HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_09.09.2021Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
September 9, 2021 at 6:00 P M
at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding
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.
This C ommission i s now me e ting in-per son with a quor um pr e se nt and public
is wel come to attend. If spe cial ac commodations ar e ne eded, please r eac h out
to the staff liaison, M ir na G ar c ia, at mi rna.garc ia@ge orge town.org or
(512)930-3575 for assistance .
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 12, 2021 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, P rogram Manager
C P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for the
demolition of a medium priority his toric struc ture at the property loc ated at 404 E. 4th S treet, bearing the
legal desc ription 0.165 ac res , being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block 32, G las s coc k Addition. – Britin
Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
D P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
new res idential (infill) c onstruc tion and a 5’-0” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 20’-0” front
setback to allow a res idential struc ture 15’-0” from the front (north) property line at the property located at
404 E. 4th S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.165 acres, being the wes t half of Lots 1 & 2, Bloc k 32,
G las s coc k Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and P ossible Action on a req uest for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
Page 1 of 199
modific ations to exterior s teps, stairways and ramps at the property lo cated at 711 E. 7th S treet, bearing
the legal d es criptio n 0.14 ac res , p art o f Blo c k 17, S hell Additio n. – Britin Bostick, Do wntown & Historic
P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replac ing a
his toric arc hitectural feature with a non-historic architec tural feature at the property located at 115 W. 7th
S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.114 acre, being part of Lots 1 & 2, Bloc k 38, C ity of G eorgetown.
– Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
G P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a
new fenc e, railing or wall that is incons is tent with the overlay dis tric t's characteris tic s and applic able
guidelines at the property loc ated at 1102 E. Univers ity Avenue, bearing the legal desc ription 0.25 acres in
Block 9, S nyder Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
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 2 of 199
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 9, 2021
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Augus t 12, 2021 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, P rogram Manager
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, P rogram Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 199
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
August 12, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
510 West 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members Present: Terri Hyde; Michael Walton; Lawrence Romero; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn;
Catherine Morales; Robert McCabe
Members Absent: Faustine Curry; Pamela Mitchell
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Planning Director; Mirna
Garcia, Program Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:03 pm.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to
speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be
called forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by
filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting.
The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient
information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please
logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 22, 2021 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Program
Manager
Motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner
Morales. Approved (6-0).
C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the replacement of a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at
the property located at 110 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.0826 acres being the
Page 4 of 199
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
north part of Lot 2, Block 40, City of Georgetown. – Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic
Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of light
fixtures to illuminate the dome that was approved and installed as a replacement of the non-
original metal onion dome feature that sits atop the northwest corner of the building, which was
installed in August of 1985. The masonic lodge onion dome is one of the most significant
architectural features on the Courthouse Square. Previous illumination of the dome was
accomplished through light fixtures installed in nearby trees, and as the new dome was planned
for installation the best option to illuminate the feature was via the installation of fixtures
integral to the replacement dome, rather than projecting from nearby structures or landscaping.
As part of an ongoing building maintenance project the lights are proposed to have dimming
capability, and the arms attaching the fixtures to the dome have been painted a color that
coordinates with the building colors to minimize the appearance. The onion dome feature
disappeared from the Masonic Lodge circa 1925 and was reportedly dismantled. It remained
missing for nearly 6 decades until preservation efforts on the Square, spearheaded by the Main
Street Program, supported the restoration of the Masonic Lodge in 1985. The owner at the time,
Laura Weir-Clark, searched for the original dome and considered options for a replacement
before deciding on a galvanized (treated with zinc to prevent rust) dome fabricated by
Campbellsville Industries of Campbellsville, KY. The replacement dome was not an exact
match, but was similar in design, character and proportion, and restored a significant part of the
historic character of the building. In summer 2020 the applicant installed a new dome
constructed of copper, which was painted to match the existing and which had light fixtures
integrated into the dome to illuminate the feature at night.
Chris Damon, the applicant, presented to the Commission and explained the request, as well as
provided additional explanation regarding the light and controller for the light. The light can be
adjusted with the controller.
Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item C (2020-2-COA) by Commissioner Johnston. The motion dies as there
was no second.
Motion to deny Item C (2020-20COA) by Commissioner Nunn. Second by Commissioner
Romero. Motion fails with Commissioner Nunn and Commissioner Walton for denial and
Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Johnston, Commissioner Hyde, and Commissioner
Morales against.
Motion to approve Item C (2020-20COA) with the condition that the light remain white and
light in color by Commissioner Walton. Second by Commissioner Johnston. Motion passes
(5-1) with Commissioner Nunn opposed.
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for:
Page 5 of 199
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
• the demolition of a low priority detached garage;
• an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a new
detached garage;
• an 8’-0” modification to the required 10’-0” rear setback for the construction of a detached
garage 2’-0” from the rear (west) property line;
• a 4’-0” modification to the required 6’-0” side setback for the construction of a detached
garage 2’-0” from the side (north) property line; and
• an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for the addition of
dormers
at the property located at 1710 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.20 acre out of the
Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, situated in Outlot 2, Division B of the City of
Georgetown, also being known as the south part of Lot 4 and the north part of Lot 5, Montgomery
Addition, an unrecorded subdivision. (2021-6-COA) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of the demolition of the low
priority attached garage, which is situated on the northwest corner of the property. Public records
indicate that the garage was constructed in 1944, shortly after the sale of the property by the
original owner. The garage has wood frame construction and a hip roof with later additions
including a carport on the front. Structural damage to the garage includes termite damage, the
frame shifting off the foundation, the growth of a large tree at the rear of the structure and water
damage. The current owner is proposing to salvage and reuse any windows or wood that can be
repaired or reused on site. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval of a new detached
garage, which is proposed to be located 2’-0” from both the side and rear property lines, rather than
directly against the property lines as the existing garage is situated. The positioning of the new
garage would provide improved opportunity for maintenance of the structure, as well as the
removal of some existing impervious cover from the site. The proposed new garage would be 530
sq. ft. in size and have fiber cement lapped siding, asphalt shingle roof and garage doors
compatible with the Craftsman style of the main structure, with a clipped gable or Jerkinhead roof
style to match the roof of the main structure as well as a front-facing window either salvaged from
the existing garage or of the same 1/1 style as the historic main structure. The Jerkinhead roof is
defined as, “The end of a roof that is hipped [sloped] for only part of its height, leaving a truncated
gable. Also called half-hip.” The National Trust for Historic Preservation states, “Though this word
has uncertain origins, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) explains that it could have been a
variation of kirkin-head, in which we find kirk, an old Scots variation of the word church. Perhaps
sloped gables first appeared on the heads, or roofs, of churches, but there seems to be no clear
evidence of this. Another possibility is that the slope of the roof was considered to be “jerkily”
interrupted.” Additionally, the applicant is requesting the addition of two dormers on the roof of
the historic main structure, one each to the north and south-facing roof slopes. The dormer
additions would improve the attic space to be used as additional storage. The dormers are
proposed to be the same clipped gable or Jerkinhead style as the roof of the main structure and be
approximately 10’ wide. The dormers are proposed to have lapped fiber cement siding similar to
the wood siding on the main structure, 1/1 windows and asphalt shingle roofing. Examples of the
dormer style and materials are provided in the applicant’s letter of intent. The historic main
Page 6 of 199
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
structure was constructed c. 1920 by C. H. Swenson, who passed away in 1923. His widow and
children sold the property to Sid and Florence Eanes in 1944, and the Eanes family owned the
property until 2003. The Eaneses likely constructed both a rear addition and the detached garage
following their purchase of the property.
Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to approve Item D (2021-6-COA) by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner
Nunn. Approved (6-0).
E. 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 and the
replacement of a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at the
property located at 1808 Knight Street, bearing the legal description Lots 3 & 4, Block 5, Eubank
Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of three additions to the
house, the first a dormer addition to the non-historic garage roof and a window addition to the
garage gable end, which would allow for the space above the garage to be utilized as living
space. The second addition is the enclosure of the existing breezeway between the main house
and the attached garage, which is set back from the primary street façade. The enclosed portion
would have fiber cement siding and skirting to match the existing house and a fiber composite
window in the same 1/1 pattern as the existing windows. The third addition is for a single-story
living space addition to the north of the existing main house, which would be part of the Knight
Street facade. The addition would include a second brick chimney, gable roof with the same
slope as the existing gabled roof, fiber composite windows with a taller and more narrow
proportion than the windows in the existing house, and a small, square window detail in the
gabled street-facing portion of the addition to reflect the original feature in the main structure.
The addition would have a similar stone skirting or underpinning and fiber cement siding as
the existing. The applicant is also requesting approval of the replacement of the historic wood
siding with fiber cement siding. A new rear deck would not be part of the street façade and
does not require a COA. The applicant is also requesting HARC approval to replace the original
wood siding with fiber cement siding in the same lapped profile, and to replace the wood
windows with fiber composite windows in the same 1/1 style. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting HPO approval of a change of roof materials from the existing asphalt shingle roof to
a standing seam metal roof. The change of roof materials would retain the decorative roof ridge
elements that are characteristic of Belford Houses of this style and time period in Georgetown,
of which there are at least four with slight variations and history of additions and modifications
to each.
The applicant, Katia Barrios, addressed the commission and was available to answer questions.
Chair Walton opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Page 7 of 199
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 5 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
Motion to approve Item E (2021-22-COA) by Commissioner Morales. Second by
Commissioner Hyde. Approved (6-0).
F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for a 5’-0” modification to the required 15’-0” rear street setback, to allow a porch addition 10’-
0” from the rear street (west) property line at the property located at 1912 S. Church Street,
bearing the legal description 0.15 acre, being a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Eubank Addition
Revised. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Bostick explained that this application was withdrawn and will no longer go forward.
G. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines
at the property located at 209 W. 8th Street, bearing the legal description 0.15 acre, being part of
Lots 6-8, Block 41, City of Georgetown. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new blade sign
(projecting sign) mounted to the southeast corner of the subject property. The proposed sign is
84” tall and 32” wide for a total of 18.67 sq. ft. The sign is proposed to be double-sided and be
mounted on the front façade of the building and above the canopy that wraps the front façade,
next to the upper floor windows. The sign would be mounted with brackets in the same style
and color as the bracket used for the hanging sign over the business entrance on W. 8th Street.
The Design Guidelines limit projecting signs to 15 sq. ft. and 5’ tall and 3’ wide. The proposed
sign would exceed the height standard by 2’, be 4” narrower than the width standard, and
exceed the area by 3.67 sq. ft.
The applicant addressed the Commission and further explained the request.
Motion to approve Item G (2021-37-COA) with the conditions that the sign be the same
height as the architectural vertical band next to the second story windows and that the sign
placement should align with the top and bottom of that band, by Commissioner Nunn.
Second by Commissioner Romero. Approved (5-1) with Commissioner Johnston opposed.
H. Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new residential
(infill) construction and a 5’-0” setback encroachment into the required 20’-0” front setback to
allow a residential structure 15’-0” from the front (north) property line at the property located at
404 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block
32, Glasscock Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 2,544 sq. ft. two-
story residential structure with a 484 sq. ft. detached garage at the rear. The proposed structures
would have fiber cement siding and standing seam metal roofs and be modeled after a two-
story farmhouse with detached rear garage. The front porch is proposed to be 6’ deep with a
shed roof and slender columns and extend the width of the front facade. The house has a
Page 8 of 199
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 6 of 6
Meeting: August 12, 2021
centered front door and symmetrical 4/4 windows on the first and second floors. The applicant
has provided a photo of the design inspiration in the attached Exhibit 3. A 15’ Public Utility
Easement (PUE) exists at the rear of the property and the new structures cannot be constructed
to the rear 10’ setback as structures cannot be constructed within a PUE. The applicant is
therefore requesting a 5’ front setback modification, which would shift the structures 5’ closer to
the front property line to account for the PUE, and which would also align the front façade with
structures on adjoining properties and along the block.
The Commission sought clarification between what was previously approved and this new
proposed project.
I. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
The August 26 is cancelled. The next meeting will be September 9. However there will be a
HARC Demolition Subcommittee on August 27.
There will be a training on historic preservation work on August 26 and 27. If any members are
interested, please let staff know.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Adjourned at 750p.m.
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Faustine Curry, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 9 of 199
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 9, 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 the
demolition of a medium priority historic s tructure at the property located at 404 E. 4th S treet, bearing the
legal des cription 0.165 acres, being the wes t half of Lots 1 & 2, Bloc k 32, G lassc ock Addition. – Britin
Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p licant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val fo r the demolitio n o f a medium priority res idential s tructure in
the O ld Town O verlay District under the c riteria of Loss of S ignific anc e.
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 - Photos Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 10 of 199
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: 2021-34-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 404 E. 4th Street
APPLICANT: Jed Adams
Background
According to the 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, the subject property did not yet have a house in
1940, in contrast to the estimated date of construction in the Historic Resource Survey, which lists 1940
as the year of construction. According to public records, G. P. Lyda, Jr. bought the east half of Block 32
from the A. H. Glasscock heirs in 1949 for $400 and sold it to B. H. & Minnie Lee Aderhold for $576 that
same year. The Aderholds sold the south half of the lot for $288 to Berthal and Mary Faught in 1949
and built a house for the Faughts on their lots. The Aderholds appear to have built two additional, very
similar houses facing E. 4th Street around 1950. A lien release from 1953 from the Georgetown Building
& Loan Association to Minnie Lee Aderhold, surviving wife of B. H. Aderhold, named lots 1 and 2 in
Block 32 of Glasscock’s Addition as the property with the building loan. Minnie sold Lot 1 to Willie
and Eunice Denham for $4,900 in 1953, but in 1961 a second deed was recorded that clarified the
property conveyed had been the west one half of Lots 1 & 2 in Block 32 of the Glasscock Addition – the
house under consideration for demolition in this application. Mary Aderhold Faught and her husband
became the owners of the east half of Lots 1 & 2 – the similar house since demolished – in 1967 after
purchasing the property from her family. Mary and Berthal Faught lived on the southwest quarter of
the block until 1984 and may have made several improvements to all three properties. Mary and B. H.
Faught sold the house on the east half of the lots to Kenneth and Patricia Faught in 1974.
The subject property in this application, the west half of Lots 1 & 2, was sold by Eunice Dunham to her
children in 1980. They sold the property to Joel Goode in 1983, and Joel and Lynn Goode owned the
property for nearly a decade. Willie Mae Montgomery purchased it in 1991, and the current owner
purchased the property in 2021.
The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos of Georgetown show two very similarly shaped houses next to each
other at 404 and 406 E. 4th Street. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey did not capture the houses as they
had not met the 50-year criteria for inclusion on the survey, but the houses were recorded on the 2007
survey. The house on the east half of Lots 1 & 2 was approved for demolition by HARC on November
20, 2008. The subject structure was included in the 2016 Historic Resource Survey as a medium priority
structure; however, it was categorized as low priority on the 2007 survey. Despite the 2016 survey’s
estimation that the structure is unaltered, the porch at the entrance appears to have been altered from a
simpler original entrance. Unusually, the house appears to be positioned with its side as the primary
façade, with the entrance through a side porch rather than through a distinct front door. The house
formerly next door was similarly constructed and oriented, without the porch addition.
Page 11 of 199
File Number: 2021-34-COA
Report Date: September 3, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the
subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the demolition application (35 notices
mailed), and one (1) sign was posted on-site. To date, staff has received 1 public comment in favor and 0
in opposition to the request.
Findings
Although listed as a medium priority structure constructed in 1940 on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey,
research has indicated that the house was constructed in 1950 as an exact or near-exact copy of the house
previously next door and approved by HARC for demolition in 2008. Although the house is distinctive
in its orientation to the side, it does not clearly represent a particular style or period of architecture or
surrounding development patterns.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
09/03/2021
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Date
Historic Preservation Officer
Page 12 of 199
Location
2021-34-COA
Exhibit #1
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
EL
M
S
T
AS
H
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 3RD ST
E 4TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 5TH ST
E 6TH ST
E 3RD ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 13 of 199
Page 14 of 199
Page 15 of 199
Page 16 of 199
Page 17 of 199
Page 18 of 199
Page 19 of 199
Page 20 of 199
Page 21 of 199
Page 22 of 199
Page 23 of 199
Page 24 of 199
Page 25 of 199
Page 26 of 199
Page 27 of 199
Page 28 of 199
Page 29 of 199
Page 30 of 199
Page 31 of 199
Page 32 of 199
Page 33 of 199
Page 34 of 199
Page 35 of 199
Page 36 of 199
Page 37 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address MONTGOMERY, WILLIE MAE TR OF MONTGOMERY TRUST, 404 E 4TH ST, ,
GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.639876 Longitude -97.673603
Addition/Subdivision:S3677 - Glasscock Addition
WCAD ID:R042566Legal Description (Lot/Block):GLASSCOCK ADDITION, BLOCK 32, LOT 1-2(W/PTS),
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 3/1/2016Recorded 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:1940
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: South
Page 38 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, Minimal Traditional house clad in wood siding with a side-gabled and hipped roof with exposed
rafter tails, a detached garage, and a partial-width, projecting porch with a shed roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:1; Carport
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 39 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, Minimal Traditional house clad in wood siding with a side-gabled and hipped roof with exposed
rafter tails, a detached garage, and a partial-width, projecting porch with a shed roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage 1 Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 40 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
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: porch added)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of
integrity; property is significant and
contributes to neighborhood character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:62
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 41 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SouthwestPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Ancillary structures
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 42 of 199
Page 43 of 199
404 E. 4th Street Demolition
2020-34-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 9, 2021
1Page 44 of 199
Item Under Consideration
2021-34-COA –404 E. 4th Street Demolition
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for the demolition of a medium priority historic structure at the property located at 404 E.
4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block
32, Glasscock Addition.
2Page 45 of 199
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Demolition of a medium priority structure
3Page 46 of 199
Item Under Consideration
4Page 47 of 199
5Page 48 of 199
Current Context
6Page 49 of 199
1925 & 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
7Page 50 of 199
1964 Aerial Photo
8Page 51 of 199
1974 Aerial Photo
9Page 52 of 199
404 E. 4th Street -2008
10Page 53 of 199
Current Foundation Photos
11Page 54 of 199
Current Exterior Photos
12Page 55 of 199
Current Exterior Photos
13Page 56 of 199
Current Exterior Photos
14Page 57 of 199
Current Exterior Photos
15Page 58 of 199
Current Exterior Photos
16Page 59 of 199
Current Interior Photos
17Page 60 of 199
Current Interior Photos
18Page 61 of 199
Current Interior Photos
19Page 62 of 199
Demo Approval Criteria UDC Sec. 3.13.030.F.2.a.iv
20
Criteria Staff’s Finding
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 Complies
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
N/A
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
Complies
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;Complies
Page 63 of 199
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•Thirty-five (35) letters mailed
•1 comment in favor and 0 opposed
21Page 64 of 199
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for demolition.
22Page 65 of 199
HARC Motion –2021-34-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
23Page 66 of 199
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 9, 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 new
res idential (infill) c onstruc tion and a 5’-0” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 20’-0” front setback to
allow a residential s tructure 15’-0” from the front (north) property line at the property loc ated at 404 E. 4th
S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.165 acres, being the wes t half of Lots 1 & 2, Bloc k 32, G lassc ock
Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is req ues ting HAR C ap p ro val of a new 2,544 s q . ft. two-sto ry residential struc ture with a
484 s q. ft. d etac hed garage at the rear. T he propos ed s tructures would have fib er c ement siding and
s tanding seam metal ro o fs and be mo d eled after a two -s tory farmho use with d etac hed rear garage. T he
front p o rch is p ro p o s ed to b e 6’ deep with a s hed ro o f and s lender columns and extend the width o f the
front fac ad e. T he hous e has a c entered front door and symmetric al 4/4 wind o ws on the firs t and sec ond
floors . T he ap p licant has p ro vided a p hoto of the design inspiratio n in the attached Exhibit 3. A 15’ P ublic
Utility Easement (P UE) exis ts at the rear of the property and the new struc tures cannot be cons tructed to
the rear 10’ setb ack as s truc tures cannot b e loc ated within a P UE. T he applic ant is therefore reques ting a
5’ front s etbac k modific ation, which would shift the s tructures 5’ c lo s er to the front property line to
acc ount for the P UE, and which wo uld als o align the fro nt faç ad e with s tructures o n ad jo ining properties
and along the block.
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 ), one (1) sign was pos ted on-site. As of the
public ation date of this report, s taff has received 1 written comment in favor and 0 in oppos ition of the
request.
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
Page 67 of 199
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 68 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-34-COA – 404 E. 4th Street Page 1 of 6
Report Date: September 3, 2021
File Number: 2021-34-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for new
residential (infill) construction and a 5’-0” setback encroachment into the required 20’-0” front setback
to allow a residential structure 15’-0” from the front (north) property line at the property located at 404
E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block 32,
Glasscock Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 404 E. 4th Street New Residence
Applicant: Jed Adams
Property Owner: J. Adams Builder, LLC
Property Address: 404 E. 4th Street
Legal Description: 0.165 acres, being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: Demolition request for the medium priority structure submitted under the same
application number 2021-34-COA. HARC considered the proposed design in a
conceptual review on August 12, 2021 and provided positive feedback.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1940 (HRS) – public records indicate 1950
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Residential infill construction
5’-0” front setback modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 2,544 sq. ft. two-story residential structure with a
484 sq. ft. detached garage at the rear. The proposed structures would have fiber cement siding and
standing seam metal roofs and be modeled after a two-story farmhouse with detached rear garage. The
front porch is proposed to be 6’ deep with a shed roof and slender columns and extend the width of the
front facade. The house has a centered front door and symmetrical 4/4 windows on the first and second
floors. The applicant has provided a photo of the design inspiration in the attached Exhibit 3. A 15’ Public
Page 69 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-34-COA – 404 E. 4th Street Page 2 of 6
Utility Easement (PUE) exists at the rear of the property and the new structures cannot be constructed to
the rear 10’ setback as structures cannot be located within a PUE. The applicant is therefore requesting a
5’ front setback modification, which would shift the structures 5’ closer to the front property line to
account for the PUE, and which would also align the front façade with structures on adjoining properties
and along the block.
Chapter 14 of the Design Guidelines states: “The purpose of guidelines for new construction is not to prevent
change in the Old Town Overlay District, but to ensure that the District’s architectural and historic character is
respected. The height, the proportion, the roof shape, the materials, the texture, the scale, and the details of the
proposed building must be compatible with existing historic buildings in the District.” UDC Sec. 4.08.050(H)
additionally states that “The new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the building or structure and its
environment.” Further guidance in the Design Guidelines that can be applied to the subject property
reads as follows: “Protecting the historic setting and context of a property, including the degree of open space
and building density, must always be considered when planning new construction on an historic site… For
example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.
The proposed development would include a similar amount of open space on the lot to what existed before the
previous home was demolished.”
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.1 Locate a new building using a residential setback.
Align the new non-residential building front at a
setback that is in context with the area
properties.
New residential buildings should meet the
minimum front setback requirement of the UDC
or use an increased setback if the block has
historically developed with an extended setback.
Generally, additions should not be added to the
front facing façades.
Where no sidewalk exists, one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
The new structure is proposed to have a
setback similar to the historic structure and
adjacent properties along the block, which
encroaches 5’-0” into the 20’-0” UDC
requirement for setbacks in the Residential
Single-Family (RS) zoning district.
Although front setbacks vary along E. 4th
Street and surrounding streets, extended
setbacks are not typical of the majority of
the properties in this part of the Old Town
Overlay District, much of which developed
after the 1930s.
Page 70 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-34-COA – 404 E. 4th Street Page 3 of 6
14.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional size
of residential buildings
A typical building module should not exceed 20
feet in width. The building module should be
expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of
3 feet
- A change in primary façade material for
the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece.
Variations in façade treatments should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear façades.
Complies
The proposed structure is approximately 40’
wide and not large enough to divide into
modules, but the primary façade is
enhanced by a full-width porch.
14.10 - Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The siding is fiber composite lapped siding
with fiber composite trim, which has an
appearance similar to wood siding when
painted.
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 project would require
approval of a 5’-0” setback modification to
the front 20’-0” setback.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
The subject property is not located within a
National Register Historic District, but the
proposed project does maintain site
relationships such as the 15’ setback and
detached rear garages typical of this block
and the Old Town Overlay District.
Page 71 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-34-COA – 404 E. 4th 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;
Complies
Proposed project complies with applicable
Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed project is a change from the
historic context of a small, single-story
structure on the site, however the proposed
infill construction is compatible with the
approved infill construction on the property
to the east and surrounding historic and
non-historic structures, which have a
variety of ages and architectural styles.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed project 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 project is 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.
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 setback encroachment is to
mitigate an existing PUE at the rear of the
property and to align the front of the new
structure with structures on adjacent
properties.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
There is adequate room on the site to
allow the new structure without
encroaching in the setback, however it
would conflict with the detached garage.
Page 72 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-34-COA – 404 E. 4th Street Page 5 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
The proposed setback is compatible with
and similar to the setbacks of existing
structures on the block.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed new structure would have
a similar distance to the street as other
units within the block.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Complies
If the demolition of the existing structure
is approved the proposed structure
would replace a structure removed
within the past 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 structure would replace a
previous structure with a similar
footprint and encroachment.
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 encroachment is for a
larger structure than the original
structure, as the original structure was
approximately 880 sq. ft. with carport and
patio totaling 1,100 sq. ft. The proposed
new structure is 2,544 sq. ft., which is
substantially larger. However, the first
floor of the new structure is 1,272 sq. ft.,
which is a similar footprint.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Not Applicable
The proposed encroachment is for infill
construction.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The proposed new structure is similar in
size to other residential structures within
the block.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed new structure is not
anticipated to negatively impact
adjoining properties as the encroachment
is for the front setback.
Page 73 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-34-COA – 404 E. 4th Street Page 6 of 6
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
There is adequate room for maintenance
as the proposed encroachment is for a
front setback.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No 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 1 comment in favor and 0 opposed 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 74 of 199
Location
2021-34-COA
Exhibit #1
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
EL
M
S
T
AS
H
S
T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 3RD ST
E 4TH ST
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 5TH ST
E 6TH ST
E 3RD ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 75 of 199
Page 76 of 199
Page 77 of 199
Page 78 of 199
Page 79 of 199
Page 80 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address MONTGOMERY, WILLIE MAE TR OF MONTGOMERY TRUST, 404 E 4TH ST, ,
GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.639876 Longitude -97.673603
Addition/Subdivision:S3677 - Glasscock Addition
WCAD ID:R042566Legal Description (Lot/Block):GLASSCOCK ADDITION, BLOCK 32, LOT 1-2(W/PTS),
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 3/1/2016Recorded 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:1940
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: South
Page 81 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, Minimal Traditional house clad in wood siding with a side-gabled and hipped roof with exposed
rafter tails, a detached garage, and a partial-width, projecting porch with a shed roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:1; Carport
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 82 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, rectangular, Minimal Traditional house clad in wood siding with a side-gabled and hipped roof with exposed
rafter tails, a detached garage, and a partial-width, projecting porch with a shed roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Appears to be unaltered
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage 1 Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Wood
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Minimal Traditional
Page 83 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
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: porch added)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of
integrity; property is significant and
contributes to neighborhood character
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:62
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 84 of 199
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:404 E 4th St 2016 Survey ID:125344
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
SouthwestPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Ancillary structures
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 85 of 199
Page 86 of 199
404 E. 4th Street Infill
2020-34-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 9, 2021
1Page 87 of 199
Item Under Consideration
2021-34-COA–404 E. 4th Street Infill
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for new residential (infill) construction and a 5’-0” setback encroachment into the required
20’-0” front setback to allow a residential structure 15’-0” from the front (north) property
line at the property located at 404 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description 0.165 acres,
being the west half of Lots 1 & 2, Block 32, Glasscock Addition.
2Page 88 of 199
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Residential Infill Construction
•5’-0” Setback Modification
3Page 89 of 199
Item Under Consideration
4Page 90 of 199
5Page 91 of 199
Current Context
6Page 92 of 199
406 E. 4th Street -2008
Page 93 of 199
Proposed Site Plan
8Page 94 of 199
Proposed Floor Plans
9Page 95 of 199
Proposed Elevations
10Page 96 of 199
Approved Elevation –406 E. 4th Street
11Page 97 of 199
Combined Elevations –406 & 404 E. 4th Street
12Page 98 of 199
Current Context
13Page 99 of 199
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 14Page 100 of 199
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;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;Complies
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies
15Page 101 of 199
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;N/A
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
16Page 102 of 199
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•1 comment in favor and 0 opposed
17Page 103 of 199
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for infill construction with a
setback modification.
18Page 104 of 199
HARC Motion –2021-34-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
19Page 105 of 199
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 9, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
modifications to exterior s teps, stairways and ramps at the p ro p erty loc ated at 711 E. 7th S treet, bearing
the legal d es c riptio n 0.14 ac res , p art o f Blo ck 17, S hell Ad d ition. – Britin Bo s tic k, Downto wn & Historic
P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he Applic ant is req uesting HAR C approval for c hanges to the fro nt porc h, whic h includ e replac ement of
the wood railing with metal railing and c hanges to the porc h decking, s tairs and s kirting.
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 ), three (3) s igns were posted on-s ite. 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
request.
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 - Photos Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 106 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-38-COA – 711 E. 7th Street Page 1 of 5
Report Date: September 3, 2021
File Number: 2021-38-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps at the property located at 711 E. 7th Street, bearing
the legal description 0.14 acres, part of Block 17, Shell Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 711 E. 7th Street Front Porch
Applicant: Molly Grantges
Property Owner: Molly Logan
Property Address: 711 E. 7th Street
Legal Description: 0.14 acre, part of Block 17, Shell Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1930 (HRS) – Public Records indicate 1934-1940
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Front porch modifications
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of changes to the front porch of a medium priority structure
in the Old Town Overlay District. Although the 1984 and 2016 Historic Resources list construction dates
of 1920 and 1930, respectively, photos and Sanborn maps show the house and garage to have been
constructed between 1934 and 1940. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey photo does not show porch
railings, and the porch may have originally been wood, although it is currently concrete.
Due to ongoing issues with water drainage back toward the foundation of the house and a need for more
secure and safe stair railings, the property owner found it necessary to replace the prior wood railings
with metal railings, add railings for the stairs, and to add wood flooring to the porch to correct a slope
issue and provide a safer walking surface. The owner is also proposing to install painted fiber cement
Page 107 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-38-COA – 711 E. 7th Street Page 2 of 5
siding around the porch sides to cover the current exposed concrete. This project is in partnership with
Preservation Georgetown’s Historic Preservation Grant Program.
Chapter 6 of the Downtown & Old Town Design Guidelines provides the following guidance to HARC
for porches:
1. If the existing porch has deteriorated or become badly damaged such that repair is technically
infeasible.
2. The proposed new porch is similar to the historic porch in regard to size, style, detail, and shape
and will be constructed from historic or appropriate new materials.
3. If inadequate documentation of original porches exists, a new porch should be typical of those
built in the style of the historic building. A simplified adaptation may be allowed if physical
evidence of the original is non-existent or if the design is prohibitively expensive to recreate.
4. Whether the existing porch materials are being retained unless it is technically infeasible to do so.
5. If proposed new railings and balusters on an existing or new porch use historic or appropriate
new materials, are designed in a style similar in appearance to historic balusters, and whether
railings are characteristic of the style of the historic building.
6. The porch floor is of a type characteristic of the style of the historic building. Spaced planks shall
not be used where painted tongue-and-groove boards would have been used historically.
7. New and existing wood visible from the right-of-way is painted unless it can be documented that
the original wood was unpainted or stained (generally, unpainted pressure treated wood will not
be allowed).
8. Concrete steps and porches are allowed if it can be shown that they existed on the building
historically or if they are characteristic of the style of building.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
6.25 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing.
Do not remove original details from a porch.
These include the columns, balustrade, and
any decorative brackets that may exist.
Maintain the existing location, shape, details,
and columns of the porch.
• Missing or deteriorated decorative elements
should be replaced with new wood, milled to
match existing elements. Match the original
proportions and spacing of balusters when
replacing missing ones.
Partially Complies
Although clear evidence of the original
design has not been located, the original
porch was likely a simple wooden porch
with two columns and may or may not have
had railings. The current porch is concrete,
which has tilted back toward the house and
caused water to run back toward the house
and create a slippery concrete surface. The
current owner and resident removed the
previous wood porch railing and installed a
new wood porch floor to provide a level
Page 108 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-38-COA – 711 E. 7th Street Page 3 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
Unless used historically, wrought iron porch
posts and columns are inappropriate.
Where an historic porch does not meet current
code requirements and alterations are needed
or required, then retrofit it to meet the code,
while also preserving original features. Do not
replace a porch that can otherwise be modified
to meet code requirements.
A missing porch and its steps should be
reconstructed, using photographic
documentation and historical research, to be
compatible in design and detail with the
period and style of the building.
Most precast concrete steps are not acceptable
alternatives for primary façade porches.
Construction of a new non-original porch is
usually inappropriate.
The construction of a non-original second or
third level porch, balcony, deck, or sun porch
on the roof of an existing front porch is
inappropriate.
surface and iron railings and handrails for
safe use of the stairs and porch, which have
a railing diameter that is easier for the owner
to hold onto when using the stairs. Although
the new railings and handrails are a change
from the previous materials and design, the
1984 photo of the property does not show
that the porch had railings at the time, and
the previous wood railing is not assumed to
be historic.
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 porch modifications are compatible with
the minimal traditional house style and use
the existing porch footprint and columns.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
Page 109 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-38-COA – 711 E. 7th Street Page 4 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Complies
Proposed project complies with applicable
UDC requirements.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
The applicable SOI Standards for
Rehabilitation are:
2. The historic character of a property
shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or
alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be
avoided.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be
repaired rather than replaced. Where
the severity of deterioration requires
replacement of a distinctive feature,
the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture, and other
visual qualities and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing
features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial
evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations,
or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that
characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the
old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its
environment.
Although the porch modifications are
changes to the porch materials and features,
the concrete porch and wood railing appear
to be changes from the original design and
materials, and the new materials and railings
are differentiated from the old and are
compatible with the historic structure.
Page 110 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-38-COA – 711 E. 7th Street Page 5 of 5
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 porch changes comply or partially
comply with applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The 1984 HRS photos show that the wood
railings were not original to the porch, and
the installed railings and porch boards and
steps do not diminish the character of the
structure.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No new buildings or additions are proposed.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The project is 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request. Although the guidance
to HARC on porches includes painting porch boards unless they were shown to not have been painted
historically, the Unified Development Code does not require the approval of paint colors for residential
properties in the historic overlay districts.
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 Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 111 of 199
Location
2021-38-COA
Exhibit #1
E 7TH S
T
E 5TH ST
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 6TH ST
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
PI
N
E
S
T
S O U T H W E S T E R N B L V D
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
HO
L
L
Y
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
WESLEY
A
N
D
R
P
I
N
E
S
T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
E 8TH S
T
AS
H
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 112 of 199
LETTER OF INTENT
We have built a wooden deck over the existing concrete deck for several reasons. The first is
to improve the looks of the porch. The second is to improve drainage issued, as the concrete
porch was sinking toward the house. And, finally,to allow better accessibility for my mother with
Metal railings and shorter, wider steps.
We plan to add a 1x6 piece of wood under the deck to frame it and paint the underpinning
(concrete) to match the house.
Page 113 of 199
Page 114 of 199
Page 115 of 199
Page 116 of 199
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:711 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:125431 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R047374Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 5/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Sanborn maps / visual estimateConstruction Date:1930
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:149a
ID:52
*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:125431 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.638269 Longitude -97.670638
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northwest
Page 117 of 199
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:711 E 7th St 2016 Survey ID:125431 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 118 of 199
711 E. 7th Street Front Porch
2021-38-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 9, 2021
1Page 119 of 199
Item Under Consideration
2021-38-COA –711 E. 7th Street Front Porch
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at the
property located at 711 E. 7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.14 acre, part of Block
17, Shell Addition.
2Page 120 of 199
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Porch Remodel
3Page 121 of 199
Item Under Consideration
4Page 122 of 199
Southwestern
Sports
Fields/Parking
5
Old DMV Office
Page 123 of 199
Current Context
6Page 124 of 199
1925 & 1940 Sanborn Maps
7Page 125 of 199
c. 1934 SU Special Collections Photo
8Page 126 of 199
1984 HRS Photo
9Page 127 of 199
Old Porch Photo
10Page 128 of 199
New Porch Photos
11Page 129 of 199
Current Context
12Page 130 of 199
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 13Page 131 of 199
Public Notification
•Three (3) signs posted
•0 comments in favor and 0 opposed
14Page 132 of 199
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request.
15Page 133 of 199
HARC Motion –2021-38-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
16Page 134 of 199
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 9, 2021
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacing a
historic architec tural feature with a non-his toric arc hitectural feature at the property loc ated at 115 W. 7th
S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.114 ac re, being part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 38, C ity of G eorgetown. –
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Ap p lic ant is reques ting HAR C approval to replac e the upper floor 1/1 wood windows o n the front
façade with new 1/1 wo o d wind o ws us ing the same window produc t ap p ro ved for the rep lacement of the
Lockett Build ing up p er floor wind o ws . T he exis ting wo o d windows , which have d eteriorated and are
leaking and caus ing water d amage, d o not ap p ear to b e the o riginal wind o ws . T he b uilding is known to
have undergo ne a rehab ilitatio n projec t prior to 1989, and the windows may have been rep laced in that
project, however it is not c lear fro m histo ric pho tos if the wind o ws were rep aired or replac ed . T he c urrent
windows either have a tinted glas s o r a tinted wind o w film applied to the glass o n 5 o f the 6 upper floor
windows, whic h has been in p lac e s inc e at least 2008. T he windows do no t ap p ear to have been tinted in a
c. 2003 pho to of the build ing. T he propos ed new windows would have clear, ins ulated glass and use the
s ame window style and configuration as the exis ting.
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 6 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. 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
request.
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 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Page 135 of 199
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 136 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-39-COA – 115 E. 7th Street Page 1 of 4
Report Date: September 3, 2021
File Number: 2021-39-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for replacing
a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at the property located at 115 W.
7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.114 acre, being part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 38, City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Diva Windows
Applicant: Randy Weisbrod (Diva)
Property Owner: 5GK Enterprises LLC
Property Address: 115 W. 7th Street
Legal Description: 0.114 acre, being part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 38, City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1903 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: Within the Williamson County Courthouse National
Register Historic District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: Recorded Texas Historic Landmark
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Upper floor window replacement
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval to replace the upper floor 1/1 wood windows on the front
façade with new 1/1 wood windows using the same window product approved for the replacement of
the Lockett Building upper floor windows. The existing wood windows, which have deteriorated and
are leaking and causing water damage, do not appear to be the original windows. The building is known
to have undergone a rehabilitation project in 1982-83, and the windows may have been replaced in that
project, however it is not clear from historic photos if the windows were repaired or replaced. The current
windows either have a tinted glass or a tinted window film applied to the glass on 5 of the 6 upper floor
windows, which has been in place since at least 2008. The windows do not appear to have been tinted in
a c. 2003 photo of the building. The proposed new windows would have clear, insulated glass and use
the same window style and configuration as the existing.
Page 137 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-39-COA – 115 E. 7th Street Page 2 of 4
The text of the Recorded Texas Historic Landmark marker reads, “Built in 1903, this ornate Victorian
structure originally housed the furniture store of Hugh Clifford Craig (1850-1938). Craig sold his business
to local competitor W.H. Davis in 1906, but retained ownership of the building. In 1936, after the Davis
Furniture Company moved, Craig sold the structure to S.W. Henderson, who ran a variety store here for
many years. Elaborately designed, the building features iron columns and pressed metal ornamentation.
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark – 1990”
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 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
6.12 Preserve the position, number, size, and
arrangement of historic windows and doors in a
building wall.
Enclosing an historic opening in a key character-
defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new
opening.
Do not close down an original opening to
accommodate a smaller window. Restoring original
openings which have been altered over time is
encouraged.
Historically, windows had a vertical emphasis. The
proportions of these windows contribute to the
character of each residence and commercial storefront.
Complies
No changes are proposed to the
position, number, size, or
arrangement of the windows and
doors.
6.13 Preserve the functional and decorative features of an
historic window or door.
Features important to the character of a window
include its clear glass, frame, sash, muntins,
mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings,
operation, location, and relation to other windows.
Features important to the character of a door
include the door itself, door frame, screen door,
threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware,
detailing, transoms, and flanking sidelights.
Historic screen and storm doors should be
preserved and maintained.
Complies
The proposed replacement windows
retain the function and
characteristics of the original
windows and would remove the
current tinted glass.
6.16 Glass in doors and windows should be retained.
If it is broken or has been removed in the past,
consider replacing it with new glass. If security is
a concern, consider using wire glass, tempered
Complies
The replacement windows propose
to use clear insulated glass,
Page 138 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-39-COA – 115 E. 7th Street Page 3 of 4
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
glass, or light metal security bars (preferably on
the interior).
Replacement glass may be insulating glass, but it
should match the style and color of the original
glass.
Replacement glass should match the historic glass
- clear, rolled (‘wavy”), tinted, etc.
Removal of historic leaded, art, stained, beveled,
prismatic glass, etc. should not be permitted,
unless it is damaged and is technically infeasible to
repair.
consistent with the historic window
glazing color.
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;
Complies
Proposed project complies with applicable
UDC standards.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
SOI Standard #6 reads: “Deteriorated
historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration
requires replacement of a distinctive feature,
the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture, and other visual
qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.”
The proposed window replacement
complies with the guidance for replacement,
and would remove the tinted glass, which is
Page 139 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-39-COA – 115 E. 7th Street Page 4 of 4
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
not consistent with glass used historically for
this building.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Complies
Proposed project complies with applicable
Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
Proposed project preserves the historic
integrity of the building.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No new buildings or additions are proposed.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed project is compatible with the
Downtown Overlay District and previously
approved replacement requests for upper
floor windows.
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Historic Resource Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 140 of 199
Location
2021-39-COA
Exhibit #1
E 8TH ST
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 7TH ST
E 6TH ST
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
E 5TH ST
RO
C
K
S
T
TI
N
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
W 6TH ST
W 8TH ST
W 7TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 5TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 141 of 199
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM - TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Wi"iamson
City/Rural Georgetown
5. USGS Quad No. '1097-3 1 3
UTM Sector 6 '76-3.38P
Site No Z+Cl
2. Name H.C. Crai g Building o Date: Factual 1 aril
Address 11 5 W. 7t-h 7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner T-Tr'")r CrOld 8 Style/Type
Address 1 1 T‘i 7th 7R6 76 9. Original Use rnmmprrial
4. Block/Lot /T1 k 38 Present Use rommerrial
10. Description Two-story load-bsearino masonry rommerri al buil di ric! of limestone: flan roof w/
built-14 tar and ;ravel coveriag.1 wood sash do_ubLe-hung display windows w/ 1/1 lights:
two rinutile-door ,3tu-rqnrss.. Orner noreworthv flerilraj inrlrlde nai i-edcast iron
rol itming c,Pfmrai-P ainrinwG qr `1nr1 1Pvpi • ARA ARA f acacia MpgicPr stnro frnnt • nrPgsPei mPI-a 1 ;
11. Present Condition excellent : rehabilitated in 1982083
12. Significance contributes to the historic r}-aia- rrer of the di sr -i rr
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date
or Original Site x (describe)
14. Bibliography GHS files 15. Informant
16. Recorder RT /1-THM
Date 1 qRS
Est
DESIGNATIONS
TNRIS No //Id THC Code
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX-
N R: 0 Individual ®Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name Wi ilingLon Co.
Hictoric 1); - t • Other Colirthnliso
PHOTO DATA
B&W 4x5s Slides
35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
ROLL FRME
23
32 to
to
to
CONTINUATION PAGE
No of 2
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM - TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Williamson
City/Rural Georgetown
WM
GE
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No /I Q
2. Name H.C. Craig Building
#10. Description (cont'd): cornice; canopy
Page 142 of 199
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Downtown District
Address:109 W 7th St 2016 Survey ID:124961 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R041372Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1903
Two-Part Commercial Block
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)*
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:115
ID:40
*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 Diva Spa/H. C. Craig Building
ID:124961 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.637631 Longitude -97.677703
None Selected
None Selected
Resource A is at left; Photo direction: North
Page 143 of 199
Diva Windows
2021-39-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 9, 2021
1Page 144 of 199
Item Under Consideration
2021-39-COA –Diva Windows
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature at the
property located at 115 W. 7th Street, bearing the legal description 0.114 acre, being part
of Lots 1 & 2, Block 38, City of Georgetown.
2Page 145 of 199
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Upper floor window replacement
3Page 146 of 199
Item Under Consideration
4Page 147 of 199
Historic
Courthouse
5Page 148 of 199
Current Context
6Page 149 of 199
1905 & 1910 Sanborn Maps
7Page 150 of 199
c. 1906-1910 Photo
8Page 151 of 199
c. 1934 Photo from S U Special Collections
9Page 152 of 199
c. 1976 Photo
10Page 153 of 199
1984 HRS Photo
11Page 154 of 199
1989 RTHL Photo (Dan K. Utley)
12Page 155 of 199
c. 2003 Photo
13Page 156 of 199
Current Photo
14Page 157 of 199
Proposed Windows
15Page 158 of 199
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;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;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 16Page 159 of 199
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•0 comments in favor and 0 opposed.
17Page 160 of 199
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request to replace the windows.
18Page 161 of 199
HARC Motion –2021-39-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
19Page 162 of 199
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
September 9, 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 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 1102 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal des cription 0.25 ac res in
Bloc k 9, S nyder Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
T he ap p licant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val of a new 5’ tall iro n fence along the s id e s treet p ro p erty line to
enc los e the rear yard with a taller fenc e than the 3’ tall fenc e p lanned for the front yard. In the O ld Town
O verlay Dis tric t, fenc e height along fro nt and s id e s treet property lines is limited to 3’ in height and 50%
trans parenc y unles s an alternate fence is approved b y HAR C . T he p ro p o s ed iron fence has more than
50% transparency and inc ludes d ecorative d etails similar to the existing fence o n the ab utting p ro p erty to
the eas t o f the s ubjec t p ro p erty. 6’ tall p rivac y fenc es are p ermitted if they are s et bac k a minimum o f 15’
from the s id e street p ro p erty line, and the ap p licant would be ab le to cons truct the req ues ted fenc e behind
that 15’ setback; however, they are reques ting the 5’ fenc e along the s ide s treet property line to be able to
enc los e a larger portion of the rear and s ide yard for pets.
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 ), two (2) s igns were posted on-s ite. 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
request.
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
Page 163 of 199
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 164 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-41-COA – 1102 E. University Avenue Page 1 of 3
Report Date: September 3, 2021
File Number: 2021-41-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new
fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable
guidelines at the property located at 1102 E. University Avenue, bearing the legal description 0.25 acres
in Block 9, Snyder Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Martin Fence
Applicant: Lauri Martin
Property Owner: Lauri Martin
Property Address: 1102 E. University Avenue
Legal Description: 0.25 acres in Block 9, Snyder Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1924 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High
National Register Designation: Within the Olive Street National Register Historic
District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New 5’ iron fence
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new 5’ tall iron fence along the side street property line
to enclose the rear yard with a taller fence than the 3’ tall fence planned for the front yard. In the Old
Town Overlay District, fence height along front and side street property lines is limited to 3’ in height
and 50% transparency unless an alternate fence is approved by HARC. The proposed iron fence has more
than 50% transparency and includes decorative details similar to the existing fence on the abutting
property to the east of the subject property. 6’ tall privacy fences are permitted if they are set back a
minimum of 15’ from the side street property line, and the applicant would be able to construct the
requested fence behind that 15’ setback; however, they are requesting the 5’ fence along the side street
property line to be able to enclose a larger portion of the rear and side yard for pets.
Page 165 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-41-COA – 1102 E. University Avenue Page 2 of 3
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 5’ 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 Design Guidelines allow
for consideration of taller side yard fences.
The historic house would remain visible
through the proposed 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
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed fence is 5’ 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.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
Partially Complies
The proposed fence partially complies with
the applicable Design Guideline.
Page 166 of 199
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2021-41-COA – 1102 E. University Avenue Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed fences does not alter the
integrity of the building, structure or site and
is consistent with existing fencing on
adjacent property, as well as provides more
than 50% transparency to balance the
proposed 5’ height.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No new buildings or additions are proposed.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed fence is compatible with the
character of the Old Town Overlay District
and with the fence surrounding an abutting
property.
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.
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 167 of 199
Location
2021-41-COA
Exhibit #1
E 11TH
ST
E 14TH ST
MA
P
L
E
S
T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E 14TH ST
E 13TH ST
E UNIVERSITY AVE
W
R
U
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
VI
N
E
S
T
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
JA
M
E
S
S
T
SOULE DR
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 168 of 199
Lauri McInnis Martin
723 W. University Avenue, Ste. 110-403
Georgetown, Texas 78626
512-897-0498
martin.lauri1223@gmail.com
7/16/2021
Ms. Bostick
Downtown and Historic Planner
City of Georgetown Planning Department
809 Martin Luther King Jr. Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Ms. Bostick:
Please let this serve as my letter of intent for my application for a fence permit for my
residence located at 1102 E. University Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626. I would like to
install a wrought iron fence that is greater than 50% see through. Please see photo attached
to my application for an example of the style of the fence. I will install a 3 ft fence on the front
and partially on one side, the other side of my fence is already a 5 ft wrought iron fence
belonging to my neighbor. I would like to graduate up the fence to 5 ft once it is completely
on the side of my house because I have dogs and they would be able to easily jump a 3 ft
fence, and I need the 5 ft to keep them safe as the front of the house faces Hwy. 29. The
fence I propose to install is a quality and style that is in keeping with the integrity of the house
– which is extremely important to me.
I would also like to request a curb cut to move the approach of my driveway away from Hwy.
29. At present it is very close to the highway – which presents a problem and a dangerous
situation when I am backing out of my driveway and people are turning onto Olive Street at
speed. Please see attached survey and drawing showing the location of the proposed move.
Moving the approach also allows me space to turn my car around and leave my driveway
facing forward and not backing up. A new survey has been done and a civil engineering
Page 169 of 199
2
drawing will be submitted as soon as I have it for the curb cut. The present driveway will be
removed and a curb put in where it is presently lacking.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
L auri Martin
Page 170 of 199
k
e
Fence will
be set back
3ft from the
property line
Page 171 of 199
Page 172 of 199
Page 173 of 199
Page 174 of 199
Page 175 of 199
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY
1. County Williamson
FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-32)
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No. )10 WM
City/Rural Georgetown G E' UTM Sector 627-3389
2. Name H.J. & Esther Swenson House 6 Date: Factual 1974 Est .
Address 1102 E. University 7 Architect/Builder nriffith Limihrar Cn
Contractor
3. Owner Thelma C. Fowler 8. Style/Type hnng,nlow
Address 111 W. Fowler. Killeen,TX 76941 9. Original Use
4. Block/Lot Snyder/ Blk. 9/N.W. corner Present Use
10. Description One-story wood frame dwelling w/ modifiedL-plan; eyterinr walls lu/ bP,rPled tv od
siding; clipped (gable roof w/ composition shingles: exposed rafter ends w/ jig-sPwn ctjl lt
brackets; front elev. fares N.: exterior brick chimney w/ rnrhplpd rnp & pnlychr^watif:
desi(211: wood sash douhle—hnno windows w/ 1/1 lights: single-d r entrance w/ sidclightc;>
11. Present Condition good
12. Significance Primary area of si?nificancp! nrrhitertnrp 4 grand ,,,qMpin bn a yl o m
architerturp_
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe)
14. Bibliography Tax rolls. GHS files 15. Informant
16. Recorder T) IvTnnrp /RUM Date July 198/i
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TN RIS No Old THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL E H ABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
NR: 0 Individual 0 Historic District YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
25 to
to
to
, ?h
11 5 5 16
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE No of
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
Williamson WM 5. 5. USGS Quad No. 3C)Q7 --11 3 Site No. 719 1. County
City/Rural Georget own OF
2. Name H.J. & Rsrher Swenson House
#10. Description (cont'd): one-bay porch w/ gablet roof wraps around N. & E. elevs.;
brick piers.
Page 176 of 199
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:1102 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:124342 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R047434Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 4/21/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1924
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: new oval window openings?)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:270a
ID:219
*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 H. J. and Esther Swenson House
ID:124342 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity
Latitude:30.63307 Longitude -97.666879
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: South
Page 177 of 199
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:1102 E University Ave 2016 Survey ID:124342 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High
Additional Photos
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 178 of 199
Martin Fence
2021-41-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
September 9, 2021
1Page 179 of 199
Item Under Consideration
2021-41-COA –Martin Fence
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics
and applicable guidelines at the property located at 1102 E. University Avenue, bearing the
legal description 0.25 acres in Block 9, Snyder Addition.
2Page 180 of 199
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New 5’ iron fence
3Page 181 of 199
Item Under Consideration
4Page 182 of 199
Southwestern
University
5
Railroad Track
Page 183 of 199
Current Context
6Page 184 of 199
1925 & 1940 Sanborn Maps
7Page 185 of 199
c. 1934 SU Special Collections Photo
8Page 186 of 199
c. 1934 SU Special Collections Photo
9Page 187 of 199
c. 1934 SU Special Collections Photo
10Page 188 of 199
1984 HRS Photo
11Page 189 of 199
1984 HRS Photo
12Page 190 of 199
1984 HRS Photo
13Page 191 of 199
Proposed Fence
14Page 192 of 199
Proposed Fence
15Page 193 of 199
Permitted Fence Design
16Page 194 of 199
Current Context
17Page 195 of 199
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;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 18Page 196 of 199
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•0 comments in favor and 0 opposed
19Page 197 of 199
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence.
20Page 198 of 199
HARC Motion –2020-41-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
21Page 199 of 199