HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_06.10.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
June 10, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at Virtual
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
R E V I S E D A G E N D A
The re gul ar me e ti ng will conve ne at 6:00pm on J une 10, 2021 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/3y3 H F XW
Webinar I D: 970-4066-6836
P assword: 501779
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: (346)248-7799 or Toll-F r ee : 833-548-0282
P assword: 501779
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to planning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the me eting and the Re cor ding Se cr etar y will re ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the mee ting at the link above and "raise your hand" during the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r To join a Zoom
mee ting, clic k on the link pr ovide d and join as an atte ndee . You will be aske d
to e nte r your name and email addre ss (this is so we can identify you whe n you
ar e c alled upon). To spe ak on an item, clic k on the "Raise your H and" option
at the bottom of the Zoom mee ting we bpage once that item has ope ne d. When
you are calle d upon by the Re cor ding Se cr etar y, your devic e will be r emotely
un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may spe ak for thre e minute s. P lease
state your name clear ly, and when your time is over, your de vice will be
mute d again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 105
harm are not allowed and will re sult in you be ing imme diately re moved fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
C Nomination and selec tion of Vic e-chair and S ec retary for the 2021-22 year.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 27, 2021 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an
addition that creates a new, or adds to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ade; a 3’-0” setback encroac hment into
the required 25’-0” street-fac ing garage s etbac k, for a c arport to be c onstruc ted 22’-0” from the side
Page 2 of 105
(east) property line; and a new fence, railing or wall that is inc onsistent with the overlay district's
c harac teristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 301 E. 17th ½ S treet, bearing the legal
desc ription 0.1798 acres, being the south part of Bloc k 3, S outh S ide Addition. – Britin Bostick,
Downtown & Historic P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
a 14'-0" setb ack encroac hment into the req uired 25'-0" s treet-fac ing garage s etb ac k, for a carport to
be cons tructed 11'-0" from the front (wes t) property line,
a 6’-0” s etbac k encroac hment into the required 6’-0” s id e setb ack, fo r the c arp o rt to be
c onstruc ted 0’-0” from the s ide (south) property line; and
a 1’-0” s etbac k encroac hment into the 6’-0” s id e s etbac k, fo r an additio n to b e cons tructed 1’-0”
from the side (north) property line
at the p ro p erty loc ated at 1505 P ine S treet, b earing the legal desc ription Lot 7, Bloc k 44, S nyder
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
G S taff presentation and dis cus s ion of the procedure to make a recommendation to the C ity C ounc il on
proposed changes to the Des ign G uidelines .
H Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 10, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Nomination and s election of Vice-c hair and S ecretary for the 2021-22 year.
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he C ommission will selec t a Vice-c hair and S ecretary for the 2021/22 year.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia. Management Analys t
Page 4 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 10, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the May 27, 2021 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 5 of 105
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: May 27, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
May 27, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/3aaVPfU
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on May 27, 2021 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/3aaVPfU. Webinar ID: 941-5956-7529. To participate by phone: Call in number: (346)
248-7799 or Toll-Free: 833-548-0282. Password: 132581. Public Comment was allowed via the
conference call number or the “ask a question” function on the video conference option; no in-
person input was allowed.
Members Present: Faustine Curry; Terri Hyde; Catherine Morales; Pam Mitchell; Michael Walton;
Lawrence Romero
Members Absent: Robert McCabe; Karalei Nunn; Steve Johnston
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager;
Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Meeting called to order by Chair Curry at 6:00 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the Chair of the
Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would like to provide
comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if anyone would like to speak. To
speak, please identify yourself by either entering your name, address and item
number on the Q/A chat on your screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3
Page 6 of 105
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: May 27, 2021
minutes. A speaker may allot their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a
member of the public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their
name is called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be addressed
to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers during the public hearing
portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing
and provide a few minutes of rebuttal time to the applicant if they so choose.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion by to approve by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved
(4-0).
D. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Bostick provided an update regarding the design guidelines. Staff will present to City Council
at their 6/2 meeting. Curry has been appointed as the new Chair, and Lawren ce Romero has
been appointed as a new member to the Commission.
E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for new residential building construction and a 5’-0” building height modification to the
required 20’-0” building height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow
the building to be 25’-0” at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback at the property
located at 701 S. College Street, bearing the legal description Block C, Clamp’s Addition. – Britin
Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new, two-story house
that is proposed to be connected via a breezeway to the existing accessory structure. The new
house is proposed to be positioned in the same location on the site as the existing house, which
was approved for demolition by HARC on July 23, 2020 with the condition that an archive
document of the property be provided to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. The archive
document was provided to the City on September 18, 2020, and the applicant is awaiting approval
of the requested residential infill construction before proceeding with the approved demolition.
The applicant initially requested approval of a 5’-0” building height modification to the required
20’-0” building height at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback to allow the building
to be 25’-0” at a distance 3’-0” from the side street (north) setback for the new infill construction.
Based on feedback from the Historic & Architectural Review Commission (HARC) in a
conceptual review held on May 13, 2021 the new, two-story house is proposed to be located in a
similar position on the site as the existing house but has since shifted to the south so that the
building height modification would not be required. The new residential structure is proposed
to have gable roofs, first and second floor porches, lapped fiber cement siding, asphalt shingle
Page 7 of 105
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: May 27, 2021
roofing, double-paned vinyl, single hung windows with either a 2/2 or a 1/1 pattern and clear,
insulated glass and decorative fiber cement porch columns. Based on HARC feedback in the
conceptual review, the applicant is proposing wood railings for the porches. The house is
proposed to be slab on grade construction with the foundation visible below the siding and a
brick chimney with a stucco coating. The existing accessory structure is proposed to be remodeled
to have siding, windows and roofing to match the main house and to be connected via a
breezeway of similar materials. Based on HARC feedback from the conceptual review t he
applicant has provided an elevation with the railings initially proposed for the breezeway
removed and is requesting approval of either options.
The applicant, Pam Helgren, addressed the Commission and was available to answer questions.
Chair Curry opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Commissioner Walton asked if this will be the primary residence of the applicant. The applicant
responded that it will.
Motion to approve Item E (2019-67-COA) by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (4-0).
F. Presentation by staff on building lighting sharing fixture and lighting types, illumination styles,
and lighting terms.
As a Certified Local Government (CLG) the City of Georgetown undertakes training for staff
and Historic & Architectural Review Commissioners on a variety of topics that are part of the
City's historic preservation efforts as well as topics that are part of the Certificate of
Appropriateness application review process. The staff presentation will provide an overview of
building lighting types, terms, styles and impacts, followed by questions and discussion by the
Commissioners.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Hyde. Approved (4-0).
Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Faustine Curry, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 8 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 10, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an
addition that c reates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 3’-0” s etbac k enc roachment into
the required 25’-0” s treet-facing garage setback, for a carport to be cons tructed 22’-0” from the s ide (east)
property line; and a new fenc e, railing or wall that is incons is tent with the overlay dis tric t's characteris tic s
and applicable guidelines at the property located at 301 E. 17th ½ S treet, bearing the legal des cription
0.1798 ac res , being the s outh part of Block 3, S outh S ide Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown &
His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he Applicant is reques ting HAR C approval for a new 22’ x 10’ or 220 sq. ft. carport with a 3’-0” s etbac k
modification and a 4’-0” tall dec o rative metal fence with b rick columns at the c o rners and gates in the same
s tyle, materials and height as the fence approved and cons tructed at 1304 Elm S treet.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request meets 5 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in
UDC S ec tion 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in the attached S taff R eport.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), three (3) s igns were posted on-s ite and thirty-s ix
(36) letters mailed. As of the public ation date of this report, s taff has received 0 written comments in favor
and 0 in oppos ition of the reques t.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 9 of 105
Page 10 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-23-COA – 301 E. 17th ½ Street Page 1 of 6
Report Date: June 4, 2021
File Number: 2021-23-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 3’-0” setback encroachment
into the required 25’-0” street-facing garage setback, for a carport to be constructed 22’-0” from the side
(east) property line; and a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's
characteristics and applicable guidelines at the property located at 301 E. 17th ½ Street, bearing the legal
description 0.1798 acres, being the south part of Block 3, South Side Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Cortinas Carport Addition
Applicant: Fredrico Cortinas
Property Owner: Fredrico & Maria Cortinas
Property Address: 301 E. 17th ½ Street
Legal Description: 0.1798 acres, being the south part of Block 3, Southside Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1896 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Detached carport addition
3’-0” setback modification for carport
4’ tall fence
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for a new 22’ x 10’ or 220 sq. ft. carport with a 3’-0” setback
modification and a 4’-0” tall decorative metal fence with brick columns at the corners and gates in the
same style, materials and height as the fence approved and constructed at 1304 Elm Street. The carport
is proposed to have a gable roof with a slope similar to the gable roof of the historic main structure, and
either a corrugated metal or asphalt shingle roof to match the color of the asphalt shingles on the main
structure, with painted wood columns. The fence is proposed to be a 4’ tall decorative iron fence with 2’
Page 11 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-23-COA – 301 E. 17th ½ Street Page 2 of 6
square brick columns at the corners and fence posts, the same design as was approved by HARC and
installed at the property at 1304 Elm Street.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 8 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE DESIGN
8.25 A new fence may be considered in
transitional areas with a residential context.
A fence that defines a front yard should be low
to the ground and “transparent” in nature.
A front yard fence should not exceed three feet
in height.
Solid, “stockade” fences do not allow views
into front yards and are inappropriate.
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 proposed fence is 4’ tall and exceeds the
3’ height standard for front and side yard
fences in the Old Town Overlay District,
however the fence is more than 50%
transparent and the proposed height, style
and materials are consistent and compatible
with the style and age of the historic main
structure.
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be
designed to remain subordinate to the
main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed carport addition is a
compatible scale or size, character and
materials with the main building,
particularly if the carport were to have an
asphalt shingle roof to match the roof of the
main building.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building
or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impacts.
This will allow the original proportions
and character to remain prominent.
Complies
The proposed carport addition is placed to
the rear of the main building and is set back
from the side street façade.
Page 12 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-23-COA – 301 E. 17th ½ Street Page 3 of 6
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Locating an addition at the front of a
structure is usually inappropriate.
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
As the carport is proposed to be detached it
will not damage or affect original
architectural details and materials of the
primary structure.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in
character with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are
appropriate for residential additions. Flat
roofs may be more appropriate for
commercial buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of
the addition should be similar.
Complies
The carport is proposed to have a gable roof
similar to the roof of the primary building,
and one of the options presented by the
applicant is to match the asphalt shingle
roofing material. A corrugated metal roof
material would be consistent with small
accessory structures constructed during the
mid-19th century but does not as successfully
match the character of the main structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport location requires a 3’-
0” setback modification and the proposed
fence is 4’ in height rather than the 3’ height
prescribed for the Old Town Overlay
District.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
The proposed project complies with
applicable SOI Standards.
Page 13 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-23-COA – 301 E. 17th ½ Street Page 4 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Complies or partially complies with
applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed detached carport and fence do
not alter the integrity of the building,
structure or site. The historic main structure
has been altered over time, including
additions and asbestos siding.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed carport addition is compatible
with surrounding properties in the Old
Town Overlay District.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed carport and fence are
compatible with the character of the Old
Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signs are proposed with this project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed carport location is to utilize
a previous carport location and will set
the carport to the rear of the historic main
structure, although the carport will be
visible on two street facades as the subject
property is located on a “peninsula”
surrounded by streets and has three
street facades.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport could be
constructed without a setback
Page 14 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-23-COA – 301 E. 17th ½ Street Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
modification but would require the
extension of the existing driveway.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
Properties on the same and surrounding
blocks have carports and garages with
varying setbacks, including setbacks less
than the setback proposed for this project.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed carport will not be set
closer to the street than other units within
the block.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport would not replace
a structure removed within the past year
but would replace a structure that existed
at least between 1964 and 1974.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Complies
The carport proposes to use the existing
column layout for the previous carport.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Complies
The proposed carport is approximately
the same size as the previous carport
based on the location of the columns.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
The proposed carport is 220 sq. ft. or 22%
of the approximately 1,000 sq. ft. main
structure.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
Similarly sized or larger carport and
garage structures, both attached and
detached, exist on the same and
surrounding blocks.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed carport is not anticipated to
negatively impact adjoining properties or
limit maintenance.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
The proposed setback modification is a
3’-0” modification to the 25’-0” setback
for a street-facing garage or carport,
Page 15 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-23-COA – 301 E. 17th ½ Street Page 6 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
which will leave adequate space for
maintenance of the structure.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or significant features are
proposed to be preserved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received 0 comments in favor and 0 opposed.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 16 of 105
Location
2021-23-COA
Exhibit #1
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E
16TH ST
W
1 7TH
ST
W 18TH ST
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
AS
H
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
PA
I
G
E
ST
E 17TH ST
E 17TH 1/2 ST
E 19TH
S
T
E 18TH
S
T
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
CYRUS A
V
E
A
L
L
E
Y
H
O
G
G
S
T
GE
O
R
G
E
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
CYRUS A
V
E
S
COLL
E
G
E
S
T
E 17TH
1
/
2
S
T
E 17TH STEL
M
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 17 of 105
We would like to build a carport over the existing driveway with either a corrugated tin roof or asphalt
shingle roof to match the house. The carport would have square wood columns covering metal poles 2”
x 2”. The carport would be set back 22’ from the property line.
We would also like to have a fence 4’ tall the same as the house at 1304 Elm Street.
Page 18 of 105
Page 19 of 105
Page 20 of 105
Page 21 of 105
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY
1. County Williamson
FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
5. USGS Quad No.
27-3388
3°97-313
(rev. 8-82)
Site No 273 WM
City/Rural Georgetown GE UTM Sector
2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est 1901)
Address 301 E. 174 St. 7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner Noel Daniels 8 Style/Type vernacul ar
Address 100 W. Central. 78676 9. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Southside/Blk.3/S.p. Present Use residnetini
10. Description One-story wood frame dwelling with L-plan; exterior walls with asbestos shinal P
siding; intersecting gable roof with composition shingles: front elev. fares 5_; aluminum
sash windows; single-door entrance: one-bay porch with shed roof on S. elev 7 wrmight-irnn
supports. Other noteworthy features include addtinn on W elev
11. Present Condition fair; severely altered
12. Significance
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date
or Original Site (describe)
14. Bibliography Tax rolls, Sanborn Maps 15. Informant
16. Recorder D.Moore/HIN Date Tilly T gpLL
DESIGNATIONS
PHOTO DATA
TNRIS No. Old THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL q NABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
NR: ID Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME
3 20
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Wi I 1 i amqnn WM 5. USGS Quad No. 1007-113 Site No
City/Rural Genroetown GF
2. Name
No
Page 22 of 105
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:301 E 17th 1/2 St 2016 Survey ID:125092
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R047735Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Tax Assessor RollConstruction Date:1896
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:Original owners: J.D. Eagan and J.L. Strickland (Notes from 2007 Survey: asbestos shingles; aluminum screens)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:434
ID:273
*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:125092 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.628332 Longitude -97.674216
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: North
Page 23 of 105
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:301 E 17th 1/2 St 2016 Survey ID:125092
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Page 24 of 105
301 E. 17th ½ Street
2021-23-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
June 10, 2021
1Page 25 of 105
Item Under Consideration
2021-23-COA –301 E. 17th ½ Street
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 3’-0”
setback encroachment into the required 25’-0” street-facing garage setback, for a carport
to be constructed 22’-0” from the side (east) property line; and a new fence, railing or wall
that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines at
the property located at 301 E. 17th ½ Street, bearing the legal description 0.1798 acres,
being the south part of Block 3, South Side Addition.
2Page 26 of 105
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Detached carport addition
•3’-0” setback modification for carport
•4’ tall fence
3Page 27 of 105
Item Under Consideration
4Page 28 of 105
5Page 29 of 105
Current Context
6Page 30 of 105
1916, 1925 & 1940 Sanborn Maps
7Page 31 of 105
1964 Aerial
8Page 32 of 105
1974 Aerial
9Page 33 of 105
1984 HRS Photo
10Page 34 of 105
Proposed Carport Design
11Page 35 of 105
Proposed Fence Design
12Page 36 of 105
301 E. 17th ½ Street Current Photo
13Page 37 of 105
301 E. 17th ½ Street Current Photo
14Page 38 of 105
301 E. 17th ½ Street Current Photos
15Page 39 of 105
Current Context
16Page 40 of 105
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 17Page 41 of 105
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;Partially
Complies
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies
18Page 42 of 105
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
19Page 43 of 105
Public Notification
•Three (3) signs posted
•Thirty-six (36) letters mailed
•0 comments in favor and 0 opposed
20Page 44 of 105
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for carport addition,
setback modification and fence.
21Page 45 of 105
HARC Motion –2021-23-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
22Page 46 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 10, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
a 14'-0" setb ack encroac hment into the req uired 25'-0" s treet-facing garage s etb ac k, fo r a c arport to
be c onstruc ted 11'-0" from the front (west) property line,
a 6’-0” s etbac k enc ro achment into the required 6’-0” s ide s etbac k, fo r the c arp o rt to b e c onstruc ted
0’-0” from the s ide (south) property line; and
a 1’-0” s etbac k encroac hment into the 6’-0” s id e s etbac k, fo r an ad d ition to b e cons tructed 1’-0”
from the s ide (north) property line
at the p ro p erty located at 1505 P ine S treet, bearing the legal desc ription Lot 7, Bloc k 44, S nyder Addition.
– Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he ap p licant is req uesting ap p ro val of an additio n to the low p rio rity his toric main s truc ture as well as a
detac hed carport at the fro nt of the main s truc ture in the p lac e o f a p revious s truc ture. T he additio n to the
main s tructure would replace non-histo ric ad d itions that had d eteriorated b eyond repair with a 650 s q . ft.
addition on the left s ide of the faç ade or north and eas t s ides of the exis ting hous e. T he new addition would
enc roach 1’-0” into the 6’-0” s id e setb ack and therefore requires HAR C ap p ro val of a s etbac k
modification. T he additio n is p ro p o s ed to have an asphalt s hingle gab le roof, fiber c ement board and
batten siding, and vinyl wind o ws. T he applic ant is also req uesting ap p ro val o f a detached c arport with a
gable roof s imilar to the ro o f of the exis ting front p o rch, which wo uld b e loc ated in the fro nt (wes t) and
s ide (s o uth) s etbac ks , similar to a s truc ture that p revious ly existed on the s ite. T he c arp o rt would us e the
existing concrete p ad and encroac h 11’-0” into the front (wes t) s etb ac k and 6’-0” into the s ide (s outh)
s etbac k. T he loc ation would be on the s ide property line and ap p ro ximately three feet to the front and five
feet to the side of the main hous e front porch.
S taff’s Analysis:
S taff has reviewed the request in ac cordance with the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) and other
applicable codes. S taff has determined that the proposed request meets 4 of the 8 c riteria es tablished in
UDC S ec tion 3.13.030 for a C ertificate of Appropriateness, as outlined in the attached S taff R eport.
Public Comments:
As required by the Unified Development C ode (UDC ), one (1) sign was pos ted on-site and thirty-seven
(37) letters mailed. As of the public ation date of this report, s taff has received 0 written comments in favor
and 0 in oppos ition of the reques t.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
Page 47 of 105
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 48 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 1 of 7
Report Date: June 4, 2021
File Number: 2021-18-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
• a 14'-0" setback encroachment into the required 25'-0" street-facing garage setback, for a carport
to be constructed 11'-0" from the front (west) property line,
• a 6’-0” setback encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, for the carport to be constructed
0’-0” from the side (south) property line; and
• a 1’-0” setback encroachment into the 6’-0” side setback, for an addition to be constructed 5’-0”
from the side (north) property line
at the property located at 1505 Pine Street, bearing the legal description Lot 7, Block 44, Snyder Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1505 Pine Street
Applicant: Victoria Wallace (VAL Inc)
Property Owner: VALINC LLC
Property Address: 1505 Pine Street
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 44, Snyder Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1947 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Setback modifications
HPO:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting approval of an addition to the low priority historic main structure as well as
a detached carport at the front of the main structure in the place of a previous structure. The addition to
the main structure would replace non-historic additions that had deteriorated beyond repair with a 650
Page 49 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 2 of 7
sq. ft. addition on the left side of the façade or north and east sides of the existing house. The new addition
would encroach 1’-0” into the 6’-0” side setback and therefore requires HARC approval of a setback
modification. The addition is proposed to have an asphalt shingle gable roof, fiber cement board and
batten siding, and vinyl windows. The applicant is also requesting approval of a detached carport with
a gable roof similar to the roof of the existing front porch, which would be located in the front (west) and
side (south) setbacks, similar to a structure that previously existed on the site. The carport would use the
existing concrete pad and encroach 11’-0” into the required 25’-0” front (west) setback and 6’-0” into the
required 6’-0” side (south) setback. The carport would be located on the side property line and
approximately three feet to the front and five feet to the side of the main house front porch.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The proposed new siding material is a fiber
cement board and batten siding, which when
painted resembles wood siding.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage
historic features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the
ability to interpret the design character of
the original building or period of
significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier
period than that of the building are
inappropriate.
Complies
The exterior of the main structure has been
modified to the point that little to no historic
fabric exists, and the proposed alterations
would not damage historic features, further
diminish the character, or alter the
significance of the property.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be
designed to remain subordinate to the
main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed additions are of a compatible
scale, materials and character with the
existing structure and are a mass and height
that are subordinate to the main structure.
Although an addition to the front of a
building is usually inappropriate, in this
instance the carport is replacing a previous
structure at the front of the main structure
and does not detract from or diminish the
character of the property.
Page 50 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building
or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impacts.
This will allow the original proportions
and character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a
structure is usually inappropriate.
Partially Complies
The proposed north addition (left side of the
main façade) is set back from the front porch,
which remains prominent. The carport
addition to the front is proposed to be a mass
and height that do not overwhelm or
diminish the main structure but would still
be prominent on the front facade.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in
character with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are
appropriate for residential additions. Flat
roofs may be more appropriate for
commercial buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is
symmetrically proportioned, the roof of
the addition should be similar.
Complies
The additions are proposed to have low-
pitched gable roofs similar to the existing
structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project requires approval of three
setback modifications.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
Although the main structure is estimated to
have been constructed in 1947, the property
has undergone substantial changes and is no
longer identifiable as a historic structure.
The proposed improvements are compatible
with the existing structure and surrounding
properties.
Page 51 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 4 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
The proposed project complies or partially
complies with the applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed project is compatible in
materials and form with the current
structure and uses the location of existing or
previously existing structures on the site
with a scale and massing compatible with
the existing structure. However, the
proposed living space and carport additions
would terminate the driveway in the front
setback and provide a secondary, covered
driveway for two parking areas, which is not
consistent with historic development
patterns.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies
The proposed additions are of a scale and
materials that are compatible with
surrounding properties in Old Town.
However, the properties on the same block
have a fairly consistent front setback and do
not have carports and garages situated in the
front setback, but rather in line with the main
structure or attached on the side.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signs are proposed as part of this project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is
solely a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
The proposed encroachment for the side
addition is for the convenience of a larger
Page 52 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 5 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
addition. The proposed front and side
setback encroachments are for the
convenience of having a carport, however
the current property configuration requires
parking on site to be either in the front
setback or for the driveway to be maintained
so that parking can be to the side or rear of
the main structure.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow
the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The construction of any parking structures
would be in the front and/or side setback
given the lot and main house configuration.
However, the carport could be constructed
over the existing driveway rather than to the
front of the main structure and additional
living space could be constructed to the rear
of the main structure.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport setback would allow
the structure to be closer to the street curb
than surrounding structures, which have
either carports attached to the side of the
main structure or garages built in line with
the front setback. However, the proposed
structure is compatible with surrounding
structures in scale, form and materials. The
proposed side setback for the additional
living space does not encroach further into
the side setback than that of some of the
surrounding properties.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure
will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport would be set closer to
the street than surrounding structures,
however parking for surrounding structures
is generally in the street or to the front of the
main structure, with or without a carport or
garage. The proposed living space addition
would not be located closer to the street than
other units within the block.
Page 53 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Partially Complies
The previous detached structure existed
from at least 2008 to 2016 per available
photos but was removed by 2019. There was
an attached addition over the driveway that
was removed within the last year.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively
the same footprint and encroachment as
proposed;
Complies
The proposed carport would have
approximately the same size as the previous
structure but would be set back
approximately 10’ further from the front
property line.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that
is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the
original;
Complies
The carport is proposed to use the existing
slab that was used for the previous structure
and be approximately the same size. The
living space addition would increase the
size of the main structure from
approximately 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,650 sq. ft.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Complies
The proposed carport is 192 sq. ft. or
approximately 20% of the size of the main
structure, and a similar height to the main
structure. Although the main house has a
relatively small footprint, the house is wide
on the lot, giving the appearance of greater
mass, which gives the proposed carport a
compatible scale to the original house. The
living space addition is scaled compatibly
with the existing house, although it would
make the house wider on the lot than
originally designed and leave side setbacks
less than 6’-0” on both sides.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to
similar structures within the same block;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport is sized
proportionally to similar structures within
the same block, although surrounding
properties do not have a carport to the front
of the main structure. The living space
addition is similar in size to other additions
on the same block.
Page 54 of 105
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-18-COA – 1505 Pine Street Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed carport and living space
additions are not anticipated to negatively
impact adjoining structures or limit the
ability to maintain existing buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of
the proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Partially Complies
Adequate space exists to maintain existing
structures and the living space addition.
However, as with any structure located at
the lot line, room for maintenance is limited
along the side of the carport abutting the lot
line.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing
large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or significant features are
proposed to be preserved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the requested 1’-0” side setback
modification and denial of the 14’-0” and 6’-0” setbacks for the carport. The addition of the carport would
create two separate parking spaces in the front setback, which is not compatible with historic
development patterns or with surrounding properties, and the carport would have to be modified to
comply with building codes to have an enclosed south side, which would be prominent from the street
view.
As of the date of this report, staff has received 0 comments in favor and 0 in opposition to the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 55 of 105
Location
2021-18-COA
Exhibit #1
OL
I
V
E
S
T
S
COLLE
G
E
S
T
E 15TH ST
MA
P
L
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
S
A
N
J
OS
E
ST
PI
N
E
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 14TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 14TH ST
E 16TH ST
E 17T H S T
E 17TH ST
E 16TH ST
E 16TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 56 of 105
Good afternoon Britin,
04-23-2021
We are all very excited to be working on the project at 1505 Pine Street in Georgetown.
In partnership with HARC, we look to restore the house while bringing back historic
charm. Per COA guidelines please see below project description along with our letter of
intent for proposed property. All new construction will be within the 5ft set back.
Letter of Intent
1505 Pine Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 - lot 7 Block 44
Scope of project:
Shed Demolition - We propose to remove the existing sheds on the left side of the
house. This building was not built with historical materials and has deteriorated.
Removal will require repairs to the roof line and eave along the front left side of the
house.
Roof - A new roof line with gables will be add along the front of the house to include a
larger gable (15’ high) above the left addition and a gable roof on the right side to cover
the new carport. The gable roof will extend forward to the front of the existing concrete
porch slab (approx. 4’). This will have 4 columns at 8x8x8.
New Addition - We propose to add approximately 650 sqft to the left and rear of the
house. The addition will allow the extension of the master bedroom, master bathroom
and kitchen inside the home. While also adding 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom on the left
side of the house.
Front door- We propose to change and upgrade the front door to add historical value to
the front facade.
Windows - We propose to change all of the windows along the front and side of the
house to upgrade to energy efficient windows.
Siding - We propose to go over existing all of the siding around the house. This will be
installed over the existing siding. The existing siding is made of deteriorated tongue and
groove. We intend to go over this with Hardibacker siding 4’ x 8’ sheets. House will be
Page 57 of 105
finished with vertical 1’x2’’’ Hardibacker trim spaced every 2’ on center around the
house.
Paint - We propose to change the paint color of the house to color listed below. House
and trim will be the same color.
Proposed carport - We plan to build a covered carport to the right side of the front
facade. The carport will be similarly designed to compliment the house.
We propose to add 4 posts 8x8x8 to the right side of the house to serve as a carport.
This will have a gable that extends from the existing roof. We plan to complete the
carport with the same finished as the main house.Metal roof
Deck and Landing spaces - We propose to add a personal deck directly outside the
master and kitchen as a step down into the backyard.A similar step down will be added
to the exterior of the kitchen to allow backyard access from french doors in the kitchen.
Existing backyard shed - We decided to restore the existing 14'x18' metal shed to the
left rear of the house. Currently has power, water,insulation, and sheetrock. We will
upgrade with new outlets, switches, and fresh paint.We will go over the existing metal
exterior with the same 4'x8' hardi sheets and add a new metal roof.
Stone ledger - We propose to add a 3’ limestone ledger around front facade of the
house
Site Plan
1. New building construction
2. Addition that creates new, or adds to an existing street facing facade
6. Porch, patio, deck
9. Replacing roof materials with different roof materials
13. Changes to paint color on previously painted surfaces (includes repainting or new
paint on previously painted surface)
16. Exterior lighting that is attached to the building or structure
17. Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in no
modifications to the building facade
23. Demolition of non-historic additions that are made of non-historic materials
Page 58 of 105
●Roofing material replacing existing asphalt 2 tab shingles with new Owens
Corning Oakridge 32.8-sq ft Onyx Black Laminated Architectural Roof Shingles 3
tab
○Item #10104 Model #1093060
○
●James Hardie 48-in x 96-in HZ10 HardiePanel Smooth Fiber Cement Vertical
Siding
○Item #33028 Model #217701
Page 59 of 105
●Front door 68in x 80in
○Craftsman Bungalow 6 Lite Right-Hand Inswing Wheat Stained Wood
Prehung Front Door 14 in. Sidelites
○Internet #302859496 Model #M3306_143614_AW_4IRH
○
●Exterior Windows
○32x60 310F SH WH LE COL
○SKU: 0000-643-153
○
Page 60 of 105
●Exterior Lighting -
○Craftsman 11 in. H 1-Light Textured Black Outdoor Wall Lantern Sconce
with Water Glass Shade Exterior Light Fixture
○Model #A03321S
○
●Exterior Stone Accent
○14 in. x 5 in. x 5 in. Natural Limestone Concrete Edger
○Internet #202103907 Model #98800
○
Page 61 of 105
●Exterior paint
○
●Left and rear addition
○
○
●Carport Location, right side with example
○
Page 62 of 105
Page 63 of 105
Page 64 of 105
Page 65 of 105
Page 66 of 105
Page 67 of 105
Page 68 of 105
Page 69 of 105
Page 70 of 105
Page 71 of 105
Page 72 of 105
Page 73 of 105
Page 74 of 105
Page 75 of 105
Page 76 of 105
Page 77 of 105
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Pine St 2016 Survey ID:124537
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address MUNOZ, JOE A JR & ELLEN P, 132 STONEHEDGE BLVD, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-6347
Latitude:30.630293 Longitude -97.669662
Addition/Subdivision:S4615 - Snyder Addition
WCAD ID:R047501Legal Description (Lot/Block):SNYDER ADDITION, BLOCK 44, LOT 7
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 3/15/2016Recorded 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:1947
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 78 of 105
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Pine St 2016 Survey ID:124537
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story house with no particular style clad in stone, brick, and plywood with an L-plan, front- and side-gabled roof,
and a partial-width, inset porch with a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Multiple additions, cladding replaced, porch modified, windows replaced, door replaced
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed 1 Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood Siding:
Plywood
Metal
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 79 of 105
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Pine St 2016 Survey ID:124537
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:Not Recorded
2007 Survey Priority:Not Recorded 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 80 of 105
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Pine St 2016 Survey ID:124537
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
EastPhoto Direction
Shed
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 81 of 105
1505 Pine Street
2021-18-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
June 10, 2021
1Page 82 of 105
Item Under Consideration
2021-18-COA –1505 Pine Street
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
•a 14'-0" setback encroachment into the required 25'-0" street-facing garage setback, for
a carport to be constructed 11'-0" from the front (west) property line,
•a 6’-0” setback encroachment into the required 6’-0” side setback, for the carport to be
constructed 0’-0” from the side (south) property line; and
•a 1’-0” setback encroachment into the 6’-0” side setback, for an addition to be
constructed 5’-0” from the side (north) property line
at the property located at 1505 Pine Street, bearing the legal description Lot 7, Block 44,
Snyder Addition.
2Page 83 of 105
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Setback modifications
HPO:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade
3Page 84 of 105
Item Under Consideration
4Page 85 of 105
San Jose Park
5Page 86 of 105
Current Context
6Page 87 of 105
1964 Aerial Photo
7Page 88 of 105
1974 Aerial Photo
8Page 89 of 105
2008 Street View
9Page 90 of 105
2011 Street View
10Page 91 of 105
2019 Street View
11Page 92 of 105
Current Photos
12Page 93 of 105
Existing & Proposed Site Plans
13Page 94 of 105
Existing & Proposed Floor Plans
14
Pi
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pi
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Front Door Front Door
Proposed Living
Space Addition
Page 95 of 105
Existing & Proposed Street-Facing Elevations
15Page 96 of 105
Project Materials
16Page 97 of 105
Current Context
17Page 98 of 105
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 18Page 99 of 105
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Partially
Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;
Partially
Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;Partially
Complies
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies
19Page 100 of 105
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Partially
Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or
Partially
Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
20Page 101 of 105
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•Thirty-seven (37) letters mailed
•0 comments in favor and 0 opposed
21Page 102 of 105
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested 1’-0” side setback
modification and denial of the 14’-0” and 6’-0” setbacks for the
carport.
22Page 103 of 105
HARC Motion –2021-18-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
23Page 104 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
June 10, 2021
S UB J E C T:
S taff pres entation and disc ussion of the proc edure to make a rec ommendation to the C ity C ouncil on
propos ed c hanges to the Design G uidelines.
IT E M S UMMARY:
S taff will pres ent the procedure outlined in the Unified Development C ode for the HAR C recommendation
to C ouncil on propos ed c hanges to the Design G uidelines, review anticipated next steps in the project
s chedule and facilitate question and dis cus s ion from the HAR C C ommissioners on that proc es s .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
Page 105 of 105