
optimal illumination on brick. Round .063
prenished white aluminum mounted directly
on brick.
NOTES:
• Power supplies/enclosure located inside
building.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1.
0
0
A
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.9.20
Last Revision: 2.24.20
Job#9210920
Dwg. #92J10920AV6S1
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
PROJECT COLORS / FINISHES
3M trans
Burgundy
3630-49
PMS Cool
Grey 2 C
White
po
w
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
en
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Clear Lexan
White LEDs
Approved Fasteners &
2" Aluminum sleeves
Drain Hole
Power Supply, Enclosure
& On/O Switch
Input To Power
Aluminum Return
3"2"3"2"
Aluminum Return
Routed Aluminum Face
(Non-illuminated)
Pushthrough Acrylic
with .060 aluminum
Clear Lexan
Approved Fasteners
Drain Hole
LEDs (color varies)po
w
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
en
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Power Supply, Enclosure
& On/O Switch
See DWG 3See DWG 3
See DWG 4
10 1/2 in
8 ft - 0 in
2 in
1 ft - 5 in
3 ft - 0 in 1 ft - 0 in
A
B
C
Page 113 of 138
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2.
0
0
A
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.9.20
Last Revision: 2.24.20
Job#92J10920
Dwg. #92J10920AV6S2
WATKINS INSURANCE GROUP / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE A / BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
DAY
Rendering used to show intent; actual scaling may vary.
NIGHT
Page 114 of 138
WATKINS INSURANCE GROUP / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE A / BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3.
0
0
A
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.9.20
Last Revision: 2.24.20
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10920AV6S3
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
MAIN STREET ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"1
Page 115 of 138
WATKINS INSURANCE GROUP / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE A / BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
4.
0
0
A
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.9.20
Last Revision: 2.24.20
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10920AV6S4
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
MONDAYTUESDAYWEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
CLOSED4:00 PM - 10:00 PM4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
4:00 PM - 10:00 PM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 12:00 AM
12:00 PM - 8:00 PM
HOURS OF OPERATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"1
Page 116 of 138
WATKINS INSURANCE GROUP / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE B / VINYL GRAPHICS
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: ~1/2" = 1'-0"2
SIGN TYPE B
Qty 1
SCOPE:
Install (1) set of vinyl graphics
SPECIFICATIONS:
A) High performance white vinyl applied
directly to exterior glass.
Notes:
Graphics include logo and hours of operation
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1.
0
0
B
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.7.20
Last Revision:
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10828BV1S1
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
2 ft - 7 in
(assumed)
2 ft - 0 3/4 in
(assumed)
4 ft - 3 1/2 in (assumed)
7 ft - 4 in (assumed)
8 in
7 1/4 in
Page 117 of 138
WATKINS INSURANCE GROUP / GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SIGN TYPE B / VINYL GRAPHICS
SIGN TYPE B
Qty 1
SCOPE:
Install (1) set of vinyl graphics
SPECIFICATIONS:
A) High performance white vinyl applied
directly to exterior glass.
Notes:
Graphics include logo and hours of operation
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
APPROVAL: I have reviewed and approved the sign details on this drawing for fabrication and installation.
CLIENT APPROVAL
LAND
[IF REQUIRED:]
LORD APPROVAL
THIS DOCUMENT IS OWNED BY, AND THE INFORMATION IN IT PROPRIETARY TO FACILITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURE AND/OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PROTECTED DESIGN 2017 BY FSGI. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY FSGI. / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2.
0
0
B
815 South Main Street,
suite 101,
Georgetown, Tx
Design Rep.
Albert Morales
Sales:
Bob Strobeck
Start Date: 1.7.20
Last Revision:
Job#9210828
Dwg. #92J10828BV1S2
LISTED
MEMBER
INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION
COPY LAYOUT
Scale: NTS1
1/2 in
11/4 in
33/4 in
7 1/4 in
EQ.EQ.
1ft 5 in
8 in
Page 118 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
2020-15-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
May 14, 2020
1Page 119 of 138
Item Under Consideration
2020-15-COA –The Watkins Building Signage
•Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved
Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines for the property located at 815 S.
Main Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 6B1, Block 52, Amending Plat
Lot 6, Block 52 City of Georgetown.
2Page 120 of 138
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable
guidelines
HPO:
•Master Sign Plan
•New signage, to include new signage that is consistent with an approved Master Sign
Plan
3Page 121 of 138
Item Under Consideration
4Page 122 of 138
Historic
Courthouse
5Page 123 of 138
Current Context
6Page 124 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
7Page 125 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
8Page 126 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
9Page 127 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
10Page 128 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
11Page 129 of 138
The Watkins Building Signage
12
*This sign no longer
included in request.
Page 130 of 138
Current Context
13Page 131 of 138
Current Context
14Page 132 of 138
Current Context
15Page 133 of 138
Recently Installed Illuminated Signs at Night
16Page 134 of 138
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Not Applicable
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.
Partially
Complies 17Page 135 of 138
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•No comments received
18Page 136 of 138
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
19Page 137 of 138
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
20Page 138 of 138