HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_07.26.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
July 26, 2018 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A The His to ric and Architec tural Review Commis s ion, ap p o inted by the Mayo r and the City Counc il, is
respons ible fo r hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , b y is s uing C ertific ates o f Appropriatenes s
based upo n the C ity Co uncil ad o p ted Do wntown Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff P res entation
Applic ant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwis e by the Commission.)
Q ues tio ns fro m Co mmis s io n to S taff and Ap p licant
Comments fro m Citizens *
Applic ant Res p o nse
Commis s ion Delib erative Pro ces s
Commis s ion Ac tion
* Tho s e who s peak mus t turn in a speaker fo rm, lo cated at the b ack of the ro o m, to the rec o rd ing
sec retary b efo re the item they wish to add res s begins. Each speaker will b e permitted to ad d res s the
Co mmis s ion one time only fo r a maximum o f three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration of the Minutes from the June 28, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary
C Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r a res id ential
reno vation and additio n fo r the p ro p erty lo c ated at 907 P ine Street, bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.45
ac . Outlot Divis ion C, Blo ck 5(PT) (COA-2018-008). Mad is o n Thomas , Downto wn His toric Planner
D Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r a res id ential
additio n for the property lo cated at 1263 S. Austin Ave., b earing the legal des c rip tion of .192 ac . Morrow
Ad d ition, Bloc k C (S/PT) (COA-2018-025). Mad is o n T homas, Do wnto wn His toric P lanner
E Public Hearing and pos s ible actio n on a req uest fo r a C ertific ate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s (COA) for the infill
develo p ment o f a two (2) s to ry commerc ial retail and offic e b uilding at 200 E. 8th St., b earing the legal
desc rip tio n o f 0.33 ac . Glas s coc k Additio n, Blo ck 9, Lo t 7 - 8 (COA-2018-029). - Mad is o n Thomas ,
Page 1 of 136
AICP, His toric and Do wntown Planner
F Public Hearing and possible actio n o n a reques t fo r a Certific ate o f Appropriatenes s for a Fence
Exception o f 7-feet from the 6-fo o t maximum fence height requirement to allo w a fence height of 13-feet
and a s etbac k exc eptio n of 2-feet 2-inches fro m the p res cribed 10-foot rear setbac k to allow a s etbac k of
7-feet 10-inc hes also per Unified Develo p ment Code (UDC) S ec tio n 8.07.040.B; fo r a res id ential additio n
for the p ro p erty loc ated at 908 E. University Ave , bearing the legal d es criptio n o f 0.80 ac . Snyder
Ad d ition, Bloc k 5 (E/PT), (COA-2018-031). Mad is o n T homas, Do wnto wn His toric P lanner
G Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential reno vatio n fo r the rep lacement of the exis ting wood s id ing with hardie s id ing loc ated at 1407 S.
Myrtle St., b earing the legal d es criptio n of 0.09 ac . Hughes S econd Add ition (P art Blk C Resub ), Lot 1.
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Do wntown Planner
H Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o n the proc es s and s tand ard s related to a C ertific ate o f Appropriateness
(Co A) for the reloc ation, remo val o r demo lition of a his toric struc ture. Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Historic
and Do wnto wn P lanner.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the June 28, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _HARC_07.28.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Terri Assendorf-Hyde; Lee Bain; Art Browner; Chair; Shawn Hood, Vice-
Chair; Karl Meixsell; Catherine Morales; Amanda Parr (alternate); and Lawrence Romero.
Absent: Kevin Roberts (Alternate)
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Glen Holcomb, Building Official; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner; and Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Consideration of the Minutes from the May 24, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Romero, second by Bain to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 7 – 0.
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: 1) A 2-
foot 6- inches setback modification for the existing residential structure to eliminate the existing
non-conforming situation per UDC Section 4.08.080.C.2; 2) A Building Height Exception of 2-
feet 6-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height requirement to allow a building height
of 17-feet 6-inches, at the prescribed 6-foot setback of the underlying zoning district per Unified
Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C; 3)Residential Renovation and 3) Residential
Addition, for the property located at 1227 Church Street, bearing the legal description of 0.2 ac.
Cody Addition, Block 1, Lot 16 (COA-2018-003). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the case and explained the application. She explained how it meets and does
not meet the criteria of the Design Guidelines. Commissioners did not have any questions.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the
hearing.
Motion by Romero, second by Meixsell to approve COA-2018-003 as submitted by the
applicant. Approved 7 – 0.
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: A
Building Height Exception of 3-feet 3-inches from the 15-foot maximum building height
requirement to allow a building height of 18-feet 3-inches, at the prescribed 10-foot rear setback
of the underlying zoning district per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 4.08.080.C; for
the property located at 501 S. Elm Street, bearing the legal description of 0.16 ac. Glasscock
Addition, Block 31, Lot 8 (COA-2018-009). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the case and explained that the project had been reviewed by HARC
previously and the commission asked them to come back with adjustments. Staff recommends
approval with the pitch of the roofline be lowered or the building be moved back three feet to
meet the setback requirements.
Page 4 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
J Bryant Boyd, speaking for the applicant, explained that the dormer has been moved back as
requested but the roofline is still not within the standards and therefore the height exception is
being requested. He feels the profile is much better and shallower than originally applied and
complies with the intent of the guidelines and commission direction.
Assendorf-Hyde asked if other changes had been made. No others were made. Hood asked if
they had considered moving the garage structure back three feet as suggested. Boyd stated it
would not work well for the applicant.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the
hearing.
Hood moves to approve COA-2018-009 as submitted (this time). Second by Romero.
Approved 7 – 0.
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
residential renovation of a front porch for the property located at 309 S. Main Street, bearing
the legal description of 0.17 ac. Whittle Addition, Block 3, Lot 2 (NW/PT) (COA-2018-011).
Thomas presented the application. The applicant is proposing to build a wooden porch over
the existing concrete porch which will accommodate a commercial use. Staff recommends
approval with the condition of retaining the original post columns.
The applicant explained the columns were rotten and they do not think it is safe to keep them.
Thomas suggests meeting the intent of the guidelines by replacing them with like kind posts.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the
hearing.
Motion by Hood, second by Morales to approve the application with the condition that the
columns be replaced with in-kind materials and style. Approved 7 – 0.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
Demolition of an approximate 1,150-sq.foot residential structure for the property located at 1411
College Street, bearing the legal description of 0.135 ac. Dimmit Addition, Block 97 (PT), (COA-
2018-016). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Nat Waggoner presented the case. He explained that the demolition subcommittee met and
does not recommend demolition of this structure. Robert Pandyer, the homeowner, talks about
his neighbors and how old town is not just old houses, but is a community. He asks to take this
house down to put a better home there that is more in character with the Dimmitt addition. He
gave a history of the additions and changes that were made to this house and how it is not
financially advisable to keep patching the house. He asks for approval to demolish and rebuild.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing.
Doris Curl, 1404 S. College, spoke for the demolition and asked for more information be
included in the packets to neighbors. She feels Mr. Pandyer’s plan is viable and intends to
support the application however, she would prefer to keep the front façade intact.
Lois Canfield, 1403 Ash St, spoke in favor of the demolition of the property.
Page 5 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
Pam Mitchell, 1017 S. College St, representing the Neighborhood Alliance and while she is
empathetic of the applicant, she lives in an old house and understands that there is a lot of extra
maintenance that goes into an old house. She is concerned about the precedent being set for
demolishing a house to turn it into something new and shiny. She asks the commission to
support the demolition subcommittee recommendation of denying the request.
William Harris, 502 E 19th Street, expresses concern for making the choice between losing the
good neighbor and losing a historical home.
Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth.
Waggoner explained to the commission the UDC Section 3.13.030 requires the commission to
make findings of fact when considering a request for demolition. He stated the Demolition
Subcommittee found that this application was not consistent with the findings for economic
hardship, as applied for. Hood asked for comments from Nelson in regard to comments from
the subcommittee. She explained that the city legal department advised that the maintenance
and upkeep of a home cannot be considered in findings of economic hardship. The lack of
maintenance cannot be considered in the criteria of demolition.
Commissioners discussed the difference between bringing a structure “up to Code” versus
bringing up to more livable conditions. There was a discussion of the difference between being
habitable and not being code compliant.
Romero explains that the burden is on a homeowner to care for the homes in old town and that
burden is to be taken when the home is purchased. The rules state that lack of maintenance or
no longer wanting the style of the historic structure is not a reason for demolition.
Motion by Hood to deny the demolition of COA-2018-016. Second by Meixsell. Demolition
denied 7 – 0.
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
residential renovation and addition for the property located at 501 E. 8th Street, bearing the
legal description of 0.21 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 36, Lot 5-8 (PTS) (COA-2018-021).
Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Thomas presented the case. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the roof on the
front façade remain unchanged.
Trent Jacobs, architect, spoke for the applicant. He explained the house is a low priority
structure and lacks historical significance. He explained that the home was owned by the
Grahams, who passed at 101 years old. He saw the house when it was theirs and wants to bring
this back to its significance by restoring some of the materials that were original to the house.
He explained that the addition to the back is to give height to the rest of the house, which has
seven foot ceilings. He discussed why he is suggesting the changes and reiterates the changes
will be sensitive to the historic nature of the house.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing and with speakers coming forth, closed the hearing.
Motion by Assendorf-Hyde to approve the request with the condition that the roof on the
front façade remain unchanged. Second by Romero. Approved 7-0.
Chair Browner called for a 15 minute recess.
Page 6 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
Meeting was reconvened.
G. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
1)Residential Demolition of a rear addition that is approximately 1,021 sf., 2) Residential
Renovation and 3) Residential Addition, for the property located at 511 S. Main Street bearing
the legal description of 0.33 ac Georgetown, City of, Block 26, Lot 5-6 (COA-2018-023). Madison
Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Nelson presented the case. She reiterated that the commission reviewed the concept of this
project and the commission gave comments that they had concerns about the effect on the
priority of the historic structure on the resources survey, how the new addition fits into the
neighborhood, the scale and impact is not consistent with the area, and that the fence wall was
too tall and shielded the front of the house. The current request is for demolition of the rear
addition, a new 4,681 sf addition, renovation of the siding, doors and windows, and wall
exceptions.
This structure is a 1922, high priority structure, in a Prairie Style architecture. Staff was able to
determine that the porches were not original to the structures and so the demolition of the
porch would not affect the priority status of the structure. Nelson reviewed the Guidelines for
demolition requirements. The recommendation of the subcommittee is to allow demolition of
the porch with the conditions that the applicant must salvage as many materials as possible and
document any history of those materials.
Nelson gave an overview of the new addition and called out Chapter 7 Design Guidelines for
adaptive re-use, addition and alterations. She explained that though the addition is set back
from Main Street, it is not set back from 6th Street and this is a corner lot. Staff finds that this
addition is not compatible with mass, scale, materials and character with the main building. It
does not comply with Section 7.9. Staff does not feel that the roof of the addition mimics the
character of the existing structure. Nelson reviewed the other renovation items.
Nelson reviewed the criteria staff used to review this project and how it complies or does not
comply. She made recommendations with the listed conditions.
Gary Wang, Architect for this project, speaks about using the intent of the law and
interpretations of the law and codes. He asks for the commission to consider the word
“compatible” and notes that this building is in area 2 and was a home, but is no longer a home
and should not be considered for that. He says the standards used for review are for residences,
not for commercial buildings. He says they have redesigned this structure many times and
hopes the commission will consider the changes made.
Bain asked about the demolition criteria. Nelson and Hood explained why they recommend
demotion of the back porch. Assendorf-Hyde asked how much the height was reduced. Wang
showed that it was 4 – 5 feet lower than the originally submitted drawings. Staff finds that the
proposed demolition to the rear addition of the historic structure is appropriate based on the
Design Guidelines and will not impact the priority rating, however the renovations to the
historic structure do not appear to be consistent with Design Guidelines Criteria.
The request to use metal for the roofing for the addition does not meet the Design Guidelines of
finding a material that is the same or similar to the original nor does it match the material of the
main structure. Staff recommends approval of the demolition of a portion of the rear of the
Page 7 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
structure, with the recommendation that a list of salvageable materials be composed. Staff
recommends approval of the canopy removal and the other requests and recommends the
following conditions:
1) Maintenance of the existing front door (UDC Criteria #3,#5)
2) Maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing (UDC Criteria #3,#5) wooden windows
3) Reduce the height of the addition to ensure it is not visible over the top of the historic
resource (UDC Criteria #6)
4) Use a low-slope, flat, or hipped roof for the proposed addition (UDC Criteria #6)
5) Set back the addition on the 6th Street elevation so the south elevation of the proposed
addition does not match or exceed the horizontal plane of the existing structure (UDC
Criteria #3,#5, #6)
If the request to make the proposed renovations to the existing structure, as reflected in the 2nd
set of designs, is approved by the Commission, staff requests an Archival Report be developed
for the High Priority historic structure.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing.
Pam Mitchell, 1017 S College Street, made points that she does not agree with Wang about the
intent of the law being met. She still feels that this addition is too large and does not take into
consideration the size and scale and what is appropriate for the neighborhood. She asks for
denial of this application.
Larry Brundidge, 908 Pine Street, states he feels this addition is not compatible with the
neighborhood. He feels the structure does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines and
should be denied.
Winnanne Ewing, 105 5th Street, lives one block away and does not feel this addition will match
the neighborhood. She feels this does not comply with the criteria and feels there are too many
discrepancies between the proposed building and the Design Guidelines.
Charlotte Richards, 510 S. Church Street, feels this is different than any of the other applications
(on the agenda) and this does not protect the historical nature of this structure. She says she has
lost faith in the commission if they approve this. The building and windows will look directly
into their back yard.
Ed Richards, 510 S. Church Street, explains that this building will encroach on their privacy and
is concerned about traffic that will be infringing on their neighborhood, even though a shuttle
will be provided. The applicant has agreed to put up an 8 foot fence on the east side of the
property, but that will not block the large building and will completely hide the sunsets to his
back yard.
Larry Olsen, 300 E 9th Street, with an additional 3 minutes from Vicki Stubbington. Mr. Olsen
showed examples of historic structures with additions that are approved through historic
standards and compares the new design to those. He showed a rendering of the house with the
addition and shows the impact of it. He spoke to the front fence height being a full wall that
will hide the historic building. He feels this will set a precedent for future infill structures and
Page 8 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
change the character of Old Town. He discussed the north wall of the historic structure. He
feels the removal of the wall will change the integrity of the high priority structure.
Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth. Browner asked
that the commissioners consider this application in four pieces to allow for deliberation of each.
Motion by Romero to approve the COA 2018-023 demolition as presented with the
recommendation that a list of salvageable materials be composed as presented by staff.
Second by Hood. Vote 3 – 4. Romero, Browner, and Hood for approval. Bain, Assendorf-
Hyde, Morales and Meixsell opposed. Motion fails.
Nelson asked for a brief recess to review the process going forward. Chair Browner asked for a
10 minute recess for review of procedures. Reconvened.
Frost explained the concern, as indicated by the City Attorney, of the previous motion and
asked for reconsideration.
Motion by Morales, second by Assendorf-Hyde to reconsider the COA-2018-023 application.
Approved 7 – 0.
Commissioners deliberated the proposal. Nelson explains that we need time to further clarify
the process with legal staff.
Chair Browner declared another 15 minute recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
Nelson explained that any motion made must include the four portions of the application, and
that each portion of the application needs to have discussion and deliberation.
Browner explained that there seemed to be consensus
Bain started the discussion by declaring that the addition was too large, too tall for the
neighborhood and was out of scale of the adjacent properties. Maxseil stated he was still in
opposition to the demolition of the historic structure and would not be able to support the
addition.
Hood would like to see the removal from the application of the second story windows, change
of the front door, the awning material and the change of the historic windows. Removal of the
aluminum canopies is acceptable. Bain concurs. Commissioners discuss retaining the windows,
the door and that they allowed the replacement of the south side windows. Hood was amenable
to the replacement of the front door. The windows on the south side can be replaced with a
more compatible looking window, scale and type as recommended
The wall, 7 foot structure with 2 feet transparency was submitted with the portion of the front
section more open to reveal the front of the house and carport. Commissioners debated the
issue. There was concern about the “wall” on Main Street. The general consensus of the
addition is that it is too large, even with the breakup of materials. They asked for the height to
be reduced and the applicant complied, but the commissioners expressed that it was not
enough to be subservient to the original structure as they had requested. Hood expressed that
the solution presented for the wall is acceptable to him. Morales did not feel it was compatible
of the streetscapes in this area and was still too tall across the front. They were not concerned
with the fence wall on the north and east side.
Page 9 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 7 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
The general consensus of the addition was that the applicant had reduced the height but it was
still too large and was not subservient to the original structure.
There was no consensus on the demolition of the porch addition.
Motion by Meixsell to deny the entire application of COA-2018-023, clarified by Browner,
second by Morales. Browner reiterated from the discussion that the application does not
comply with Design Guidelines 7.1, 7.2, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, and 8.25, and not in compliance
with 6.2, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15 and 6.20 agreeing with the staff report. Vote: Approved 6 – 1 (Romero
opposed.)
H. Conceptual Review for a proposed infill development for the property located at the 200 E. 8th
Street bearing the legal description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7-8 (COA-2018-
029). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
Waggoner introduced the project and the changes that have been made from the previous
versions. The four and three story building is now proposed as a two story building with on-
site surface level parking. Waggoner gave examples of surrounding buildings for explaining
the context. The scale of the materials, as well as the building, is much more in character of the
neighborhood. They have added awnings to the project over the sidewalks for the human scale
elements. The applicant has added modulation at the pedestrian level. They have changed the
full glass storefronts to be raised two feet from ground level to mimic the buildings in Area 1.
Staff gave examples of how the changed application has met the concerns that the commission
had voiced previously.
Commissioners discussed. Hood likes the new modulation, the setback, the window sizes, only
asks for including additional landscaping. He also does not like the kick plate idea, suggests a
different material under the glass. He likes the brick lines, but is concerned about the modern
material. He likes the second floor window variations to show the modulations. H thinks the
stone choice will be critical. He suggests limiting the materials to two brick styles, possibly
omitting the stone.
Assendorf-Hyde appreciates the two-story building and the scale is now appropriate. The brick
buildings in the area have a more linear look, cleaner lines, the stone may take away from the
look of the building. Commissioners did not like the stucco, Readyhough said he would change
that.
They discussed the east side elevation and suggested adding some form of vertical articulation.
The suggestion was to introduce the stone to the middle and south end. Morales applauds
making this more in concert with the downtown area. She would like to see more landscaping
also.
Waggoner provided guidelines 13.4, stepping down the building to smaller structures, and
asked the commission if they felt they had met this. Hood says the awning has allowed the
pedestrian scale and 13.6 calls for modulation, which they have now added. 13.12 encourages
pedestrian activity and landscaping with kick plates and commercial storefronts. Hood
suggests varying the windows and kick plate materials.
Adjournment
Waggoner reported that staff will bring a list of training items back at the next meeting.
Commented [NW1]: Listening to the
minutes and referring to my notes I did
not hear or recall 4.2, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11
or 8.26
Page 10 of 136
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 8 of 8
Meeting: June 28, 2018
Motion to adjourn by Meixsell, second by Morales. Meeting adjourned at 10:18 pm.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 11 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s for a residential
renovation and ad d ition for the property lo cated at 907 Pine S treet, b earing the legal desc rip tion of 0.45 ac .
Outlo t Divis ion C , Blo ck 5(PT) (COA-2018-008). Mad is o n Thomas, Do wnto wn His toric P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The applic ant is proposing a res idential reno vatio n with c hanges to the exis ting his toric struc ture, including
an ad d ition and a bric k p atio. They will b e als o be ad d ing a garage and ac ces s o ry b uilding.
HP O Review:
-Change in paint c o lo r
-Roofing material (will reflec t metal, but will remain s hingle)
-Non-s treet fac ing facades
-Garage and ac c es s ory build ing
-Fence
HARC Review:
-Creatio n o f a s treet facing facade
- Deck addition
The ap p lic ant is propo s ing an addition to the north faç ad e o f the ho me that will c reate a new, wes t fac ing
s treet faç ad e. The new ad d ition will be s etb ac k approximately 35-feet fro m the fro nt faç ad e of the main
histo ric s tructure. A p o rtion of this ad d ition will includ e a new b rick p atio cons tructed of his to ric bric ks .
The ap p licant p ro p o s es to use carved s to ne steps on the north side to acc es s the new p o rch and a 16-inc h
s eat wall surro unding the p atio. The additio n will also inc lude a 312 sq. ft. s c reened p o rc h with a shed
ro o f utilizing roll ro o fing material. Behind the s creened p orc h the applic ant proposes a 530 s q . ft ad d itio n
composed of s hip lap hard ie plank and a galvalume metal ro o f.
Findings:
Staff finds that the propos ed residential additio n meets the UDC and Des ign Guid elines related to height,
mas s ing, s cale and materials and is compatible with the exis ting histo ric s truc ture. T he p ro p o s ed loc ation at
the s outh end o f the north faç ade is s etbac k fro m the his toric s truc ture eno ugh to no t d eter fro m the
o riginal faç ade o f the his to ric s tructure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 12 of 136
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 & 4- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 5- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 6- National Regis ter Documentation Exhibit
Exhibit 7- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 13 of 136
EL
M
ST
E 7 TH ST
A
SH
ST
S
M
A
IN
S
T
PI
N
E
ST
E 1 3T H S T
E 5 TH ST
E 4 TH ST
MAP
LE
ST
E U N I V ERS I T Y AV E
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
E 6 TH ST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
E 1 0T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
SO U T H W ESTERNBLVD
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
VI
N
E
ST
E 1 4T H S T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E O
LI
VE
S
T
H
O
LLY
ST
E 8 T H S T
LA
U
R
E
L S
T
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
SO U LE D R
S E R V I C E R D
S M I T H C R E E K R D
J
A
M
E
S
S
T
E RUTERSVIL
L
E
D
R
E 9 T H S T
W 9T H ST
PIRA T E D R
W 11TH ST
W 8T H S T
M C K ENZIE DR
W 10T H S T
W 7T H S T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 TH S T
M C C O Y P L
E 9 TH 1/2 S T
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E 9 T H S T
E 1 4 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 1 4 T H S T
PI
N
E
ST
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 1 1 T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
E 1 3 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 9 TH ST
COA-2018-008Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Feet
Page 14 of 136
Planning and Development Department
City of Georgetown, TX
LETTER OF INTENT DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO:
907 S PINE STREET, GEORGETOWN, TX 78626
This application for HARC consideration is for proposed improvements and additions to the existing historic
home located at 907 S Pine Street. Though a definitive record of the age of the structure has not been found,
word of mouth suggests that it was constructed circa 1895. It is "Single Wall Construction" on a pier and beam
foundation. The house is a modified "L" floor plan, and Victorian style architecture. It was listed on the
National Register of Historic Structures in 1985. The house is also designated as a high priority structure by the
City of Georgetown.
1. The primary, proposed addition is slated the northeast corner of the existing house; and its use is for a
master bedroom suite and laundry room. Attached to the proposed master bedroom and the existing kitchen
is a proposed screened‐in porch with a fireplace. Attached to the screened‐in porch is an open entertaining
deck.
2. The secondary proposed addition is for a small bathroom at the southwest corner of the existing house and
will be a small Jack‐and‐Jill, full bathroom.
3. One window on the south side is proposed to be removed and replaced with a modular fireplace.
4. A detached garage with an office/apartment above is planned for the rear of the property. The structure is
proposed to be a two car garage with covered ground storage; with a 602 s.f. office/apartment above and a
covered deck above the storage area. We are fully cognizant that the garage apartment cannot be used as full
time living quarters. The primary use will be for a home office, and the secondary use will be for visiting family
to have private space.
Specifically, the changes to 907 S Pine Street are:
A. Changes to the existing house:
1. An addition of a 655 SF master bedroom suite, laundry room and hallway with HVAC added on to the
existing house.
2. An addition of a 69 SF full bathroom added to the southeast corner of the existing house and with HVAC.
3. An addition of a 312 SF screened‐in porch/sunroom attached to the north side of the existing house, that
includes a fireplace and chimney constructed of used brick with field stone accent.
4. An addition of a 308 SF wood deck on the north side of the house with a cedar frame guardrail with cattle
panel mesh. Re‐purposed carved stone piers, laid flat and stacked for steps.
5. A 6' cedar semi‐privacy fence on the west side of the wood deck. Shadow‐box style.
6. A re‐purposed door added from the living room to the outdoor wood deck. North side.
7. Rear door location relocated and replaced with a higher quality exterior fiberglass door.
8. A deck added at the back door with wood steps to the ground. A cedar guardrail with cattle panel mesh that
matches the side deck will surround elevated back deck.
9. A suspended awning over the back deck and stairs will protrude from the laundry room exterior wall to
protect from inclement weather.
Page 15 of 136
10. The exterior door from an existing bedroom on the south side of the house onto the side porch will be
removed and closed in with existing siding from the east side that will be removed for construction of the
bathroom.
11. One window will be removed on the south exterior wall and replaced with a modular fireplace. Below the
porch roof, the firebox will be surrounded (sided) by re‐purposed corrugated tin roofing. Above the roof, the
chimney will be a simple, double walled flue pipe.
12. The existing house and proposed addition will be re‐roofed with 5V‐crimp galvalume metal, (unpainted) on
roofs over 3:12 pitch. The existing and proposed roofs that are 3:12 and less in pitch will not be re‐roofed and
proposed 3:12 or less roofs will be roofed with composed roll roofing like currently exists.
13. The front porch has considerable rot, and deck boards will be replaced and repainted.
14. Remove the rain gutter in front of the front door on the porch roof and replace with simple diverter.
15. The existing house will have the foundation leveled and repaired with sonitube piers and spread footings.
Some substandard beams will be replaced. The proposed additions will be a continuation of the same pier and
beam construction. The skirt around the entire house, new and existing, will be unpainted stucco. The existing
carved stone piers will be repurposed for steps to the side deck, and used as accents in the landscape plan.
B. Site related changes:
1. Overhead power will be relocated. The proposed addition is in the current location of the electric meter and
panel. The service from the power pole will be buried underground. Underground power will also be extended
to the garage and office.
2. The front walk, that is in considerable disrepair, will be removed and replaced with concrete.
3. The existing gravel parking spots will be paved and extended to the rear of the property where the garage is
proposed.
4. A concrete walkway will be poured from the driveway (back‐up pad) to the back entry deck and door.
5. If permissible by the City, we would replace the existing clay pipe sewer line with PVC pipe, from side
property line to side property line. This will eliminate root penetrations into the clay pipe joints, and eliminate
future digging in our back yard.
C. Garage & Garage Apartment:
1. A two Car Garage is proposed with cedar look wood doors.
2. An home office / visitor's apartment is proposed above.
3. The west facade, facing the house will be stucco.
4. A mini‐roof will shade the garage doors and add weather protection.
5. The dormers will have Hardi‐siding on the face and sides, Hardi Soffit, and Hardi facia boards and painted.
6. A pedestrian door will be located on the northwest corner of the garage and will be a painted metal exterior
door. Above the door will be a curved canopy for weather protection, and a light will provide illumination for
access.
7. A covered deck is proposed on the south side. All exposed trusses, posts, and railings will be painted. A
cattle panel mesh is proposed to fill much of the guard rail. A ceiling fan is proposed above the deck.
8. Below the deck, will be graveled for outdoor storage.
9. The sides and rear of the structure will be beaded Hardi‐plank, except for the stucco in front that will also
wrap the corner by the pedestrian access door.
Page 16 of 136
10. No windows will face north. The windows for natural light into the garage will be awning windows.
Windows to the west will be casement windows as labeled and low‐e. See attached specs. Three windows on
the east side will be casement windows and the large windows on the south side will be fixed glass and also
low‐e. Windows on the south side will be double‐hung operable windows. The exterior door will be a solid
fiberglass door and painted.
11.We will be requesting a variance to the required 15' height setback from the rear property line (but not the
10' rear setback line), since the adjacent use is rail road tracks. We will be requesting a setback of 10'‐6".
CONCLUSION
As mentioned previously, the house is single wall construction. Therefore the exterior walls have no insulation
and no cavity in which to install insulation. Because of the historic nature of that construction technique is
important for us to preserve, the ability to heat and cool the original structure will be difficult. All new
construction will be up to UDC requirements.
My wife and I submitted a vastly different plan to the Planning Department for Pre‐application. Our original
plan was to build behind the original house. However, a City of Georgetown sewer line runs approximately 20'
off the back wall of the house. Real Estate Services told us later after our pre‐application meeting, that even
though there was not a surveyed easement for the sewer line, there was a prescriptive easement and we could
not build over the line. The two remaining options are to either re‐route the sewer line for ourselves and the
two neighbors up stream of us and having to bore under Pine Street and 9‐1/2 Street; or build to the north,
since the side yard is quite wide. The cost to re‐route the sewer line is prohibitive, and would take quite a bit of
cooperation from and coordination with my neighbors for us to dig up their yards to relocate the sewer line;
then extend their individual service lines to the new main line and then replace their landscaping to their
satisfaction.
The following application is for a master bedroom suite and laundry room addition to the north of the existing
house, adding a small bathroom on the southeast corner, and adding a detached garage with office/apartment
above.
Regards,
Robert B Burns
1905 S Church St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 17 of 136
ADHERENCE TO UDC / DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. Respect the historic design character of the building.
The original house will be modified very minimally. The front facade will not change during this
renovation except for the removal of a rain gutter over the front door.
In this application, the proposed additions to the existing historic structure impact the structure
very minimally. A master bedroom suite will be attached to the back corner of the house by way
of a hallway. The current exterior wall will become an interior wall of the hallway. A proposed
screened in porch also will use the existing exterior wall as an interior wall. The proposed master
bedroom suite will be attached in an area of the home that has seen changes over the years and
not as pristine as the original "L" shape.
The bathroom addition also connects to a newer renovation in the back of the house. The siding
will be removed but reused to fill in a door that will be removed.
The two additions will have the same eve line and same roof height and pitch. The scale of the
addition is in keeping with the scale of the existing house. The materials will be similar, but
noticeably different than the original, to respect the historic aspects of the original house. The
painting of the original house and the additions will be color compatible, but the intent is to
have the addition recede in importance and it will be painted a shade darker. An entertaining
deck is proposed on the north side of the house and a cedar, shadow‐box fence will provide
some privacy, but also further focus attention on the existing house. Currently, the neighbors to
the north have a shadow‐box fence.
2. Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building.
The house has always been residential and will remain residential.
3. Protect and maintain significant features and stylistic elements.
In recent research, it appears that the gingerbread along the front porch is not authentic and
was not constructed properly. However, until definitive photos can be found that show the
house between 1921 and 1945 when J N Stone and wife Mary L Stone owned the property (or
prior), then we will not make any changes to the current facade. When the house was listed on
the National Register in 1985, the photo (attached) showed that it had more of a farm house
look. Mr. McCarthy, the previous owner, added the gingerbread trims sometime between 2003
and 2015.
Page 18 of 136
Page 19 of 136
4. Preserve key, character‐defining features of the property.
The ca. 1895 house and a very large Deodar Cedar are the two character defining elements of
this property and other than painting, there will be minimal visual change.
5. Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired.
Several imbricated shingles have split due to house settling. The cracks can be filled prior to
painting and will not need replacing.
Other than deteriorated front porch boards, nothing will be replaced with new or modern
materials. The south facing exterior door into a bedroom is planned for removal however is
located behind the octagonal front room and not visible from Pine Street. The opening will be
filled with siding from the east side of the house that will be removed with the planned addition
of a bathroom located in the southeast corner of the house.
A window facing southeast in the octagonal room will be removed and replaced with a modular
fireplace. The fire box will be wrapped with repurposed corrugated tin. Approximately, 12" of
the side of the tin will be visible from the street. A flue pipe will extend through the porch roof
and will be visible from Pine Street.
Page 20 of 136
PROJECT INFORMATION
ZONING
Residential Single Family (RS)
Old Town Overlay District
EXISTING & PROPOSED USE Single Family
Page 21 of 136
Page 22 of 136
Page 23 of 136
Page 24 of 136
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:907 S Pine St 2016 Survey ID:124431
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R044866Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 5/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1895
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:1110
ID:722
*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:124431 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.635928 Longitude -97.669685
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: East
Page 25 of 136
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:907 S Pine St 2016 Survey ID:124431
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 26 of 136
NPS Form 10.900-a
CW2)
OMB No. 1024-0018
Expires 10-31-87
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register off Historic Places
Inventory—Nomination Form
Continuation sheet Item numtjer all Page ^7
1. County
City/Rural.
2 Name
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
Williamson
Georgetown
WM
GE
Address 907 Pine
5. USGS Quad No 3097-313
UTM Sfif^tr^r 627-3389
6. Date: Factual
7. Architect/Builder
Site No. 722. Photo
43
Est. 1895
Contractor
3. Owner
Address
J. Alton Bauerle 8. Style/Type vernacular; L plan with integral rear
1800 W. 6th. Austin. Texas 7870^ Original Ike residential ell
4. Block/Lot Div C pt Outlot 5 .32 acre Present Use residential
10 Description One-story wood-frame dwelling with modified L plan; exterior walls %ri.th
weatherboard siding; hip roof with composition shingles; front elevation faces
west; wood-sash double-hung windows with 4/4 lights; single-door entrance;
four-bay porch with shed roof across south and west elevations; box supports.
good 11. Present Condition
12 Significance Primary area of significance architecture. An excellent example of an
L-plan house with a rounded front-bay projection. A common house type in
Georgetown during the late nineteenth century but rare today. Similar to house
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe) residential neighborhood
east of CBD; mostly turn-of-the-century dwellings nearby.
14. Bibliography Sanborn Maps 15. Informant.
16 Recorder A. Taylor/HHM Date July 1984
TNRIS No.
NR:
other
• RTHL
• Individual
• Thennatic
NR File Name
DESIGNATIONS
Old THC Code
• HABS (no) TEX
• Historic District
• Multiple-Resource
B&W 4x5s
35mm Negs
YEAR DRWR
PHOTO DATA
Slides.
ROLL FRME ROLL FRME
11 .31 to
30 23 to 30
to
CONTINUATION PAGE No. _2_of
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM-TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev.8-82)
1. County Williamson
City/Rural.
2. Name
Georgetovm
_MM-5. USGS Quad No 3007-313
UTM R. 14/627520/3389800
Acreage Tjess than one acre
Site No. 722
#10. Description (cont'd): Other noteworthy features include semicircular bay
with conical roof projects at northwest corner; imbricated shingle siding;
porch roof supported by posts and simple jigsawn brackets; south end of house
with angled corners and windows; main entrance with carved wood detailing and
etched-glass light.
#12. Significance; at 1202 E. 15th (Site 252).
Page 27 of 136
NPS Form 10-9001
CM2I
OMB No. lU24-uuia
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register off Historic Places
inventory—Nomination Form
Expires 10-31 -87
Hf>^ turn aOf
Continuation sheet Item numtter Page
Multiple Resource Area
Thematic Group
Name Georgetown MRA
State Williamson County, TEXAS
Nomination/Type of Review
11. Easley, S- A., House ;.ei»%«<r
12. Daughtrey, E. M., House WI ^,
Date/Signature
Keeper
Attest
Attest
13. First Methodist Church SubsLcintivo B«Tle« Keepe
Attest
14. Fowler, D.D., House Substantiia B«7let Keeper
Attest
15. Grace Episcopal Church $ab&l;&atlX£4 iiiLSAi^- Keep^V^^^^y^y7\
16. Harris, E.M., House
17. Harrell, Moees, House
_ '"18. House at 214 W. University
re».%i T« -UN
Attest
Attest
Attest
fiiTlev Keeper
Attest 7/^7^
19. House at 907 Pine / Entered im Ita "^KeepeT
Attest
20. House at 801 West s.,.r., i.ti» Weeper CX^U^^W^^r-
Ifatwl Attest
Page 28 of 136
WASO Form -177
("R" June 1984)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET
House atj07 Pine (Georgetown MRA)
WilUamson County
TEXAS
Q resubmission
n nomination by person or local government
n owner objection
(m appeal
Substantive Review: CH sample • request [Zl appeal
7 Working No.
Fed. Reg. Date: _
Date Due: //^/f^ -'^/^c./f^
Action:
.RETURN.
REJECT.
Federal Agency:
n NR decision
Reviewer's comments:
Recom./Criteria.
Reviewer
Discipline
Date
see continuation sheet
Nomination returned for: .technical corrections cited below
.substantive reasons discussed t)elow
1. Name
Z Location
3. Classification
Category Ownership
Public Acquisition
Status
Accessible
Present Use
4. Owner of Property
5. Location of Legal Description
6. Representation in Existing Surveys
Has this property been determined eligible? • yes • no
7. Description
Condition
excellent
CH good
CD fair
I I deteriorated
CH ruint
I I unexposed
Check one
unaltered
altered
Describe the present and original (if knovm) physical appearance
CD summary paragraph
CH completeness
Cn clarity
I I alterations/integrity
• dates
I I boundary selection
Check one
• original site
moved date.
Page 29 of 136
8. Significance
Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below
Specific dates Builder/Architect
Statement of Significance (in one paragraph)
CD summary paragraph
CH completeness
CH clarity
CH applicable criteria
CH justification of areas checked
CH relating significance to the resource
CH context
CH relationship of integrity to significance
CH justification of exception
CH other
9. Major Bibliographical References
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of nominated property
Quadrangle name
UTM References
Verbal tx)undary description and Justification
11. Form Prepared By
12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification
The evaluated significance of this property within the state is:
national state local
State Historic Preservation Officer signature
title date
13. Other
CH Maps
CH Photographs
• other
Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to.
Signed Date Phone:
GPO 91 8-450
Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet
Page 30 of 136
Page 31 of 136
Page 32 of 136
Please refer to the map in the
Multiple Property Cover Sheet
for this property
Multiple Property Cover Sheet Reference Number: 64000843
Page 33 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: 7/26/2018
File Number: COA-2018-008
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential
renovation and addition for the property located at 907 Pine Street, bearing the legal description of 0.45
ac. Outlot Division C, Block 5(PT) (COA-2018-008). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : 907 S. Pine Street: Renovation and Addition
Applicant: Robert Burns
Property Owner: Robert & Linda Burns
Property Address: 907 S. Pine, Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.45 ac. Outlot Division C, Block 5 (PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1895
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
2016 - High
National Register Designation: Yes
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing a residential renovation with changes to the existing historic structure,
including an addition and a brick patio. They will be also be adding a garage and accessory building.
HPO Review:
-Change in paint color
-Roofing material (will reflect metal, but will remain shingle)
-Non-street facing facades
-Garage and accessory building
-Fence
HARC Review:
-Creation of a street facing facade
- Deck addition
Page 34 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 2 of 9
The applicant is proposing an addition to the north façade of the home that will create a new, west facing
street façade. The new addition will be setback approximately 35-feet from the front façade of the main
historic structure. A portion of this addition will include a new brick patio constructed of historic bricks.
The applicant proposes to use carved stone steps on the north side to access the new porch and a 16-inch
seat wall surrounding the patio. The addition will also include a 312 sq. ft. screened porch with a shed
roof utilizing roll roofing material. Behind the screened porch the applicant proposes a 530 sq. ft addition
composed of ship lap hardie plank and a galvalume metal roof.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed addition (including the screened porch) is approximately 1,100s.f. The existing structure
is approximately 1,400 s.f. The addition is smaller than the existing structure and has been placed in an
appropriate location to minimize its visual impacts. The roofline on the new addition will match the
roofline on the existing historic structure to create a seamless transition. The new addition will also
have hardie siding to stay consistent with the material on the historic structure, but use the design of
the screened porch, and brick deck to help differentiate it from the original structure.
The Design Guidelines, page 69, provide guidance for additions:
Many buildings have experienced additions over time, as need for additional space occurred,
particularly with a change in use. An historic addition typically was subordinate in scale and character
to the main building. The height of the addition was usually positioned below that of the main
structure and it was often located to the side or rear, such that the primary facade remained dominate.
An addition was often constructed of materials that were similar to those in use historically. In some
cases, owners simply added on to an existing roof, creating more usable space without increasing the
footprint of the structure. This tradition of adding on to buildings is anticipated to continue. It is
important, however, that new additions be designed in such a manner that they maintain the character
of the primary structure. The compatibility of proposed additions with historic buildings will be
reviewed in terms of the mass, the scale, the materials, the color, the roof form, and the proportion and
spacing of windows and doors. Additions that echo the style of the original structure and additions
that introduce compatible contemporary design could be acceptable.
An addition to a structure can radically change its perceived scale and character if inappropriately
designed. When planning an addition, consider the effect the addition will have on the building itself.
When creating an addition, keep the size of the addition small, in relation to the main structure. If an
addition must be larger, it should be set apart from the main structure and connected with a smaller
linking element. A design for a new addition that would create an appearance inconsistent with the
character of the building, especially an historic one, is discouraged. One also should consider the effect
the addition may have on the character of a street or neighborhood, as seen from the public right-of-
way. For example, a side addition may change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the
block. Locating the addition to the rear could be a better solution in such a case.
Page 35 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 3 of 9
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
6.27 The detailing of decks and exterior stairs should be compatible
with the style and period of the structure.
• The color and material of decks and stairs should complement
the main structure.
New decks should be minimally visible from the street and
should have no major impact on the original building.
Complies
The deck is visible from the
street, but is being built on
the addition, not on the
front façade of the historic
structure. Therefore the use
of different but compatible
materials is appropriate to
show the difference
between this new deck and
the existing historic porch.
It is also set back
approximately 35 ft. from
the front façade of the
historic structure.
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS &
ALTERATIONS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the
design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the
building are inappropriate.
Complies
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority
Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character
retained.
Due to special circumstances, a structure’s historic priority may
change over time (because a reduced number of similar style
structures in stable condition still exist within the district or
city, or if unknown historic information becomes available that
adds significance).
Complies
The proposed addition is
located on the north and
rear façade of the historic
structure in order to
preserve the historic
character of the home.
7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be
clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that
have occurred to the building.
Complies
The new addition is
substantially setback from
the front façade of the
historic structure. The
Page 36 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 4 of 9
An addition should be made distinguishable from the original
building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the
original can be interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new
structures may help to define an addition.
The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should
match that of the original building, in appearance, detail, and
material.
Even applying a new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help define
the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service.
addition will have hardie,
using a new material, but
the same type of exterior
wall treatment. The front
façade of the addition will
be a screened porch and
deck, differentiating it from
the exposed wooden porch
on the historic home.
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining
façade will allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate,
and an addition should be to the rear of the building, when
feasible.
Complies
The addition has been
located at a 35-foot setback
from the front façade of the
original home, the addition
is located towards the rear
of the home, but due to the
existing sewer line that runs
diagonally behind the
originally home, a structure
cannot be placed to the rear
of the existing home.
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural
details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented earlier in this chapter.
Complies
The integrity of the
architectural details of the
historic home are
preserved.
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character
with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a
residential addition would be significantly larger than
the original building, one option is to separate it from
the primary building, when feasible, and then link it
with a smaller connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to prevent it
from competing with the primary facade.
Complies
The existing structure is
approx. 1,400 s.f. of living
area and the proposed
addition on the structure is
approx. 800 s.f. of living
area. The new addition is
smaller than the existing
home, and will be placed on
the north façade, set back
from the original structure.
Page 37 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 5 of 9
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a
full second floor.
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that of
the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for
residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for commercial
buildings in the downtown area.
Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original
roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original
roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the original
building.
Complies
The proposed roofline
mirrors the roofline of the
existing structure and
creates a balanced and
cohesive roof form.
CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback.
Align the new non-residential building front at a setback that
is in context with the area properties.
New residential buildings should meet the minimum front
setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased setback if
the block has historically developed with an extended setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to the front facing
façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that aligns
with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be
maintained and respected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining and
protecting historic building materials.
Complies
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret the
design character of the original building or period of
significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of the
building are inappropriate.
Complies
Page 38 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 6 of 9
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character
with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in mass, scale, and
form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main
structure.
An addition to the front of a building is usually inappropriate.
Complies
The existing structure is
approx. 1,400 s.f. of living
area and the proposed
addition on the structure is
approx. 800 s.f. of living
area. The new addition is
smaller than the existing
home, and will be placed on
the north façade, set back
from the original structure.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be
clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes
that have occurred to the building.
An addition should be distinguishable from the original
building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the
original can be interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and new
structures may help to define an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help
define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service.
Complies
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-defining
façade will allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
The addition has been
located at a 35-foot setback
from the front façade of the
original home, the addition
is located towards the rear
of the home, but due to the
existing sewer line that runs
diagonally behind the
originally home, a structure
cannot be placed to the rear
of the existing home.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented in this document.
Complies
Page 39 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 7 of 9
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character
with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass, scale,
and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the
main structure.
− While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential
addition would be significantly larger than the original
building, one option is to separate it from the primary
building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure. N/A
• An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from
competing with the primary façade.
− Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces before
changing the scale of the building by adding a full second
floor. N/A
Partially Complies
The existing structure is
approx. 1,400 s.f. of living
area and the proposed
addition on the structure is
approx. 800 s.f. of living
area. The new addition is
smaller than the existing
home, and will be placed on
the north façade, set back
from the original structure.
Due to an existing water
line, expansion at the rear
of the existing structure is
very limited. The new
façade will be a deck and
screened in porch, a design
that could be simpler and
more conspicuous, but is
not visually impactful
either.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-
defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of the building, when
feasible.
Complies
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the
primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for
residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for
commercial buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
Complies
14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be
protected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting
architectural features.
Complies
14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
Complies
14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be
preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when
additions are proposed.
Complies
The proposed addition will
be off of a less prominent
Page 40 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 8 of 9
See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving
individual building elements.
façade and there are no
proposed changes to the
street-facing facades of the
historic structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed residential addition meets the UDC and Design Guidelines related to height,
massing, scale and materials and is compatible with the existing historic structure. The proposed location
at the south end of the north façade is setback from the historic structure enough to not deter from the
original façade of the historic structure.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 41 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-008] – 907 S. Pine Street Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans (rendering) and Specifications
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey
Exhibit 6- National Register Documentation
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Page 42 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s for a residential
ad d ition for the p ro p erty loc ated at 1263 S. Austin Ave., bearing the legal d es c riptio n o f .192 ac. Morrow
Additio n, Blo c k C (S /P T ) (COA-2018-025). Madis on Tho mas , Downto wn His to ric Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to add a one story additio n at the rear o f the exis ting home. The following list
s p ecifies the s p ec ific wo rk p ro p o s ed by the applic ant:
• New addition to the rear. - A new, 768 s.f. living s pac e and 125 s.f. s creened p o rch additio n is proposed .
A mino r portion of the faç ad e of this new additio n will b e vis ib le from Austin Avenue. This new ad d ition
will b e setb ac k b ac k approximately 25’, the length of the exis ting s tructure and will run alo ng the s o uth
p ro p erty line. The roofing materials, siding and window will all matc h the materials o f the existing ho me.
Portio ns o f the reques t are reviewed b y s taff per UDC 3.13.010, inc luding:
Staff Review:
-Non-s treet fac ing ad d itions
Other elements of the reques t are review b y HAR C p er UDC 3.13.010, including:
-Street facing additio ns
STAFF ANALYSIS
The s ubjec t s truc ture is id entified as a 1909 two- s tory Co lo nial Revival o n the 2016 His toric Res o urc e
Survey. It retains a high p rio rity rating as it is an exc ellent or rare examp le o f its type/ style and retains
s uffic ient integrity. T he existing his toric struc ture is loc ated within the fro nt s etbac k s et fo r Res id ential
Single-Family Zo ning, the p ro p o s ed addition is les s than 50% o f the o riginal s tructure s o permission from
the c o mmis s ion is not warranted to allow the exp ans ion.
The ap p licant is req ues ting to add ap p ro ximately 770 s .f. o f living area to the exis ting 2,100 sq. ft. home.
The ad d ition s ize is s ignificantly smaller than the exis ting square footage of the property. T he histo ric home
is also two stories and in an effo rt to retain the integrity of the primary struc ture, the p ro p o s ed additio n will
o nly be o ne-s tory and loc ated at the rear o f the exis ting home. A mino r portion of the additio n will b e on
the south side of the s truc ture, facing S. Aus tin Ave. and will create a new s treet fac ing faç ad e. This new
façade will be lo c ated behind the exis ting p orc h to help minimize the impac t of a new façade. The portio n
o f the ro o f that is vis ib le from the street will mimic the s id e-gabled ro o f of the exis ting his toric struc ture
and will have matc hing as p halt shingles . The propos ed material o n the addition is hardie s id ing, as the
histo ric s tructure als o has s id ing, and a matc hing wind o w o n that s treet fac ing s ectio n.
The Design Guid elines , Chapter 7, p age 69, provid es c o mmentary related to proportio n:
“A histo ric additio n typ ically was sub o rd inate in s cale and character to the main build ing. T he height of the
ad d ition was us ually p o s itioned below that o f the main s tructure and it was often lo cated to the s id e or rear,
s uc h that the p rimary facade remained d o minate. An additio n was o ften c ons truc ted of materials that were
s imilar to thos e in us e his toric ally. In s o me c as es , owners s imp ly ad d ed on to an exis ting roof, c reating
mo re us ab le s p ac e without inc reas ing the footp rint of the struc ture. This trad ition of ad d ing on to build ings
Page 43 of 136
is antic ip ated to c o ntinue. It is important, however, that new ad d itions be des igned in s uc h a manner that
they maintain the c haracter of the primary struc ture. The c o mp atibility o f pro p o s ed additio ns with histo ric
b uildings will be reviewed in terms of the mas s , the s c ale, the materials , the c olor, the roof fo rm, and the
p ro p o rtion and s p acing o f windows and doo rs . Ad d itions that ec ho the style of the original s tructure and
ad d itions that intro d uc e c o mp atible contemp o rary d es ign c o uld b e ac ceptable.”
“An ad d ition to a s truc ture c an rad ically c hange its perc eived s cale and charac ter if inap p ro p riately
d es igned . When p lanning an additio n, c o nsid er the effect the ad d ition will have on the b uilding itself. When
creating an ad d ition, keep the size o f the additio n s mall, in relation to the main s truc ture. If an additio n mus t
b e larger, it should be s et ap art fro m the main s truc ture and c o nnected with a s maller linking element. A
d es ign for a new additio n that would c reate an appearance inc o nsistent with the c harac ter o f the b uilding,
es p ecially an his to ric o ne, is d is couraged. One als o s ho uld cons id er the effec t the additio n may have on the
character of a s treet or neighborho o d , as seen fro m the p ublic right-o f-way. For example, a s id e additio n
may change the s ens e of rhythm estab lis hed by s ide yards in the bloc k. Loc ating the additio n to the rear
could be a better s olution in such a case.”
Find ings
Staff find s that the proposed ad d ition loc atio n, material differentiatio n, height and massing meet the Des ign
Guidelines . The des ign res p ects the histo ric integrity of the exis ting b uilding and it does not have a
s ignificant vis ual imp act on the histo ric s truc ture. Staff rec o mmends ap p roval of the s treet facing ad d ition.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 & 4- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 4- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 44 of 136
A
SH
ST
EL
M
ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
W 1 7 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
W 1 6 T H S T
TIM
B
E
R
S
T
W U N IV E R SI TY AV E
E 1 5 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
E 1 3T H S T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
E 1 4T H S T
E 1 7T H S T
E 1 6 T H S T
W 14T H S T
C Y R U S A V E
H
A
R
T
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
TC
A
N
D
E
E
ST
W 1 5 T H S T
W
E
S
T
S
T
GEOR
GE
S
T
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
W 1 3 T H S T
S TO N E C I R
W 1 4 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
H
A
R
T S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
E 1 7 T H 1 /2 S T
COA-2018-025Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 45 of 136
2124 EAST 6t h STREET, UNIT 106, AUSTIN, TX 78702, (512) 473-8228
April 6, 2018
Statement regarding property at 1263 South Austin Avenue, Georgetown, TX
The projected addition at 1263 S. Austin Ave. is an investment in the Old Town community and intended
to increase this historic home’s livability. Our intention is to do a single story screen porch and master
bedroom addition to the rear of the existing two story structure that will maintain the home’s historic
integrity. The owners, Troy and Barbara Nichols, purchased this home with the intention of being
longtime residents in Georgetown’s Historic Old Town.
While the home is a treasure, the first floor lacks sleeping quarters or full bath functions. This makes the
home less accessible for elderly and handicapped visitors. The addition of a bedroom and an open-
concept bathroom are improvements to the home’s accessibility for the current and future residents.
All of the addition is to the rear elevation and will offer similar proportions and roof overhangs as the
exiting home. The remodeling of the stairs, and additional rear porch area, create a safer functioning
and more attractive rear entrance. This addition creates a modern, livable interior space while
preserving the home’s appearance from Austin Avenue. The addition will incorporate the
same lap siding and exterior trim detailing of the historic home.
The new addition will have similar proportions and roof overhangs as the exiting home. It is a priority of
the current owners to maintain the integrity and character of the home. The addition will align with the
original structure and offer a more livable home for many generations.
Richard Hughes, Principal
Element 5 Architecture
Page 46 of 136
LAWN
EXISTING
DETACHED
GARAGE
FENCE
& GATE
FENCE
& GATE
EXISTING
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING
HVAC
NORTHSITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/10" = 1'-0"
REAR 10' BUILDING SET-BACK LINE
EXISTING
ELECTRIC.
METER
EXISTING TANK-LESS
WATER-HEATER
EXISTING
POWER
POLE
OV
E
R
H
E
A
D
PO
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
O
V
E
R
H
E
A
D
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
EXISTING SIDEWALK
SOUTH AUSTIN AVENUE
EXTERIOR
STONE STOOP
& STEPS
EXISTING TWO
STORY HOUSE
PROPOSED REAR
ONE STORY
ADDITION
EXISTING FRONT
PORCH
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
D
E
P
O
R
C
H
PROPOSED REAR
SCREEN PORCH
ADDITION
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
CURB-CUT
EXISTING STONE
WALK & STEPS
SI
D
E
6
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
-
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
FRONT 25' BUILDING SET-BACK LINE
REAR PROPERTY LINE: 87.65'
FRONT PROPERTY LINE: 87.65'
NO
R
T
H
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
:
9
5
.4
8
'
SO
U
T
H
S
I
D
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
:
9
5
.6
6
'
SI
D
E
6
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
-
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
6'-9 1/4"
6'-5 7/8"
17
'
-
5
5
/
8
"
5'
-
2
3
/
8
"
10
'
-
1
1
3
/
4
"
6'-1 3/4"
42
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
8
"
8'
-
2
"
33'-3 1/2"10'-1 1/2"
36'-2"
14'-9 1/2"13'-0"8'-4 1/2"6'-0"
1263 SOUTH AUSTIN AVENUE,GEORGETOWN, TX 78626
PROJECT INFORMATION:
LOT SIZE: 8,364 S.F.
ZONING DISTRICT: RS, Old Town Overlay
EXISTING 1st FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA: 1,092 sf
EXISTING 2nd FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA: 1,052 sf
EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE: 453 sf
EXISTING FRONT PORCH: 72 sf
EXISTING SIDE PORCH: 138 sf
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA RATIO:.34 (2,807 s.f.)
PROPOSED 1st FLOOR ADDITION: 768 s.f.
PROPOSED BACK SCREEN PORCH: 125 s.f.
TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO:.44 (3,700 s.f.)
EXISITING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY: 928 sf
EXISITING PAVE STONE WALKS: 90 sf
EXISTING HVAC PAD: 9 sf
PROPOSED STONE STOOP & WALK:300 s.f.
TOTAL PROPOSAED IMPERVIOUSE COVER: .44 (3,675 s.f.)
NEW STONE
WALK
A1
NORTH
DEMOLITION
FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
STAIRSPANTRY
EXISTING
KITCHEN
ISLAND
SINK
SI
N
K
SIDE
PORCH
FRONT PORCH
DINING ROOM
KITCHEN
ENTRY HALL
LIVING ROOM STUDY
LAUNDRY
BACK
STOOP
PATIO
HALF
BATH
WET BAR
HVAC
ELECTRIC.
METER
TANKLESS
WATER
HEATER
REFRIG.
www.elememt5architecture.com
2-5-18
2-15-18
2-23-17
3-1-18
3-2-18
3-5-18
4-6-18
NI
C
H
O
L
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
12
6
3
S
O
U
T
H
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.,, G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
X
, 7
8
6
2
6
2124 EAST 6th ST.,
SUITE 106
AUSTIN TX 78702
512.473.8228
Page 47 of 136
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
ST
O
N
E
S
T
E
P
S
DINING ROOM
KITCHEN
SCREEN PORCH
WOOD DECKING FLOOR
HALL
9' FLAT CEILING HER
CLOSET
HIS
CLOSET
9' FLAT CEILING
MASTER
BEDROOM
VAULTED CEILING
MASTER
BATH
VAULTED
CEILING
3'-4" x 6'-0'
SHOWER
FREE
STANDING
TUB
SINK
SINK
ENTRY HALL
LIVING ROOM STUDY
STAIRSPANTRY
EXISTING
KITCHEN
ISLAND
WASHER &
DRYER
BARN DOOR
LINEN
HVAC
W/
H
EXISTING
SIDE
PORCH
EXISTING FRONT PORCH
NORTH
FLOOR PLAN LEGEND:
EXISTING 2x4 FRAMED WALLS:
NEW 2x4 FRAMED WALLS:
NEW 2x6 FRAMED WALLS:
EXISTING
FRENCH
DOOR
SINK
ELECTRIC.
METER
TANK-LES
S WATER
HEATER
REFRIG.
MECH. TO
BATH
AI
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
A
T
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
K
I
C
K
3' SCREEN
DOOR
SA
L
V
A
G
E
D
B
A
R
CA
B
I
N
E
T
SA
L
V
A
G
E
D
VA
N
I
T
Y
S
I
N
K
LAUNDRY
EXISTING FLAT
CEILING
HALL
EXISTING
FLAT CEILING
COAT
CLOSET
SINK
NEW
FRENCH
DOOR
HALF
BATH
EXISTING
FLAT
CEILING
24" WINE
REFRIG.
BELOW
STONE
LANDING
REFIG.
FREEZER
SALVAGED
DOOR W/
DOG DOOR
SEAT
NEW BEAM ABOVE W/ CASED
OPENING. REFER STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS
7' FLAT CEILING
8' FLAT
CEILING
AT SINK
ALCOVE
UPPER
WINDOW.
REFER
ELEVATION.
VAULTED
CEILING
UPPER
WINDOW.
REFER
ELEVATION.
RAFTER TIES ABOVE
RAFTER TIES ABOVE
RA
F
T
E
R
T
I
E
S
A
B
O
V
E
RAFTER TIES
ABOVE
RAFTER TIES
ABOVE
RI
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
AB
O
V
E
RI
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
AB
O
V
E
RIDGE LINE
ABOVE
VALL
E
Y
LINE
ABO
V
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
LI
N
E
A
B
O
V
E
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
15" ICE
MAKER
BELOW
SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT NEW BEAM ABOVE
W/ CASED
OPENING. REFER
STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS
Double Sliding French Door
A2A1A2
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING SHED ROOF DORMER
EXISTING RIDGE LINE
EXISTING FRONT
PORCH SHED ROOF
EXISTING SIDE
PORCH SHED
ROOF
1:
1
2
R
O
O
F
PI
T
C
H
NE
W
R
I
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
NEW DORMER
RIDGE LINE
NE
W
R
I
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
8:12 ROOF
PITCH
8:12 ROOF
PITCH
12
:
1
2
R
O
O
F
PI
T
C
H
12
:
1
2
R
O
O
F
PI
T
C
H
VALL
E
Y
VA
L
L
E
Y
MATCH & ALIGN EXISTING &
NEW ROOF PLATES, PITCHES &
OVERHANGS AS SHOWN.
LINE OF EXISTING
SECOND FLOOR
ABOVE
WOOD FLOOR TO ALIGN
WITH EXISTING
WOOD FLOOR TO
ALIGN WITH EXISTING
TILE
FLOOR
TILE FLOOR
TILE FLOOR
TILE
FLOOR
WOOD
FLOOR
WOOD
FLOOR
WOOD
FLOOR
TILE FLOOR
2
A
3
1
7
65
13
10
9
11
4
12
8
D
B
C
E
C
B
F
G
G
H
G
F
F
G
1
GENERAL WINDOW NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TEMPERED GLAZING WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.
2. Install all window units as per manufacturer's specifications.
3. CONFIRM FRAMING DIMENSIONS FOR ALL WINDOWS PRIOR TO ORDERING
4. All Units to be ordered for 2x6 framed walls UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. All windows to meet EGRESS Requirements where required by code.
6. All Units to have Low-E, Insulated Glazing.
7. All Units to be ordered with SINGLE LITES.
8. All Units to be ordered with INTERIOR WHITE PRIMED WOOD for painting.
9. All Units to be ordered with hardware to match existing.
10. All Units to be ordered with Standard WHITE for Exterior CLAD Finish
11. All UNITS to be ordered WITH Standard Screens.
Number
of Units Remarks
heightwidth
Window Size (R.O.)Window
Design.
A
B
C
D
+/- 8'-0"
VERIFY
+/- 12'-0"
VERIFY
CLAD WOOD WINDOWS &
SLIDING FRENCH DOOR
Window
Description
5 EGRESS WINDOW
GENERAL DOOR NOTES:
1. Install all Door units as per manufacturer's specifications.
2. DOORS SPECIFICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BEFORE ORDERING.
3. Verify 2x4 or 2x6 door frame locations prior to ordering.
4. INTERIOR DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING INTERIOR DOORS.
DOOR SPECIFICATION
heightwidth
Unit SizeDOOR
NO.
DOOR SCHEDULE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Interior Paint Grade SWINGING Door.6'-8"2'-0"
13
3
+/- 6'-4"
VERIFY
+/- 3'-0"
VERIFYDouble Hung Window
E Picture Window
F Double Hung Window
G
1+/- 2'-8"
VERIFY
+/- 2'-4"
VERIFY
3+/- 4'-0"
VERIFY
+/- 1'-10"
VERIFY
2+/- 6'-4"
VERIFY
+/- 2'-2"
VERIFYDouble Hung Window
H
4+/- 1'-8"
VERIFY
+/- 1'-8"
VERIFY
1
1+/- 2'-8"
VERIFY
+/- 7'-0"
VERIFY
(2) 2'-4" W x 2'-8" T Awnings
& (1) 2'-4" W x 2'-8" T Picture
Picture Window
(1) Unit ordered for 2x4
Framed Wall location.
Exterior In-Swing French Door to match
existing one at Side Porch
Salvaged Exterior Kitchen Door w/ Door Dog Door
+/- 2'-8"
VERIFY
+/- 6'-8"
VERIFY
8'-4"4'-8"Sliding Interior Barn Door on Steel Rolling Track.
VERIFY SPECIFICATIONS
Exterior Painted Wood SWINGING SCREEN Door.7'-0"3'-0"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-6"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-6"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-6"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-6"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-6"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-6"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.6'-8"2'-4"
Interior Paint Grade POCKET Door.8'-0"3'-0"
4x64x6
6x6
4x6
4x6
8'-1 1/2"14'-9 1/2"
5'-2 1/4"4'-10 1/2"4'-8 3/4"
CE
N
T
E
R
LI
N
E
CE
N
T
E
R
LI
N
E
8'
-
5
1
/
2
"
4'
-
3
1
/
2
"
2'
-
4
1
/
2
"
2'
-
3
1
/
4
"
3'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2'
-
8
3
/
4
"
CENTER
LINE
CENTER
LINE 7'-2"7'-2"
4'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
5"
3'
-
0
"
5"
5'-4 1/2"2'-2"10'-11 1/2"
15
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
9'
-
9
1
/
2
"
3'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
29
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
2'-4 1/2"
5'
-
1
1
/
2
"
1'
-
8
"
3'-7 1/2"
6'-9 1/2"4'-2"
42
'
-
5
"
6 1/2"
6'
-
8
1
/
2
"
7'
-
0
1
/
2
"
15
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
13
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
7'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3'
-
0
1
/
2
"
3'
-
7
"
7'-9 1/2"5'-11 1/2"4'-9"1'
-
4
1
/
2
"
2'-0"1'-8"1'-11 1/2"1'-11"
5'
-
7
1
/
2
"
4'-10 1/2"4'-0"
3'
-
0
1
/
2
"
4'-1 1/2"EQ
U
A
L
EQ
U
A
L
2'-0"
3'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
3'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
7 1
/
2
"
3'
-
0
"
4"
7'-8"
2'
-
1
1
/
2
"
1'
-
1
0
"
1'
-
1
0
"
4'-4 1/2"
1'-8"
1'
-
8
"
CA
S
E
D
OP
E
N
I
N
G
CA
S
E
D
OP
E
N
I
N
G
CASED OPENING
1'
-
6
"
2'
-
7
"
I
I
I
4'-7 1/2"
4'-2"
4'-7 1/2"4'-2"
4+/- 2'-11"
VERIFY
+/- 2'-11"
VERIFY
VELUX 'Fixed' Curb Mount
Skylight: FCM 3030
SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHT
EXISTING SECOND STORY ROOF OVERHANG
3'
-
5
1
/
2
"
4'
-
6
"
3'
-
5
1
/
2
"
4'
-
0
1
/
2
"
C
D
C
D
C
Picture Window +/- 2'-0"
VERIFY
+/- 3'-0"
VERIFY
I
CENTER ON RIDGE
www.elememt5architecture.com
2-5-18
2-15-18
2-23-17
3-1-18
3-2-18
3-5-18
4-6-18
NI
C
H
O
L
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
12
6
3
S
O
U
T
H
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.,, G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
X
, 7
8
6
2
6
2124 EAST 6th ST.,
SUITE 106
AUSTIN TX 78702
512.473.8228
Page 48 of 136
A3
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
FINISH FINISH
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING 1ST FLOOR, NEW
SCREEN PORCH & NEW MASTER BATH
TUB NORTH WALL PLATES
TOP OF MASTER BEDROOM
NORTH WALL PLATE
TOP OF MASTER BATH SINK
ALCOVE TOP PLATE
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING 1ST FLOOR, NEW
SCREEN PORCH & NEW MASTER
BATH TUB NORTH WALL PLATES
8'
-
1
1
/
4
"
9'
-
6
"
12
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
9'
-
6
"
12
1
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
8
"
5 1
/
2
"
7'
-
0
"
10
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
7'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
1'-4"
1'-0"
1'-0"1'-0"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
1x BOXED EAVES
1x CORNER TRIM.
POSITION AS SHOWN
PAINTED SIDING TO MATCH & ALIGN WITH EXISTING.
1x8 BAND TRIM W/
METAL TOP DRIP
FLASHING.
UNDERPINNING TO
MATCH & ALIGN W/
EXISTING.
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
6x
6
P
O
S
T
4x
6
P
O
S
T
4x
6
P
O
S
T
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
8'
-
0
"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
FINISH FINISH
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING
1ST FLOOR PLATE
TOP OF MASTER BATH, MASTER
BEDROOM & HER CLOSET
SOUTH WALL PLATES
7'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
1'-0"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
1x FASCIA BOARD
1x BOXED EAVES
1x TRIM. POSITION
AS SHOWN
1x CORNER TRIM.
POSITION AS SHOWN
1x8 BAND TRIM W/
METAL TOP DRIP
FLASHING.
UNDERPINNING TO
MATCH & ALIGN W/
EXISTING.
PAINTED SIDING TO MATCH &
ALIGN WITH EXISTING.
EXTERIOR ROOFING, PAINTED SIDING & TRIM TO MATCH & ALIGN
WITH EXISTING. REFER EXTERIOR ELEVATION IMAGE PHOTOS.
EXTERIOR ROOFING, PAINTED SIDING
& TRIM TO MATCH & ALIGN WITH
EXISTING. REFER EXTERIOR
ELEVATION IMAGE PHOTOS.
1
2
PROPOSED SINGLE STORY MASTER
BEDROOM & SCREEN PORCH ADDITION
EXISTING TWO
STORY HOUSE
www.elememt5architecture.com
2-5-18
2-15-18
2-23-17
3-1-18
3-2-18
3-5-18
4-6-18
NI
C
H
O
L
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
12
6
3
S
O
U
T
H
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.,, G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
X
, 7
8
6
2
6
2124 EAST 6th ST.,
SUITE 106
AUSTIN TX 78702
512.473.8228
Page 49 of 136
A4
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
FINISH FINISH
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING 1ST FLOOR, NEW
SCREEN PORCH & NEW MASTER
BATH TUB NORTH WALL PLATES
TOP OF MASTER BEDROOM
NORTH WALL PLATE
TOP OF MASTER BATH
SINK ALCOVE TOP PLATE
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF MASTER BATH,
MASTER BEDROOM & HER
CLOSET SOUTH WALL
PLATES
12
8
12
8
12
8
8'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
13
'
-
2
"
8'
-
1
1
/
4
"
9'
-
6
"
7'
-
0
"
1x FASCIA BOARD
1'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
1x BOXED EAVES
1x TRIM. POSITION
AS SHOWN
1x CORNER TRIM.
POSITION AS SHOWN
1x8 BAND TRIM W/
METAL TOP DRIP
FLASHING.
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
UNDERPINNING TO
MATCH & ALIGN W/
EXISTING.
1'-4"
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x6 RAIL
4x
6
P
O
S
T
4x
6
P
O
S
T
6x
6
P
O
S
T
LOW PITCH ROOFING
MATERIAL AT SCREEN
PORCH ROOF. VERIFY
SPECIFICATION
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
SCREEN
PAINTED SIDING TO MATCH &
ALIGN WITH EXISTING.
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
MATCH & ALIGN
EXISTING & NEW ROOF
PLATES, PITCHES &
OVERHANGS AS
SHOWN.
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF MASTER BATH, MASTER
BEDROOM & HER CLOSET
SOUTH WALL PLATES
12
12
12
12
7'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
2'-0"
8'
-
8
"
12" DEEP AWNING
OVERHANG W/ 8:12 ROOF
PITCH. ASPHALT SHINGLES.
1'-0"1'-0"
2'-0"
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
PAINTED SIDING TO MATCH
& ALIGN WITH EXISTING.
13
'
-
7
1
/
4
"
FINISH GRADE
HALF WAY UP
SOUTH GABLE (50%)
9'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
TOP OF ROOF AT
SOUTH WALL
13
'
-
7
1
/
4
"
FINISH GRADE
HALF WAY UP
SOUTH GABLE (50%)
9'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
TOP OF ROOF AT
SOUTH WALL
EXTERIOR ROOFING, PAINTED SIDING
& TRIM TO MATCH & ALIGN WITH
EXISTING. REFER EXTERIOR
ELEVATION IMAGE PHOTOS.
EXTERIOR ROOFING, PAINTED SIDING
& TRIM TO MATCH & ALIGN WITH
EXISTING. REFER EXTERIOR
ELEVATION IMAGE PHOTOS.
1
2
PROPOSED SINGLE STORY MASTER
BEDROOM & SCREEN PORCH ADDITION
EXISTING TWO
STORY HOUSE
PROPOSED SINGLE STORY MASTER
BEDROOM & SCREEN PORCH ADDITION
EXISTING TWO
STORY HOUSE
PROPOSED SINGLE STORY MASTER
BEDROOM & SCREEN PORCH ADDITION
EXISTING TWO
STORY HOUSE
www.elememt5architecture.com
2-5-18
2-15-18
2-23-17
3-1-18
3-2-18
3-5-18
4-6-18
NI
C
H
O
L
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
12
6
3
S
O
U
T
H
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.,, G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
X
, 7
8
6
2
6
2124 EAST 6th ST.,
SUITE 106
AUSTIN TX 78702
512.473.8228
Page 50 of 136
HER CLOSET
BUILDING
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING SECTION & WEST
ELEVATION OF NEW ADDITION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
A5
EXTERIOR ROOFING, PAINTED SIDING
& TRIM TO MATCH & ALIGN WITH
EXISTING. REFER EXTERIOR
ELEVATION IMAGE PHOTOS.
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
FINISH FINISH
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING
1ST FLOOR PLATE
TOP OF MASTER BATH, MASTER
BEDROOM & HER CLOSET
SOUTH WALL PLATES
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
FINISH FINISH
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING
1ST FLOOR PLATE
TOP OF MASTER BATH, MASTER
BEDROOM & HER CLOSET
SOUTH WALL PLATES
TOP OF MASTER BEDROOM
NORTH WALL PLATE
TOP OF MASTER BATH SINK
ALCOVE TOP PLATE
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF EXISTING 1ST FLOOR, NEW
SCREEN PORCH & NEW MASTER
BATH TUB NORTH WALL PLATES
TOP OF MASTER BATH, MASTER
BEDROOM & HER CLOSET
SOUTH WALL PLATES
EXISTING & NEW PIER &
BEAM FINISH FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF MASTER BATH, MASTER
BEDROOM & HER CLOSET
SOUTH WALL PLATES
TOP OF MASTER BEDROOM
NORTH WALL PLATE
SCREEN PORCH HALL
HIS CLOSET
HVAC AT
ATTIC
HVAC AT
ATTIC
HALL
HIS CLOSET
HER CLOSET
SCREEN PORCH
LAUNDRY
DINING ROOM ADDITION
DINING ROOM
HVAC AT
ATTIC
TOP OF MASTER BEDROOM
NORTH WALL PLATE
HALL
HER CLOSET
LAUNDRY
SCREEN
PORCH
HVAC AT
ATTIC
HER CLOSET
HALL
HIS CLOSET
MASTER
BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH
MASTER
BATH
1
2
3 4
5 6 7 8
EXISTING SECOND FLOOR: NO WORK HERE
AREA OF
ADDITION: REFER
FLOOR PLANS
ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
1x FASCIA
BOARD
1x BOXED
EAVES
1x TRIM.
POSITION AS
SHOWN
1x CORNER TRIM.
POSITION AS SHOWN
1x8 BAND TRIM W/ METAL
TOP DRIP FLASHING.
UNDERPINNING TO MATCH
& ALIGN W/ EXISTING.
PAINTED SIDING TO MATCH &
ALIGN WITH EXISTING.
PROPOSED SINGLE
STORY MASTER
BEDROOM & SCREEN
PORCH ADDITION
EXISTING TWO
STORY HOUSE
www.elememt5architecture.com
2-5-18
2-15-18
2-23-17
3-1-18
3-2-18
3-5-18
4-6-18
NI
C
H
O
L
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
12
6
3
S
O
U
T
H
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.,, G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
X
, 7
8
6
2
6
2124 EAST 6th ST.,
SUITE 106
AUSTIN TX 78702
512.473.8228
Page 51 of 136
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
ST
O
N
E
S
T
E
P
S
DINING ROOM
KITCHEN
SCREEN PORCH
WOOD DECKING FLOOR
HALL
9' FLAT CEILING HER
CLOSET
HIS
CLOSET
9' FLAT CEILING
MASTER
BEDROOM
VAULTED CEILING
MASTER
BATH
VAULTED
CEILING
3'-4" x 6'-0'
SHOWER
FREE
STANDING
TUB
SINK
SINK
ENTRY HALL
LIVING ROOM STUDY
STAIRSPANTRY
EXISTING
KITCHEN
ISLAND
WASHER &
DRYER
BARN DOOR
LINEN
HVAC
W/
H
EXISTING
SIDE
PORCH
EXISTING FRONT PORCH
NORTH
FLOOR PLAN LEGEND:
EXISTING 2x4 FRAMED WALLS:
NEW 2x4 FRAMED WALLS:
NEW 2x6 FRAMED WALLS:
EXISTING
FRENCH
DOOR
SINK
ELECTRIC.
METER
TANK-LES
S WATER
HEATER
REFRIG.
MECH. TO
BATH
AI
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
A
T
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
K
I
C
K
3' SCREEN
DOOR
SA
L
V
A
G
E
D
B
A
R
CA
B
I
N
E
T
SA
L
V
A
G
E
D
VA
N
I
T
Y
S
I
N
K
LAUNDRY
EXISTING FLAT
CEILING
HALL
EXISTING
FLAT CEILING
COAT
CLOSET
SINK
NEW
FRENCH
DOOR
HALF
BATH
EXISTING
FLAT
CEILING
24" WINE
REFRIG.
BELOW
STONE
LANDING
REFIG.
FREEZER
SALVAGED
DOOR W/
DOG DOOR
SEAT
NEW BEAM ABOVE W/ CASED
OPENING. REFER STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS
7' FLAT CEILING
8' FLAT
CEILING
AT SINK
ALCOVE
UPPER
WINDOW.
REFER
ELEVATION.
VAULTED
CEILING
UPPER
WINDOW.
REFER
ELEVATION.
RAFTER TIES ABOVE
RAFTER TIES ABOVE
RA
F
T
E
R
T
I
E
S
A
B
O
V
E
RAFTER TIES
ABOVE
RAFTER TIES
ABOVE
RI
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
AB
O
V
E
RI
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
AB
O
V
E
RIDGE LINE
ABOVE
VALL
E
Y
LINE
ABO
V
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
LI
N
E
A
B
O
V
E
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
15" ICE
MAKER
BELOW
L.E.D. Recessed Down Light for
WET locations. WHITE FINISH
MEP
PLUMBING SCHEDULE
NUMBER FIXTURE SPECIFICATION
GENERAL PLUMBING NOTES:
1. CONFIRM ALL PLUMBING FIXTURE DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION OF ANY CABINETRY.
2. Install all appliance fixtures & accessories as per manufacturer's specifications.
P1
P2
Half Bath Sink
P3
P4
P5 Master Bath Sink
P6 Master Bath Sink
P7
P8
P9
Master Bath
Shower
Master Bath Toilet
Under-mount Bathroom Sink. White Finish
Under-mount Bathroom Sink. White Finish
TOTO 'Aquia II', White
TOTO 'Self Close Seat', White Finish
Washing Machine
EXISTING SALVAGED SINK
FREE STANDING TUB. VERIFY
SPECIFICATIONS WITH OWNER
Under-mount Stainless Steel Kitchen Sink. Single Bowl.
Exterior (Waterproof) Outlet w/
Ground-Fault Interrupter
Hardwired Smoke Detector w/
Battery Back Up. Located as
Required by Code.
Circuit Wiring
GFIX
ELECTRICAL LEGEND
Duplex Outlet
Single Throw Switch
Surface Mount Light Fixture.
REFER SPECIFICATIONS.
Wall Sconce REFER
SPECIFICATIONS.
Ceiling Fan
TELEPHONE, CABLE &
INTERNET: REFER OWNER
NOTE:
PROVIDE SECURITY SYSTEM. REFER
ARCHITECT & OWNER FOR
SPECIFICATIONS.
NOTE:
PROVIDE REQUIRED UTILITIES TO
ALL APPLIANCES & FIXTURES
HOSE BIB
HOSE
220 Volt Outlet220
Under Upper
Cabinet LightUC
(3) Way Switch
Dimmer Switch
4" L.E.D. Recessed Down Light
GFI Outlet w/ Ground-Fault Interrupter
Thermostat
Bathroom Exhaust
Fan
T
3
D1
W1
S1
S
S
D
S
Pendant Light Fixture. REFER
SPECIFICATIONS.P1
D2
D3
L.E.D. Recessed Down Light Sloped
Ceiling locations. WHITE FINISH
MECANICAL,
ELECTRICAL &
PLUMBING
PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
P1
P1
P1
S1
D1D1
D1
D1
D1
D2
D2
D2
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D2
D2
D3
D1
W1
W1
W1
UC
UC
UC
UC
Bottom Outlet Tied to Switch.
WHITE FINISH
GAS LINE
GAS
GAS
HOSE
HOSE
220
GFI
44"
GFI
44"
GFI
44"
GFI
44"
GFI
44"
GFI
44"
GFI
44"
Floor Outlet. Brass Finish.FL
FL
FOR POP UP T.V.
CABINET. REFER
OWNER
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
GFIX
GFIX
GFIX
P3
P1
P2
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
Half Bath Toilet
Laundry Sink
Master Bath Tub
TOTO 'Aquia II', White
TOTO 'Self Close Seat', White Finish
D2
D2
D2
HOSE
GFI 44"
D1D1
www.elememt5architecture.com
2-5-18
2-15-18
2-23-17
3-1-18
3-2-18
3-5-18
4-6-18
NI
C
H
O
L
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
12
6
3
S
O
U
T
H
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
.,, G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
T
X
, 7
8
6
2
6
2124 EAST 6th ST.,
SUITE 106
AUSTIN TX 78702
512.473.8228
Page 52 of 136
Page 53 of 136
Page 54 of 136
Page 55 of 136
Page 56 of 136
Page 57 of 136
Page 58 of 136
Page 59 of 136
Page 60 of 136
Page 61 of 136
Page 62 of 136
Page 63 of 136
Page 64 of 136
Page 65 of 136
Page 66 of 136
Page 67 of 136
Page 68 of 136
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:1263 Austin Ave 2016 Survey ID:125013
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R043416Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1909
Hall-and-Parlor (Two-Room Plan)
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:Builder: Belford Lumber Co. (Notes from 2007 Survey: solar screens; structure leaning)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:501
ID:403
*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 Barron House
ID:125013 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.630705 Longitude -97.677765
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: East
Page 69 of 136
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:1263 Austin Ave 2016 Survey ID:125013
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 70 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 1 of 9
Meeting Date: July 26, 2018
File Number: COA-2018-025
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
1) A Residential Addition
for the property located at 1263 S. Austin Ave., bearing the legal description of .192 ac. Morrow Addition,
Block C (S/PT) (COA-2018-025). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Nichols Residence Addition
Applicant: Troy & Barbara Nichols
Property Owner: Troy & Barbara Nichols
Property Address: 1263 S. Austin Ave., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: .192 ac. Morrow Addition, Block C (S/PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay,
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1909
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
2016 - High
National Register Designation: Belford Historic District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to add a one story addition at the rear of the existing home. The
following list specifies the specific work proposed by the applicant:
• New addition to the rear. - A new, 768 s.f. living space and 125 s.f. screened porch addition is
proposed. A minor portion of the façade of this new addition will be visible from Austin Avenue.
This new addition will be setback back approximately 25’, the length of the existing structure and
will run along the south property line. The roofing materials, siding and window will all match
the materials of the existing home.
Portions of the request are reviewed by staff per UDC 3.13.010, including:
Staff Review:
Page 71 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 2 of 9
Non-street facing additions
Other elements of the request are review by HARC per UDC 3.13.010, including:
Street facing additions
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject structure is identified as a 1909 two- story Colonial Revival on the 2016 Historic
Resource Survey. It retains a high priority rating as it is an excellent or rare example of its type/ style
and retains sufficient integrity. The existing historic structure is located within the front setback set for
Residential Single-Family Zoning, the proposed addition is less than 50% of the original structure so
permission from the commission is not warranted to allow the expansion.
The applicant is requesting to add approximately 770 s.f. of living area to the existing 2,100 sq. ft.
home. The addition size is significantly smaller than the existing square footage of the property. The
historic home is also two stories and in an effort to retain the integrity of the primary structure, the
proposed addition will only be one-story and located at the rear of the existing home. A minor portion
of the addition will be on the south side of the structure, facing S. Austin Ave. and will create a new street
facing façade. This new façade will be located behind the existing porch to help minimize the impact of
a new façade. The portion of the roof that is visible from the street will mimic the side-gabled roof of the
existing historic structure and will have matching asphalt shingles. The proposed material on the
addition is hardie siding, as the historic structure also has siding, and a matching window on that street
facing section.
The Design Guidelines, Chapter 7, page 69, provides commentary related to proportion:
“A historic addition typically was subordinate in scale and character to the main building.
The height of the addition was usually positioned below that of the main structure and it
was often located to the side or rear, such that the primary facade remained dominate. An
addition was often constructed of materials that were similar to those in use historically.
In some cases, owners simply added on to an existing roof, creating more usable space
without increasing the footprint of the structure. This tradition of adding on to buildings
is anticipated to continue. It is important, however, that new additions be designed in
such a manner that they maintain the character of the primary structure. The compatibility
of proposed additions with historic buildings will be reviewed in terms of the mass, the
scale, the materials, the color, the roof form, and the proportion and spacing of windows
and doors. Additions that echo the style of the original structure and additions that
introduce compatible contemporary design could be acceptable.” The picture below is an
example of placing an addition in a location so that it is minimally visible.
Page 72 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 3 of 9
“An addition to a structure can radically change its perceived scale and character if
inappropriately designed. When planning an addition, consider the effect the addition will have
on the building itself. When creating an addition, keep the size of the addition small, in relation
to the main structure. If an addition must be larger, it should be set apart from the main
structure and connected with a smaller linking element. A design for a new addition that would
create an appearance inconsistent with the character of the building, especially an historic one, is
discouraged. One also should consider the effect the addition may have on the character of a
street or neighborhood, as seen from the public right-of-way. For example, a side addition may
change the sense of rhythm established by side yards in the block. Locating the addition to the
rear could be a better solution in such a case.”
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE, ADDITIONS
& ALTERATIONS
7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
7.2 Properties designated by the City as a High or Medium Priority
Historic Structure should be preserved and their historic character
retained.
Complies
Page 73 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 4 of 9
Due to special circumstances, a structure’s historic priority
may change over time (because a reduced number of
similar style structures in stable condition still exist within
the district or city, or if unknown historic information
becomes available that adds significance).
7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be
clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes that
have occurred to the building.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the
original building, even in subtle ways, such that the
character of the original can be interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and
new structures may help to define an addition.
The amount of foundation exposed on the addition should
match that of the original building, in appearance, detail,
and material.
Even applying a new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help
define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-
exterior-additions.htm
Complies
The proposed addition to the
existing home will be a single-
story structure to keep the new
roofline below the existing two-
story one. The addition will be
added to the rear of the existing
structure and will have a
portion that is minimally
visible from the street. The
materials used on the new
addition are compatible to the
original building, but the
addition is designed in a way
that it is compatible, but can be
visually differentiated as a new
addition.
7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the
front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented earlier in this chapter.
Complies
7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
Complies
Page 74 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 5 of 9
While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a
residential addition would be significantly larger than the
original building, one option is to separate it from the
primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a
smaller connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from
competing with the primary facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
7.10 The roof form of a new addition shall be in character with that
of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for
residential additions. Flat roofs are appropriate for
commercial buildings in the downtown area.
Repeat existing roof slopes, overhangs, and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
The roofs of additions should not interfere with the original
roof form by changing its basic shape or view of the original
roof, and should have a roof form compatible with the
original building.
Complies
CHAPTER 14 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential type setback.
− Align the new non-residential building front at a setback
that is in context with the area properties- N/A
− New residential buildings should meet the minimum front
setback requirement of the UDC or use an increased
setback if the block has historically developed with an
extended setback- N/A
Generally, additions should not be added to the front
facing façades.
− Where no sidewalk exists, one should be installed that
aligns with nearby sidewalks. N/A
Complies
14.9 Historic building materials of existing buildings should be
maintained and respected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 5 for design guidelines related to maintaining
and protecting historic building materials.
Complies
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are not
appropriate.
Complies
Page 75 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 6 of 9
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability to interpret
the design character of the original building or period of
significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period than that of
the building are inappropriate.
Complies
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original character can be
clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the history of changes
that have occurred to the building.
An addition should be distinguishable from the original
building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of
the original can be interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the original and
new structures may help to define an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the connection point
between the addition and the original structure can help
define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings, published by the National Park
Service.
Complies
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from
the front to minimize the visual impacts.
Setting an addition back from any primary, character-
defining façade will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is
inappropriate, and an addition should be to the rear of the
building, when feasible.
Complies
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original
architectural details and materials of the primary structure.
When preserving original details and materials, follow the
guidelines presented in this document.
Complies
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and
character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building in mass,
scale, and form. It should be designed to remain
subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a
residential addition would be significantly larger than the
Complies
Page 76 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 7 of 9
original building, one option is to separate it from the
primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a
smaller connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from
competing with the primary facade.
Consider adding dormers to create second story spaces
before changing the scale of the building by adding a full
second floor.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-
defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of the building, when
feasible.
Complies
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of
the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for
residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate
for commercial buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically
proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar.
Complies
14.19 The architectural features of existing buildings should be
protected when additions are proposed.
See Chapter 4 for design guidelines related to protecting
architectural features.
Complies
14.20 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally
important features.
For example, loss or alteration of a porch should be
avoided.
Addition of a porch may be inappropriate
Complies
14.21 An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does
the following:
• An addition should be set back from the primary,
character-defining façade, to preserve the perception of the
historic scale of the building.
• Its design should be modest in character, so it will not
attract attention from the historic façade.
• The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in
a subtle way.
N/A
14.22 Individual building elements of existing buildings should be
preserved, protected, and replicated where appropriate when
additions are proposed.
Complies
Page 77 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 8 of 9
See Chapter 6 for design guidelines related to preserving
individual building elements.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed addition location, material differentiation, height and massing meet
the Design Guidelines. The design respects the historic integrity of the existing building and it does not
have a significant visual impact on the historic structure. Staff recommends approval of the street facing
addition.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3- Plans (rendering) and Specifications
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 78 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-025] – 1263 S. Austin Ave. Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 4- Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Page 79 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and p o s s ib le actio n on a reques t fo r a Certific ate of Appropriateness (C OA) fo r the infill
d evelopment of a two (2) s to ry commerc ial retail and offic e build ing at 200 E. 8th St., bearing the legal
d es criptio n of 0.33 ac . Glas s c o c k Add ition, Bloc k 9, Lot 7 - 8 (COA-2018-029). - Madiso n Thomas ,
AICP, His toric and Downto wn P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
This p ro ject was firs t p res ented at the HARC c onceptual review on June 28, 2018. Prior to the c o nc ep tual
review, the applic ant wo rked with the Texas His toric al Co mmis s io n to receive feed b ack and guidance o n
architec tural elements that are typ ical o f his to ric c ommerc ial struc tures and what could be d o ne to this
p ro ject to ass is t in its integratio n into the exis ting his to ric context and fab ric . T he ap p licant mad e design
alteratio ns b as ed o n the THC’s s uggestio ns.
The c urrent vers ion that is being presented inc ludes the elements that THC rec o mmended as well as
changes that were made b as ed o n the c omments and feedbac k fro m the HARC c o nc ep tual review. The
ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to d evelop an infill develo p ment at the c o rner of E. 8th Street and S. Churc h Street
in Area 2 o f the Do wntown and His toric Overlay. T he p ro p o s ed s tructure is a two-sto ry build ing c o nsisting
o f first floor c ommerc ial retail and o ffice s p ace fo r the remaining up p er floor. A p arking lo t is p ropos ed o n
the site behind the s tructure, with ac cess fro m E. 8th Street. The p ro p o s ed s tructure will be fac ed with
b rick and sto ne materials , have street level s torefronts , c anopies , architec tural d etails, alternating parap et
d es igns and d ivided light wind o ws.
HARC Review:
-Infill d evelop ment (s truc ture)
HP O/Site Plan Review
-Site layo ut
-Land s caping
-Sidewalk d es ign
-Parking
Findings
Staff rec ommend s appro val, in that the design of the s tructure’s height and massing, mo d ulatio n for
traditio nal lo t wid th, architec tural elements, and p ed es trian friend ly d es ign, meet the d es ign requirements .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
Page 80 of 136
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 & 4- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Public Comments Exhibit
Page 81 of 136
EL
M
ST
A
SH
ST
E 7 TH ST
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
PI
N
E
ST
E 5 TH ST
E 8 TH ST
E 4 TH ST
E 6 TH ST
WE
S
T
S
T
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 1 3 T H S T
W 9T H S T
W 8T H S T
W 6 T H S T
W 4 T H S T
W 11TH ST
W 1 0 T H S T
WAL
NUT
S
T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
W 7T H ST
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
FORE
S
T
S
T
W U N I V E R SI TY AV E
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
TH
E
R KI
N
G JR
S
T
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
W 5T H S T
H
O
LLY
ST
E 9 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T TIM
B
E
R
S
T
E 9 TH 1 /2 S T
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
PIN
E
ST
E 9 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 11T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
WE
S
T
S
T
E 1 0T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 9 TH ST
COA-2018-029Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 82 of 136
June 5, 2018
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission
c/o Ms. Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Planning Director
Dear Commissioners,
The owners of the property at 204 East 8th Street are excited to present a new infill project for
the Downtown Overlay District. This project will provide new retail and commercial
opportunities for Georgetown and continue the development patterns outlined in the 2013
Downtown Master Plan. The Master Plan identifies the blocks surrounding the property as an
important opportunity area, utilizing the existing development as an anchor to draw new
projects to the district. The upcoming sale and redevelopment of the historic US Post Office,
currently utilized as the City of Georgetown municipal offices, provide a great opportunity for
private investment to enhance the east side of the district.
The project requires the demolition of an existing accessory structure on the site. A Certificate
of Appropriateness for demolition was approved by the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission on January 25, 2018.
Additional project components, including site development plan, access easements and
construction plans, will be reviewed by the appropriate administrative staff. All proposed
signage will be submitted for a Certificate of Appropriateness at a later date.
The proposed project consists of a two-story structure, incorporating commercial uses on the
first floor, with offices planned for the second floor. The primary exterior materials are brick,
stone and stucco, with a metal trim and primary entrance. The materials are detailed in the
attached exhibits. The project incorporates the traditional building widths and heights
exhibited throughout Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay District. In addition, the architecture
design incorporates traditional building elements, including commercial storefronts, awnings
and canopies, large windows and decorative cornices.
Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code outlines the criteria for approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness. The criteria include compliance with the City’s Unified
Development Code, compliance with the Downton and Old Town Design Guidelines and the
overall impact of the project on the surrounding historic district.
The proposed project is surrounded by a mix of historic and non-historic structures, all of
which serve commercial purposes. The predominant materials in the area are brick, limestone
and stucco. Chapter 13 of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines require that
“Building materials for new construction should be visually compatible with the predominate
materials of this area.” The use of brick, stone and stucco on the exterior walls of the structure
Page 83 of 136
create a compatible design for the district.
The Downtown Master Plan promotes an enhanced pedestrian environment, with storefronts
and other components providing unique interaction with pedestrians. The Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines state “A new building should maintain the wall of buildings at the
sidewalk edge.” The proposed project places the building at the edge of the sidewalk, and
includes a commercial component for the first floor of the structure. Constructing the building
at the sidewalk edge, placing the parking at the rear of the site, and constructing the
landscaped curb areas in front of the structure enhance the pedestrian environment in
compliance with the Guidelines.
The proposed project complies with the Unified Development Code, and the Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, and creates a mixed-use project as envisioned by the Downtown
Master Plan.
Thank you for your service to the City of Georgetown. We look forward to your approval and
the completion of this project.
Sincerely,
The 200 East 8th Street Project Team
Page 84 of 136
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
1/8" = 1'-0"
A9
PRESENTATION
SHEET
WS-DE
20
0
E
.
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
20
0
E
.
8
T
H
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
7-03-18
FRONT ELEVATION - NW CORNER @ CHURCH ST.
REDLAND BRICK - TANGERINE SMOOTHSTONE - MERIDIAN BRICK -
CHOP WHITE LIMESTONE
METAL - STOREFRONT, WINDOWS
& DOORS
CORNICE - AMERICAN ARTSTONE
78-05
EXTERIOR FINISHES
NAME
BRICK
BRICK CORNICE
STONE
CORNICE/BANDING
TRIM/METAL
STUCCO
DESCRIPTION
REDLAND BRICK - TANGERINE SMOOTH
MERIDIAN BRICK - ATHENS ARCH. V104
MERIDIAN BRICK - WHITE CHOP LIMESTONE
AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05
GALVANIZED - POLISHED METAL
SW - "TONY TAUPE" 7038 COLOR
STUCCO - TONY TAUPE SW 7038
CORNICE - MERIDIAN BRICK - ATHENS ARCH. V104
Page 85 of 136
EXISTING
GARAGE
STRUCTURE
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
120' - 0"
12
0
'
-
0
"
CH
U
R
C
H
S
T
.
8TH STREET
EXISTING STREET PARKING HC
STALL
120' - 0"
SIDEWALK
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
C
K
W
A
L
L
-
O
F
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
12
0
'
-
0
"
DUMP.
HC
STALL
TRANS.
120' - 0"
HC
STALL
12
0
'
-
0
"
12
0
'
-
0
"
76' - 0"
PROPOSED BUILDING
FOOTPRINT
3'
-
0
"
11
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
3' - 0"
6' - 0"
18' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"
11' - 6 1/2"
10
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
LANDSCAPE COVER
FOR PARKING AREA
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
1" = 10'-0"
A7
SITE PLANS
WS-DE
20
0
E
.
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
20
0
E
.
8
T
H
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
7-03-18
1" = 10'-0"2 EXISTING SITE PLAN
N
LOT AREA
ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING & PROPOSED USE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AREA
EXISTING FAR
PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA
PROPOSED CONC. ON SITE
PROPOSED FAR/IMPERV.
14,400 sf
MU-DT
MIX-USE
COMMERECIAL
528 sf
3.7%
16,015 sf
13,680 sf
95.0%
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOCATION REFERENCE
MAP
PROJECT
SITE
COURTHOUSE
16 FULL-SIZE PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY
2 MOTORCYCLE PARKING
18 TOTAL ON-SITE - 16 REQUIRED
10 EXISTING & NEW PARKING SPACES @ 8TH ST.
5 NEW PARALLEL SPACES ON CHURCH ST.
33 TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES - 2 HC STALLS
FOOTPRINT:
1st FLOOR
2nd FLOOR
TOTAL AREA:
76' X 120'
7,959 sf
8,056 sf
16,015 sf
AREA INFORMATION
1" = 10'-0"1 RENOVATED SITE PLAN
Page 86 of 136
1st FLOOR
0' - 0"
2nd FLOOR
14' - 0"
1st FLOOR PH
12' - 0"
2nd FLOOR PH
23' - 0"
ROOF PLAN
24' - 6"
(F.F.E. = 751' - 3")
STONE
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
STONE
CAST STONE
CAP
STONE
CAST STONE
CAP
ED
G
E
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
37
'
-
3
"
3' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
6' - 0"
7'
-
2
3
/
4
"
6' - 0"9'
-
0
"
24' - 0"9'
-
0
"
4' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
24' - 0"
9'
-
0
"
3' - 0"7'
-
2
3
/
4
"
6' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
24' - 0"9'
-
0
"
20' - 0"10' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
4'
-
2
3
/
4
"
2'
-
3
1
/
4
"
ROOF
HEIGHT
MAX. ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT
@ LOWEST FINISH GRADE (NW CORNER)
28
'
-
6
"
24
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
10
12
31
'
-
0
"
(FINISH GRADE @
SIDEWALK = 751' - 3")
(9' - 0")
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - ALUMINUM
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - ALUMINUM
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - ALUMINUM
CAST STONE
BANDING
BRICK
BANDING
CAST STONE
BANDING
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
BRICK
BANDING
120' - 0"
2'
-
6
"
BRICK
CORNICE
BRICK
CORNICE
6'
-
6
"
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
CAST STONE
CAP
BRICK
CORNICE
CAST STONE
CAP CAST STONE
CAP
STONE
58' - 1"17' - 11"
3' - 11"
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
4' - 0"7'
-
0
"
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
20' - 0"
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
As indicated
A4
CHURCH &
SOUTH
ELEVATIONS
WS-DE
20
0
E
.
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
20
0
E
.
8
T
H
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
7-03-18
3/16" = 1'-0"1 CHURCH St. (FRONT) ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES
NAME
BRICK
BRICK CORNICE
STONE
CORNICE/BANDING
TRIM/METAL
STUCCO
DESCRIPTION
REDLAND BRICK - TANGERINE SMOOTH
MERIDIAN BRICK - ATHENS ARCH. V104
MERIDIAN BRICK - WHITE CHOP LIMESTONE
AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05
GALVANIZED - POLISHED METAL
SW - "TONY TAUPE" 7038 COLOR
Page 87 of 136
SIDEWALK
CAST STONE
CAP
STONE
BRICK
CORNICE
4' - 0"6'
-
0
"
CAST STONE
BANDING
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
48' - 6"68' - 6"3' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
10
'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
8'
-
0
"
4' - 0"7'
-
0
"
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
1st FLOOR
0' - 0"
2nd FLOOR
14' - 0"
1st FLOOR PH
12' - 0"
2nd FLOOR PH
23' - 0"
ROOF PLAN
24' - 6"
(9' - 0")
(FINISH GRADE @
SIDEWALK = 751' - 3")
STONE
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - ALUMINUM
CAST STONE
CAP
PARKING LVL
-2' - 0"
BRICK
CORNICE
CAST STONE
BANDING
STONE
CAST STONE
CAP
MAX. BLDG. HT. @
LOWEST FINISH GRADE
(NE CORNER) TO ROOF
27' - 3"
40
'
-
0
"
27
'
-
3
"
METAL AWNING
GALVANIZED
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - ALUMINUM
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM - ALUMINUM
3' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
3' - 0"7'
-
2
3
/
4
"
4' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
4' - 0"7'
-
2
3
/
4
"
10' - 0"
9'
-
0
"
10' - 8"
7'
-
0
"
3' - 0"
7'
-
6
"
20' - 0"13' - 8"30' - 0"12' - 4"
10' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
MAX. ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT
@ LOWEST FINISH GRADE
BRICK
BANDING
BRICK CORNICE
(LOWEST FINISH GRADE @
NE CORNER = -2' - 9" (748' - 6")
76' - 0"
2'
-
6
"
8' - 6 1/2"
12
'
-
0
"
1'
-
6
"
1'
-
0
"
1'
-
6
"
31
'
-
0
"
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
LIGHT BRICK
CORNICE
CHURCH
STREET
MAIN
STREET
MYRTLE
STREET
600 DEGREES
PIZZA STATE
FARMUNION
PARKING AREA
BEHIND
BUILDING
BUILDING SITE @ 8TH ST.
Scale:
Date:
Revisions
No.Date Description
1
2
3
4
Sheet Name
Sheet No.
By:
File:
SRE
A P P R O V A L , P E R M I T T I N G
N O T F O R R E G U L A T O R Y
O R C O N S T R U C T I O N"R E V I E W O N L Y "
Bob Thomas, NCARB
Registered Architect
30418 Briarcrest Dr.
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-635-0621
btncarb@yahoo.com
As indicated
A3
8TH & EAST
ELEVATIONS
WS-DE
20
0
E
.
8
t
h
S
t
.
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
,
T
X
20
0
E
.
8
T
H
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
7-03-18
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST (REAR) ELEVATION
ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE IS BEING APPLIED
AND APPROVED SEPARATELY
3/16" = 1'-0"2 8th St. (SIDE) ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"3 8th St. ELEVATION - MYRTLE TO MAIN ST.
EXTERIOR FINISHES
NAME
BRICK
BRICK CORNICE
STONE
CORNICE/BANDING
TRIM/METAL
STUCCO
DESCRIPTION
REDLAND BRICK - TANGERINE SMOOTH
MERIDIAN BRICK - ATHENS ARCH. V104
MERIDIAN BRICK - WHITE CHOP LIMESTONE
AMERICAN ARTSTONE 78-05
GALVANIZED - POLISHED METAL
SW - "TONY TAUPE" 7038 COLOR
Page 88 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 1 of 11
Meeting Date: 7/26/2018
File Number: COA-2018-029
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the infill
development of a two (2) story commercial retail and office building at 200 E. 8th St., bearing the legal
description of 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 - 8. - Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and
Downtown Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : 200 East 8th Street Mixed Use Development
Applicant: Matt Synatschk, Matkin Hoover Engineering and Surveying
Property Owner: Cerus Downtown East
Property Address: 200 East 8th Street, Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.33 ac. Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 - 8
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay, Area 2
Case History: Project was denied COA and appeal upheld by Council in January 2018. Applicant
completed a conceptual review in February 2018 after demonstrating
responsiveness to reasons for denial. HARC denied revised project in April 2018.
A conceptual for this version went to the June 28 HARC Meeting.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Lot previously had a historic structure that burned down as well as a historic detached garage that was
previously approved for demolition.
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
This project was first presented at the HARC conceptual review on June 28, 2018. Prior to the
conceptual review, the applicant worked with the Texas Historical Commission to receive feedback
and guidance on architectural elements that are typical of historic commercial structures and what
could be done to this project to assist in its integration into the existing historic context and fabric. The
applicant made design alterations based on the THC’s suggestions.
The current version that is being presented includes the elements that THC recommended as well as
changes that were made based on the comments and feedback from the HARC conceptual review. The
applicant is proposing to develop an infill development at the corner of E. 8th Street and S. Church Street
in Area 2 of the Downtown and Historic Overlay. The proposed structure is a two-story building
consisting of first floor commercial retail and office space for the remaining upper floor. A parking lot is
proposed on the site behind the structure, with access from E. 8th Street. The proposed structure will be
faced with brick and stone materials, have street level storefronts, canopies, architectural details,
alternating parapet designs and divided light windows.
Page 89 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 2 of 11
HARC Review:
-Infill development (structure)
HPO/Site Plan Review
-Site layout
-Landscaping
-Sidewalk design
-Parking
BACKGROUND
In June, the applicant completed a conceptual review with the Commission. The following guidance
from the Commission included:
The stone used should be reflective of the larger stones that can be seen on traditional historic
commercial structures.
Consider a modern interpretation of the kick plate.
The stucco parapet detracts from the design, carrying the stone or brick material creates a more
cohesive look.
STAFF ANALYSIS
According to the Downtown and Old Town Guidelines, Are 2 should continue to develop with a mix of
uses and improvements should occur in a manner that enhances the experience for pedestrians and to
build a sense of visual relatedness among properties. Development should include a mix of building
types, including older structures and more contemporary ones. Each should reflect the design trends of
its own time, while also contributing to a sense of visual continuity and strengthening the pedestrian
experience. In addition, a combination of uses is encouraged, including residential, office, and retail.
As described in Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines, the design goals for Area 2 are:
• To define the sidewalk edge with elements that are amenities for pedestrians.
• To establish a sense of scale in buildings and streetscape design that can be understood by
pedestrians.
• To minimize the visual impacts of automobiles.
• To strengthen the pedestrian network of sidewalks, plazas, and paths.
• Retain native vegetation with project design.
• Maintain the feel of historic surroundings, for example if the area is predominately converted
residential structures the residential appearance, scale, and character should remain.
• To utilize similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and front setbacks.
The proposed development has met the design goals of defining a sidewalk edge, strengthening the
pedestrian network and providing pedestrian amenities. The proposed building front is aligned at the
Page 90 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 3 of 11
property edge and is visible from both streets. Both adjacent streets are developed with sidewalks.
There are storefronts and outdoor seating that encourage pedestrian and commercial activity. Where
the building isn’t located adjacent to the sidewalk, landscaping has been used to create a barrier
between the pedestrian area and vehicle area to guide pedestrians down the street. The landscape also
assists in creating a visual barrier between these two uses.
The two-story development, as proposed reflects the traditional building height and scale that is
appropriate for pedestrian activity. The design alternates the use of stone and brick to create a modular
effect using materials. Storefronts and large windows are inviting to pedestrians. The use of multiple
canopies can lower the feeling that sometimes the scale and height of the building can produce,
creating a more pedestrian friendly environment and scale. The use of architectural banding and
differing size and shape, divided light windows adds pedestrian scale detailing. The design also places
the parking area at the rear of the structure, prioritize a pedestrian friendly environment.
New buildings should have a pedestrian friendly scale, which can be achieved through the design and
massing of the structure. The guidelines reference the height and width of commercial structures of
Area 1 as a guideline for Area 2. The guidelines emphasize that a new building should reflect
traditional lot width as expressed by a variation in the height, front façade plane, architectural
detailing/materials and façade height. The proposed structure has provided a variety of roof heights,
cornice detail, modular design, and façade width variation to show articulation. The UDC (Sec.
7.03.050) discusses building articulation, both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal articulation refers to
the footprint of the building and how
The Design Guidelines and the UDC recommend the following:
A storefront, display cases, landscaping or including traditional elements such as display
windows, kickplates, and transoms on commercial storefronts.
Awnings, canopies, arcades, alcoves, windows, projections, recessed entries ornamental
cornices, pillar posts, decorative light features, variation in building wall materials, integrated
planters or water features, offsets, covered porches, stepped-back heights, porticos, varied wall
surfaces, or other similar building elements as approved by the Director or their designee
The ground floor level should encourage pedestrian activity by include traditional and pedestrian
friendly elements. The proposed project has storefronts and large windows located along the facades
adjacent to the street facing facades, variation in building wall materials, recessed entries and canopies
as the Design Guidelines recommend.
Area 2 design goals strive to establish a sense of scale in the buildings while maintaining the feel of
historic surroundings by utilizing similar building materials, storefront design, recessed entries, and
front setbacks. The design guidelines state that larger project sites should be developed with several
buildings, rather than a single structure to reduce the perceived size of the project. If a single building
is proposed, the guidelines state that it should be divided into modules that reflect traditional building
Page 91 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 4 of 11
sizes. This section references Area 1, then defines a typical building module as 30 feet in width, which
is the common building width in Area 1. The 30’ building module should:
A typical building module should not exceed 30 feet in width. The building module should
be expressed with at least one of the following:
A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet
A change in primary facade material for the extent of the building module - A vertical
architectural element or trim piece.
Variations in facade treatment should be continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear facades.
If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should be expressed three-
dimensionally throughout the entire building. Variation in height should occur where the
site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building.
The proposed structure creates building modules that are typical of historic buildings through the use
of vertical articulation, horizontal articulation and building materials. The building is two-stories, with
the Church St. façade bosting differentiated parapet design and heights as well as cornice bands of
alternating materials. The E. 8th St. façade building height will step down, following the topography of
the site. Horizontal articulation is shown on the longer facades by the creation of insets within the
façade to create a break in the wall plane, while also creating some pedestrian friendly areas. The
alternation of stone and brick material on the facades every 30’ or less visually breaks up the structure
and creates a modular effect.
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:
DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
10.1 An awning compatible in material and construction to the
style of the building is encouraged.
− Operable awnings are encouraged on historic buildings.
N/A
Use colors that are compatible with the overall color
scheme of the facade. Solid colors or simple, muted-stripe
patterns are appropriate.
The awning should fit the opening of the building.
Simple shed shapes are appropriate for rectangular
openings.
Odd shapes, bullnose awnings, and bubble awnings are
inappropriate on most historic structures.
Complies
The new metal awnings are
compatible with the new
structure as well as the awnings
located on the adjacent historic
structures.
Page 92 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 5 of 11
10.2 A fixed metal canopy may be considered.
Appropriate supporting mechanisms are wall-mounted
brackets, chains, and posts.
Consider using a contemporary interpretation of those
canopies seen historically.
Complies
The metal canopies are
proposed over the entry doors
and windows.
10.4 Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining
features.
It should be mounted to highlight moldings that may be
found above the storefront and should not hide character-
defining features.
Its mounting should not damage significant features and
historic details.
Complies
Multiple metal canopies are
used to enhance the pedestrian
scale as well as create a multiple
building visual effect.
CHAPTER 13 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION IN
AREA 2- DOWNTOWN OVERLAY HISTORIC DISTRICT
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line.
Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.
A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a property
shall have a building wall at the sidewalk edge.
Where no sidewalk exists one should be installed that
aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back, define the
edge of the property with landscape elements.
For example, define the edges of a lot with landscaping,
such as low-scale urban street trees or shrubs.
Landscaping elements should be compatible with the
character of the area in size, scale, and type. Free-form,
suburban type landscaping is inappropriate in this setting.
− Also consider using a fence, or other structural element,
that reflects the position of typical storefront elements.
These elements should align with nearby traditional
commercial building types. N/A
Complies
Landscaping elements used
where the building has inset,
and landscaping used between
the sidewalk and parking lot.
13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width as
expressed by the following:
Variation in height at internal lot lines.
Variation in the plane of the front façade.
Variation in architectural detailing and materials to
emphasize the building module.
Variation in the façade height to reflect traditional lot
width.
Complies
The structure has multiple inset
areas along the street. These
areas include spaces for
landscaping, outdoor seating
and an entry way. The materials
on the structure were used to
express a traditional lot width
by how they were varied.
Height was also reflective of
traditional building height, with
Page 93 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 6 of 11
a varied use of architectural
cornice detailing and parapets.
Height varies on three of the
four facades.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.
A larger development should step down in height towards
the street or smaller, surrounding structures.
Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot
width.
Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade
profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the
depth of the building.
Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
Complies
The height of this structure is
two-story; seen in typical
historic commercial buildings in
the area including those in Area
1. The varied cornice detailing’s,
parapets and height step downs
create a variety of heights. The
design proposes two-stories, a
height that is seen in
surrounding commercial
buildings, there is no need to set
back a second story as that
wouldn’t be appropriate based
on the surrounding context.
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with several
buildings, rather than a single structure.
This will help reduce the perceived size of the project.
The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot
width.
Complies
The façade height was varied to
create the visual and feel of
multiple structures, the
structure only takes up about
half of the lot. The façade of the
structure runs parallel the
length of the lot along Church
Street, which without providing
modulation this would be a
large, dominant façade. The size
of the building compared to the
lot size as well as the use of
modulation meets the same
intent that multiple buildings
would accomplish.
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the building into
modules that reflect the traditional size of buildings.
A typical building module should not exceed 30 feet in
width. The building module should be expressed with at
least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of 3 feet
Complies
The design has utilized material
changes, insets, height variation,
setbacks, architectural detailing
to create a modular effect on the
building. There are multiple
insets that have been provided.
Page 94 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 7 of 11
- A change in primary facade material for the extent of the
building module - A vertical architectural element or trim
piece
Variations in facade treatment should be continued
through the structure, including its roofline and front and
rear facades.
If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they should
be expressed three-dimensionally throughout the entire
building. Variation in height should occur where the site is
larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce
overall scale of the building.
There are three that are
approximately three feet by ten
feet, one that is six feet by thirty
feet and the entrance that is inset
on the corner.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.
− In certain circumstances views to the courthouse shall be
taken into consideration when designing a new building.
N/A
− A new building shall not be so tall as to block views of the
courthouse. N/A
Property is not located within
the designated Courthouse View
Corridor
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale are preferred.
Brick and stone are preferred for new construction.
New materials should appear similar in character to those
used traditionally. For example, stucco, cast stone, and
concrete should be detailed to provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated durability for
the Central Texas climate. For example, some facade
materials used in new construction are more susceptible
to weather and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
Complies
HARC had feedback during the
conceptual review to find a
stone with larger cuts and a
color that would more closely
relate to the limestone white.
These two features are seen in
stone materials that are used on
the nearby historic structures.
The applicant has proposed a
stone that does both.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a large expanse of
wall plane.
A matte, or non-reflective, finish is preferred.
Polished stone and mirrored glass, for example, are
inappropriate and should be avoided as primary
materials.
Complies
Both the south and west facades
are expansive wall planes that
use brick and stone materials of
natural colors.
Page 95 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 8 of 11
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood, brick, and
stone are encouraged.
− Horizontal lap siding of traditional dimensions is
appropriate in most applications. N/A
− Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions are
encouraged. N/A
Brick or stone, similar to that used traditionally, is also
appropriate.
Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
New materials that are similar in character to traditional
ones may be considered. Alternative materials should
have a proven durability in similar locations in this
climate.
Complies
HARC had feedback during the
conceptual review to find a
stone with larger cuts and a
color that would more closely
relate to the limestone white.
These two features are seen in
stone materials that are used on
the nearby historic structures.
The applicant has proposed a
stone that does both.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage
pedestrian activity.
Provide at least one of the following along primary
pedestrian ways:
o A storefront
o Display cases
o Landscaping
o A courtyard or plaza
Include traditional elements such as display windows,
kickplates, and transoms on commercial storefronts.
Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
Complies
The building is located at the
both adjacent street lines and
has been designed with
traditional style storefronts with
doors and large windows that
are inviting for pedestrians.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building toward the street.
A building should have a clearly-defined primary
entrance.
The building entrance should be recessed.
A primary building entrance also should be at or near
street level.
Complies
The building is designed to have
the majority of access points on
Church Street, however a main,
recessed entry was designed at
the corner to allow entry from
both adjacent streets.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project entrances for both
automobiles and pedestrians.
Use landscaping and lighting accents to identify
entrances.
Complies
The road edge adjacent to the
parking lot has been landscaped.
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a street edge.
Sharing ingress and egress points with neighboring
projects is strongly encouraged with consideration to
safety.
Complies
There has been one access
provided for parking, and this
has been located on the
secondary street and is located
setback from the intersection, in
Page 96 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 9 of 11
a less prominent location on the
site.
13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when feasible or
disburse throughout the site.
See also the design guidelines for Parking found in
Chapter 8.
Complies
13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen
in the block.
The front yard setback of a new building should match the
established range of adjacent buildings.
Where the setbacks are uniform, the new building should
be placed in general alignment with its neighbors.
In those areas where setbacks vary slightly, but generally
fall within an established range, the new building should
be within 10 feet of the typical setback in the block.
Complies
General alignment with
commercial properties along E.
8th Street that abut the property
line. This will be one of the first
true commercial structures
along S. Church Street, the
proposed building adjacent to
the property line, parallel to the
street is appropriate and is
similar to the other developed
commercial buildings.
13.18 Buildings shall convey a sense of human scale.
Use building materials that are of traditional dimensions.
Provide a one-story entry element that is similar in size
to those seen traditionally.
Use a building mass that is similar in size to those seen
traditionally.
Use elements that provide a sense of scale.
Complies
The building is two-stories and
is located at the both adjacent
street lines and has been
designed with traditional style
storefronts with doors and large
windows that are inviting for
pedestrians. The structure has
been modulated using building
materials, architectural
elements, differentiated heights
and setbacks. The use of
traditional storefronts and
canopies also help to convey a
sense of scale.
13.19 Building heights of larger projects should provide variety.
A larger development should step down in height
towards the street or smaller, surrounding structures.
Complies
13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are
appropriate for primary roof forms.
A blending of sloping roof forms and flat roofs may be
appropriate for larger projects.
Partially Complies
Flat roof forms are provided and
are typically found on historic
commercial buildings in the
area. A sloping roof form would
Page 97 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 10 of 11
not be architecturally
appropriate as the surrounding
commercial buildings all have
flat roofs.
13.22 New interpretations of traditional building styles are
encouraged.
A new design that draws upon the fundamental
similarities among commercial and residential buildings
in the community without copying them is preferred. This
will allow them to be seen as products of their own time
yet compatible with their historic neighbors.
Complies
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and
final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines,
as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic
Overlay District;
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding
properties in the applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected;
and
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval, in that the design of the structure’s height and massing, modulation for
traditional lot width, architectural elements, and pedestrian friendly design, meet the design
requirements.
Page 98 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-029] – 200E. 8th Street Page 11 of 11
As of the date of this report, staff has received on written response in support.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans and Renderings
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 99 of 136
Page 100 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ib le ac tion on a reques t for a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s fo r a Fence
Exception of 7-feet from the 6-fo o t maximum fenc e height req uirement to allo w a fence height of 13-feet
and a s etb ack exc ep tion o f 2-feet 2-inc hes from the presc rib ed 10-fo o t rear setb ack to allow a setbac k of
7-feet 10-inches also p er Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC) Sectio n 8.07.040.B; for a residential ad d itio n
fo r the p ro p erty loc ated at 908 E. University Ave , bearing the legal d es c riptio n o f 0.80 ac. Snyder
Additio n, Blo c k 5 (E/P T ), (COA-2018-031). Madis on Tho mas , Downto wn His to ric Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The applic ant is p ro p o s ing to retain the exis ting bric k and wood fence, which meas ures 8’ in height and
p lace an ad d itional 5-feet o f wo o d paneling alo ng multiple s ectio ns (id entified in Exhibit 3 & 4) o f the rear
p o rtion o f the exis ting fenc e. The exis ting fence is approximately 8-feet tall, however, the approval o f a 5-
feet ad d ition will result in a total fence height of 13-feet. The new wo o d panels will be ap p ro ximately 7-feet
10-inc hes from the property line. The ap p licant is reques ting an exc eptio n to the height allowanc e of 6-feet
tall to allo w 13-feet tall and a setb ack of 10-feet to allow 7-feet 10-inches and an exc eptio n to the 50%
trans p arenc y requirement.
Findings
Staff finds that the propos ed ad d itio ns to fence exc eed the UDC s tand ard s , the intent o f the Des ign
Guidelines are no t met and recommend s denial.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- Plans and Renderings Exhibit
Exhibit 4- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 101 of 136
A
S
H
S
T
E
L
M
S
T P
I
N
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
E 1 3 T H S T
S C
O
LL
E
G
E
S
T
E 5 T H S T
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
E 6 T H S T
R
O
C
K
ST
S M
YR
TL
E
S
T
OL
I
V
E
S
T
WAL
NUT S
T
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
E 1 9 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
SOUT H W E STERNBLVD
E 1 6 T H S T
VINE
ST
E 1 4TH ST
FINCH LN
W 9 T H S T
W 1 7T H S T
W 8 T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
W 7 TH S T
W 6 T H S T E 8 T H S T
L
O
U
I
S
E
S
T
W 11TH ST
LA
U
R
E
L S
T
H
A
V
E
N
L
N
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
B
A
R
C
U
S
D
R
W
E
S
L
E
Y
A
N
D
R
W 5 T H S T
H
O
G
G
S
T
P I R A T E D R
W 1 8 T H S T
P
E
C
A
N
S
T
SO U LE D R
VIVION LN
M
I
M
O
S
A
S
T
S E R V I C E R D
P
I
R
A
T
E
C
V
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
J
A
M
E
S
S
T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 1 7TH S T
B E R G I N C T
E R UTERSVIL
L
E
D
R
K
A
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
C
T
E 9 T H S T
A
L
L
E
Y
M C C O Y P L
A
N
N
I
E
P
URLDV
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
M C K E N Z I E D R
GE
ORGE ST
E 9 TH 1 /2 S T
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E 1 8 T H S T
H
OL
LY
S
T
V
I
N
E
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
W 18TH ST
E 1 7 T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E 1 3 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
PINE
ST
E 11T H ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 1 6TH ST
E 1 4 T H S T
E 1 6TH ST
E 8 T H S T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 0T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
A N N I E P U R L D V
COA-2018-031Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 750 1,500Feet
Page 102 of 136
Mike Leschber Construction
1252 CR 234
Georgetown, TX
Bid For: Sherwin Kahn
908 E, University Ave.
Georgetown, TX.
Breakdown of Proposal:
We propose to build privacy panels inside the existing fence to provide privacy while using the pool
and backyard. The apartments behind the property 13th have an unobstructed view into the backyard.
The panels will be constructed on rough cedar 1x6 in a woven pattern attached to 4x4 post. They will
extend approximately 5 feet above the existing fence on the back side of the property. 2 panels will be
on the east and 2 on the west sides facing 13th street. 2 panels will be next to the gate for the backyard
with one panel over the gate. The panels will be inside the existing fence and not sitting on top.
Page 103 of 136
1
Madison Thomas
From:mikeleschber <mikeleschber@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, July 09, 2018 10:10 AM
To:Madison Thomas
Subject:Re: Fence
Good morning Madison, the total height will be approximately 13 feet. The 5 foot is above the
existing fence. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for the help!
Mike
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8+, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Madison Thomas <Madison.Thomas@georgetown.org>
Date: 7/9/18 8:58 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: mikeleschber <mikeleschber@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fence
Hi Mike,
What is the total proposed fence height? You mentioned the proposed fencing addition is 5’, but I do not know
how tall the existing fence is.
Thanks,
Madison
Madison Thomas, AICP
Historic & Downtown Planner
512-930-3581
Madison.Thomas@georgetown.org
Page 104 of 136
Page 105 of 136
Page 106 of 136
Page 107 of 136
Page 108 of 136
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:908 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:124341
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R047425Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 4/21/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1909
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: new front door; vinyl windows)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:272
ID:217
*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 J. H. Reedy House
ID:124341 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.632904 Longitude -97.668281
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: South
Page 109 of 136
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:908 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:124341
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
SouthwestPhoto Direction
Page 110 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-031] – 908 E. University Ave. Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: 7/26/2018
File Number: COA-2018-031
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Fence Exception
of 7-feet from the 6-foot maximum fence height requirement to allow a fence height of 13-feet and a
setback exception of 2-feet 2-inches from the prescribed 10-foot rear setback to allow a setback of 7-feet
10-inches also per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 8.07.040.B; for a residential addition for the
property located at 908 E. University Ave, bearing the legal description of 0.80 ac. Snyder Addition, Block
5 (E/PT), (COA-2018-031). Madison Thomas, Downtown Historic Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : Residential Fence Exception
Applicant: Mike Leschber
Property Owner: Sherwin Kahn
Property Address: 908 E. University Ave., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.80 ac. Snyder Addition, Block 5 (E/PT)
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1909
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – High
2007 - High
2016 - High
National Register Designation: Yes
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to retain the existing brick and wood fence, which measures 8’ in height and
place an additional 5-feet of wood paneling along multiple sections (identified in Exhibit 3 & 4) of the
rear portion of the existing fence. The existing fence is approximately 8-feet tall, however, the approval
of a 5-feet addition will result in a total fence height of 13-feet. The new wood panels will be
approximately 7-feet 10-inches from the property line. The applicant is requesting an exception to the
height allowance of 6-feet tall to allow 13-feet tall and a setback of 10-feet to allow 7-feet 10-inches and
an exception to the 50% transparency requirement.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Page 111 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-031] – 908 E. University Ave. Page 2 of 4
The applicant is requesting a fence exception to the property located at 908 E. University Ave. This
property faces University, with the side street facing Maple St, and the rear yard lot line parallel to E.
13th Street. Along Maple St., facing the side of the property, are two residential structures, identified as
Medium Priorities on the Historic Resources Survey. Along E. 13th Street, facing the rear of this
property, is a multi-family residential structure that is identified as a Low Priority on the Historic
Resources Survey. On the same side of E. 13th Street, a residential, Low Priority structure is located
adjacent to the property. A fence that is 8-feet tall, currently exists along the side street and rear lot
lines. The request is to add the additional fencing over the existing fencing to extend the total height for
certain portions of the fence along E. 13th Street. The applicant has currently added these fencing
portions, unpermitted. The submittal of this application is a result of Code Enforcement involvement
after complaints were filed. A stop work order was issued on May 11th, the COA was submitted in
June. The additions do not comply with the regulations, therefore they are requesting an exception for
compliance purposes through this permit.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines refer to the Unified Development Code when
determining rear and side yard fences, determining that what the code establishes for rear and side
yard fencing is appropriate in the historic overlays. Higher fencing along the side and rear yards is
historically appropriate and in character with the overlays however, a fence over 8’ is inappropriate.
The code permits the height of 6’ to 8’ if there is an adjacent non-residential use, the fence is not
adjacent to a street, the fence is more than 50% transparent, etc. A solid fence that is 13’ tall does not fit
within the neighborhood context or character.
B. Fences in all other locations are allowed with the following limitations by the Unified Development
Code:
1. Fences located in a rear setback abutting a local or collector-level street
are allowed with the limitations in this Section, but shall be set back a
minimum of ten feet. If seeking to replace an existing fence that would not
comply with this setback, the new fence may be constructed in the
existing location, unless located in a right-of-way or in conflict with
utilities, sight triangle, etc.
Does not comply
The proposed
additional fencing does
not meet the required
10’ setback.
2. Fences shall be limited to six feet in height, but may be increased to a
maximum of eight feet in height in the following circumstances:
a. If the adjacent use is non-residential, in which case only a fence
on the property line abutting the non-residential use may be
allowed the increase in height.
b. If the fence is located in the rear yard not adjacent to a street
right-of-way and has the consent of both property owners.
c. If the fence is more than fifty percent (50%) transparent overall
or one hundred percent (100%) transparent above six feet.
Does not comply
The request is to allow a
total height of 13’ tall.
The height permitted at
the setback is 6’, with a
max. permitted of 8’ feet
if the items adjacent are
met. The items listed are
not met, and the request
is for taller than 8’.
Page 112 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-031] – 908 E. University Ave. Page 3 of 4
d. If the fence is placed is in a location where the topography of the
land dictates the need for additional height for privacy, at the
discretion of the Building Official.
e. If the fence is adjacent to a roadway where the right-of-way
width is greater than 120 feet.
The proposed height of 13-feet exceeds the UDC requirements for residential fences for height,
transparency and setback. The proposed height and design are not characteristic of the neighborhood.
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
8.25 A new fence may be considered in transitional areas with a residential context.
− A fence that defines a front yard should below to the ground and
“transparent” in nature. N/A
− A front yard fence should not exceed three feet in height. N/A
− Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views into front yards and are
inappropriate. N/A
Chain link, concrete block, unfaced concrete, plastic, solid metal panel,
fiberglass, plywood, and mesh construction fences are not appropriate.
• A side or rear yard fence that is taller than its front yard counterpart may be
considered. See UDC Chapter 8 for fence standards.
Partially
Complies
The applicant
is proposing a
treated wood
fence.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within
the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; Does not comply
Page 113 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-031] – 908 E. University Ave. Page 4 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Does not comply
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the
building, structure or site is preserved;
Partially Complies
The structure is not
being altered, the
integrity of the site is.
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
Does not comply
Design Guidelines refer
to the UDC for
standards on side and
rear fencing. These
standards are not being
met.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed additions to fence exceed the UDC standards, the intent of the Design
Guidelines are not met and recommends denial.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 and 4 – Plans and Rendering
Exhibit 5 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 114 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s (COA) fo r a
res id ential renovation for the replac ement of the exis ting wo o d siding with hard ie s iding lo cated at 1407 S.
Myrtle St., bearing the legal desc rip tion of 0.09 ac . Hughes Sec o nd Ad d itio n (Part Blk C Res ub), Lo t 1.
Madison Thomas , AICP, His toric & Do wnto wn P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The ap p licant is reques ting to rep lace the exis ting wood s id ing on the home with hardie s id ing. Wood was
not c o nsidered, as hardie was cho s en b as ed on the c os t, lo w maintenance, fire res is tant, longevity and the
lo o k/feel was s imilar to wo o d . They will be us ing the s malles t width hardie panel that is available.
Findings:
Staff find s that the id entified deterio rated wo o d sho uld be rep laced to reduce further water d amage to the
home. Ho wever, the wood that does no t exhib it rot, damage or warp ing s ho uld be attempted to b e retained
o r s alvaged and us ed on the home before entirely replac ing the material. F o r the materials that are b eyond
rep air, a rep lac ement s ho uld b e the s ame wood material and o f the s ame style/ d es ign.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 & 3- Letter of Intent and Plans Exhibit
Exhibit 4- His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Staff Report Exhibit
Page 115 of 136
EL
M
S
T
A
SH
ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E 1 5TH ST
E 1 3 T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
S M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
W 17T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
E 1 7TH ST
W U N IV E R SI TY AV E
GEOR
GE
S
T
WAL
NUT
S
T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T C Y R U S A V E
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 7T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
C Y R U S A V E
COA-2018-035Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 116 of 136
Page 117 of 136
2
July 6th 2018
Planning Board (HARC Review):
Additional detail has been requested in regards to the extent of damage to the exterior of the
house at 1407 S. Myrtle St.
Although it is difficult to assess what extent of damage there is once siding is removed. I would
estimate that 25 – 40% of the wood siding is either rotten and/or pulling away from the house. It
would appear the approach to maintain the exterior of the house in the past was to apply lots of
paint.
Please see photos for visuals
Front of 1407 S. Myrtle St.
1407 S. Myrtle: Residential Renovation
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
Page 118 of 136
3
Right Side of 1407 S. Myrtle St. – facing front of house
Rear of 1407 S. Myrtle St.
Left Side of 1407 S. Myrtle St – facing front of house
Note: last picture on right is termite damage – extent of interior damage TBD
Page 119 of 136
Page 120 of 136
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address BRACE, JANNA & RYAN & DENNIS PERKINS, 1407 S MYRTLE ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.630922 Longitude -97.67483
Addition/Subdivision:S8214 - Hughes Second Addition (part Blk C Resub)
WCAD ID:R042850Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES SECOND ADDITION (PART BLK C RESUB), LOT
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1930
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 121 of 136
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story Tudor Revival style house clad in wood siding with an L-plan and a cross-gabled roof with a flared eave;
there is an inset entry with a single front door, as well as a partial-width, projecting porch with a wood balustrade.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Porch modified, windows replaced, window resized on secondary elevation
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed 1 Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Gabled
Vinyl
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 122 of 136
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: vinyl windows)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Despite some alterations, property is
significant and contributes to neighborhood
character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:887
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 123 of 136
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1407 S Myrtle St 2016 Survey ID:126388
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 124 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: 7/26/2018
File Number: COA-2018-035
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential renovation for the replacement of the existing wood siding with hardie siding located at 1407
S. Myrtle St., bearing the legal description of 0.09 ac. Hughes Second Addition (Part Blk C Resub), Lot 1.
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name : 1407 S. Myrtle: Residential Reconstruction
Applicant: Gregory Brown
Property Owner: Gregory Brown
Property Address: 1407 S. Myrtle St., Georgetown Texas 78626
Legal Description: 0.09 ac. Hughes Second Addition (Part Blk C Resub), Lot 1
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: This is the first review for this application.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: est. 1930
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – N/A
2007 - Medium
2016 - Medium
National Register Designation: No
Texas Historical Commission Designation: No
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood siding on the home with hardie siding. Wood
was not considered, as hardie was chosen based on the cost, low maintenance, fire resistant, longevity
and the look/feel was similar to wood. They will be using the smallest width hardie panel that is
available.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Per the Historic Resources Survey, this is a single-story, Tudor Revival style home that was built in
1930. The home is located on the corner of S. Myrtle St. and E. 15th Street. The front of the home faces S.
Myrtle St., which backs up to the homes that face Church Street. The survey identifies a porch
modification and window replacement as some modifications that were made in the past. The
applicant is requesting to replace the wood siding on all facades of the home with hardie siding. The
changes to the street-facing facades are HARC’s purview.
Page 125 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 2 of 5
Staff went on-site with the applicant and a representative from the building department to inspect the
current condition of the siding on the home. The siding was showing signs of water damage, including
peeling paint, rot, and warping. Portions of it had been replaced, time of replacement is unknown. The
front façade would need about 100% replacement due to significant rot and warping. The design of the
front façade results in shorter pieces of siding, rendering most pieces unsalvageable. The façades facing
E. 15th Street and the driveway were estimated at approximately 40-50% salvageable, with the façade
that faces the Myrtle St. neighbor was around 20% salvageable. All of these estimates were based
without knowledge of possible termite damage, which is prevalent on multiple portions of the home.
The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines prioritize preservation and maintenance of the
existing historic materials. “The best way to preserve historic building materials is through well-
planned maintenance. Wood surfaces, for example, should be protected with a good application of
paint. In some cases, historic building materials may be deteriorated. When deterioration occurs,
repairing the material rather than replacing it is preferred.” Frequently, damaged materials can be
patched or consolidated using special bonding agents. Preservation Principal #5 calls for the:
Repair deteriorated historic features, and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. Maintain the
existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. If disassembly is necessary for
repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to original materials and replace the existing
configuration.
For those materials that cannot be repaired, the portion of the material that is beyond repair may be
replaced. The guidelines call for the replacement material to match the original in appearance. The
applicant is requesting to replace the existing wood siding with hardie siding. This change will match
in appearance to the original, but it is a different material. Not only is the material different, but the
profile is different as well. Hardie is not made in the same style/design as the siding on this home,
therefore the change will change the visual appearance and character. The guidelines speak prioritizing
repair, then replacement of materials past repair before complete replacement of the existing materials.
The request is to replace all existing wood siding on the structure.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
Page 126 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 3 of 5
5.01 Maintain existing wall materials and textures.
• Avoid removing materials that are in good condition or that can be
repaired in place.
• Remove only those materials that are deteriorated and must be
replaced.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be
repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building that is no longer
historic.
• In many cases, original building materials may not be damaged
beyond repair and do not require replacement. Repainting wood,
ensuring proper drainage, and keeping the material clean may be all
that is necessary.
Partially Complies
Applicant states
that 25%-40% of the
existing wood
siding is damaged
and needs to be
replaced.
5.02 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-
in, consolidating, or otherwise
reinforcing the materials.
• Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
• Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using
consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair.
Also, special masonry repair components may be used.
Does not comply
The materials that
are not damaged
and that could be
retained will also be
removed with the
deteriorated ones.
5.04 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when
replacing it on a primary surface.
• If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the
replacement material should be wood as well. It should match the
original in size, the amount of exposed lap, and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged
beyond repair, then only replace them and not the entire wall.
Does not comply
The original
material is wood
and the request is
to replace with
hardie siding.
5.05 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum, vinyl siding, or
panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials on an
historic structure.
• Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick may not be
replaced with synthetic materials.
• See also Preservation Briefs #16: The Use of Substitute Materials on
Historic Building Exteriors, published by the National Park Service.
Does not comply
Hardie is a
synthetic material.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
Page 127 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 4 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the information contained within
the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate
review and final action;
Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; N/A
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;
Does not comply
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Does not comply
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the
building, structure or site is preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed change
in siding materials
mimic the character of
the original structure
in that the exterior
wall treatment would
remain as siding.
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
Partially Complies
Removal of a historic
material could reduce
the integrity of the
structure.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay
district.
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the identified deteriorated wood should be replaced to reduce further water damage to
the home. However, the wood that does not exhibit rot, damage or warping should be attempted to be
retained or salvaged and used on the home before entirely replacing the material. For the materials that
are beyond repair, a replacement should be the same wood material and of the same style/ design.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 &3 - Letter of Intent and Plans
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 128 of 136
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
[COA-2018-035] – 1407 S. Myrtle St. Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resources Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic & Downtown Planner
Page 129 of 136
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion on the p ro cess and s tandards related to a Certific ate of Ap p ro p riatenes s
(CoA) for the relo c atio n, removal or d emo litio n o f a histo ric s tructure. Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His toric
and Downto wn Planner.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Demolition Proces s Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Chapter 7 Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Demolition cont.Exhibit
Exhibit 4- Demolition Subcommittee Recommendation Report Exhibit
Exhibit 5- HARC Approval Criteria Exhibit
Page 130 of 136
Page 131 of 136
City of Georgetown
page 70
Demolition/RelocationDemolition is forever, and once a building is gone it takes away another piece of the city’s charac-ter. Demolition of an historic building or resource should only be an action of last resort. HARC can delay or deny requests for demolition while it seeks solutions for preservation and rehabilitation.
HARC should not allow the demolition or reloca-tion of any resource that has historical and/or architectural significance unless one or more of the following conditions exist and if, by a finding of HARC, the proposed demolition or relocation will materially improve or correct these conditions:
1. The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or the occupants, as determined by the Building Official.2. The resource is a deterrent to a major im-provement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all neces-sary planning and zoning approvals, financ-ing, and environmental clearances.3. Retention of the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a gov-ernmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship; and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.4. Retention of the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.
HARC should consider the following when evalu-ating proposals to demolish or relocate historic resources:
1. Does the resource proposed for demolition or relocation have architectural and/or historical significance?2. What would be the effect on surrounding buildings of demolition or relocation of the resource?3. What would be the effect on the Overlay District as a whole of demolition or relocation of the resource?4. What would be the effect on safeguarding the heritage of the city of the demolition or relocation?5. What has been the impact of any previous inappropriate alterations?6. Has the owner offered the property for sale?7. Has the owner asked a fair price?8. Has the property been marketed for a rea-sonable time?9. Has the property been advertised broadly in a reasonable manner?10. Has the owner sought the advice of a profes-sional experienced in historic preservation work?11. What would be the effect of open space in that location if the lot is to be left open?12. What will be done with the empty lot?13. What would the effect of any proposed re-placement structure be to the community?14. What is the appropriateness of design of any proposed replacement structure to the Overlay District?
Page 132 of 136
City of Georgetown
page 80
7.12 When use changes demand that struc-tures be altered such that little or no use can be made of the original structure, consider mov-ing the structure to a compatible location. • This move can be made to another location on the same site or to a vacant site in another neighborhood.
7.13 Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition.• Demolition of any original feature or part of an historic building should be avoided.• Demolition of a building that contributes to the historic or architectural significance of a locally or nationally designated district should not occur, unless:+ Public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure;+ The building has lost its architectural and historical value/significance and its removal will improve the viability of the neighborhood;+ A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district and its removal will improve the appearance of the neigh-borhood; or+ The denial of the demolition will result in a substantial hardship on the applicant as determined by the process outlined in the City’s Unified Development Code.
When adapting a residence to a commercial use,
respect the residential character of the building by
preserving the overall form of the building, the front
porch and front yard character.
• Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to any de-construction or demolition. The owner shall be responsible for providing the record, which shall include, but is not limited to, photographs, architectural drawings, and deed records, if available. This record shall be deposited with the Planning and Develop-ment Department.• A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience.• If a demolition is approved, work with HARC to identify salvageable materials and poten-tial buyers or recipients of salvaged materi-als. The removal of all salvageable building materials before demolition is encouraged, through a proper demolition by deconstruc-tion method as determined by HARC at the public hearing, and may be required depend-ing on the significance of the building.• Preserve historic garages and other second-ary buildings where feasible.• Demolition of secondary buildings (garages, etc.) 50 years or older may be appropriate if substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more replacement of exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and structure members).• Relocating buildings within the Overlay Dis-tricts may be appropriate if compatible with the district’s architectural character through style, period, height, scale, materials, setting, and placement on the lot.• Relocation of a building out of the Overlay Districts should be avoided unless demolition is the only alternative.• See also Unified Development Code Sec-tion 3.13 for demolition or relocation criteria, standards, and procedures.
Page 133 of 136
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER:
MEETING DATE:
MEETING LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
COMMENTS
Applicant:
Subcommittee:
What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that
should be made to the structure for re‐occupancy?
Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to
the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the
structure to its original design?
Page 134 of 136
File Number:
Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 2
May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style,
architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme?
Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones?
Other comments
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Based on:
Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date
Page 135 of 136
Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval.
F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Historic Structure.
1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are
unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when
reviewing the application.
2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when
considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure:
a. Loss of Significance.
i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer
historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the
historic overlay district; and
ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant
and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the
historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the
building or structure for such designation; and
iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were
not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or
negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by
neglect; and
iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse
effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or
b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable,
practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or
structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return
on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or
relocated; and
ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any
other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or
c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the
structure.
Page 136 of 136