The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_HARC_12.11.2014Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission of the City of Georgetown December 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM at Council and Courts Bldg, located at 101 E. 7th St. Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on Certificates of Design Compliance applications based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens* Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action *Those who wish to speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. Legislative Regular Agenda B Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 23, 2014 regular meeting. C Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for infill construction for the property located at 913 Walnut Street bearing the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres D Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for residential addition and infill construction for the property located at 211 West 11th Street bearing the legal description of Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), 0.12 acres E Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres F Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for relocation of the structure located at 214 West 3rd Street bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 14, Lot 7 (N/PT), 8 (W/PT) G Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 212 West 7th Street, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 2-3 (PTS), 0.17 acres H Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. I Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: The Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on Certificates of Design Compliance applications based upon the City Council adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and Unified Development Code. The Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Welcome and Meeting Procedures: Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission) Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant Comments from Citizens* Applicant Response Commission Deliberative Process Commission Action *Those who wish to speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 23, 2014 regular meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Oct 23, 2014 Minutes Backup Material Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4 Meeting: October 23, 2014 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review Commission Workshop Minutes Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 Members present:, Nancy Night, Acting Chair; Jennifer Brown,; Richard Mee, and Mary Jo Winder. Commissioners in Training present: Rodolfo Martinez Commissioners absent: Anna Eby, Ty Gipson, David Paul, and CIT Barbara Price Staff present: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator; Jackson Daly, Executive Assistant; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Call to Order by Knight at 7:00 p.m. with the reading of the meeting procedures. The meeting was delayed so quorum could be present. * Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three (3) minutes. This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meeting Act, Texas Government Code 551. Legislative Agenda: B. Discussion and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 25, 2014 regular meeting. Motion by Mee to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0. Items F and G were moved up on the agenda to discuss together and to accommodate the applicant. Please see the items actions below. C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations for the property located at 202 South Austin Avenue, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 9, Lot 1-2, 7-8 (E/PT). Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant requests approval for exterior paint on the 1930’s structure. Paint color chips were made available at the meeting. Winder questioned why the 1930’s structure was designated a low priority structure. Synatschk explained that many changes had been made that changed the priority level. Knight opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed it. Motion by Mee to approve the CDC as submitted with the colors presented. Second by Brown. Approved 4-0. D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for infill construction for the property located at 913 Walnut Street bearing the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres. This item was pulled by staff after Zoning Board of Adjustment action. E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Meeting: October 23, 2014 infill construction, exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 202 South College Street, bearing the legal description of Lots 15-20, College Place, Cabinet 1, Slide 134. Synatschk presented the staff report. A materials board was presented at the meeting. The applicant is requesting to approval for infill construction, exterior alterations and signage. The infill construction will complete the build out for the College Place Apartments, adding 5 units. Additionally, the applicant wishes to repaint the existing structures to coordinate all three buildings. The request also includes one flush mounted sign, mounted on the east wall of the new structure. The design meets the Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval. The applicant, Carl Illig used his time to explain the signage on the side of the building. He also stated that he was upset about the questions that were raised at the previous meeting regarding handicapped parking, stating they had no bearing on HARC’s review. Winder asked about the future development on the adjacent property. Illig said he would not commit to specifics but it was possible that they would build four more units on the property, or possibly storage units. Motion by Mee to approve the application as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0. F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 204 East 8th Street bearing the legal description of Glascock Addition, Block 9, Lot 7 – 8, 0.3306 acres. Synatschk presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a CDC for an approximately 1100 square foot outdoor patio with a fence, located within the front and side yards of the historic structure. The application includes a request for door signage and new sign mounted on the existing freestanding sign bracket. The proposed fence will be of wrought iron and the patio will be constructed of masonry materials compatible with the historic context of the property. The signage will replace the existing freestanding sign in the front “yard” and will be added to the entry doors. The next item on the agenda also explains the need to an alternative parking plan, which is necessary due to the additional seating brought on by the outdoor patio. The parking calculations with the additional seating require an additional two parking spaces. There are two spaces at the front of the structure, along 8th Street that would be allocated for this restaurant. The parking spaces would be designated for the restaurant, but cannot be designated for only the restaurant use, anyone will be allowed to use the spaces as they are in the public right-of-way. There were no commissioner questions. Knight opened the public hearing. Larry Olsen, 300 East 9th Street, welcomed the restaurant to the neighborhood and recommended approval of the applications. Ann Seamon, 204 East 8th Street, also welcomed the new restaurant and says they have good food. She is looking forward to eating there often. Knight questioned the applicant, Pat Mullins, on the type of fencing he chose. He explained that he did not want a decorative fence with points or anything on top that would possibly hurt someone. The sole point of the fence he explained was to keep children, and adults, from running around and into the street. Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Meeting: October 23, 2014 Motion by Mee to approve the CDC-2014-041 as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0. G. Discussion and possible action to approve an Alternative Parking Plan for the property located at 204 East 8th Street, bearing legal description of Glascock Addition, Block 9, Lots 7-8, 0.3306 acres. See discussion above. Staff recommends approval. Motion by Mee to approve the Alternative Parking Plan as submitted. Second by Winder. Approved 4 – 0. H. Discussion of proposed historic district street signs. Synatschk explained that the city had an approved budget to replace the street signs in the historic districts and presented options that were being considered. He stated they were checking on possible designs and shape costs. Mee suggested incorporating the courthouse dome or an element that is specific to Georgetown. They all agreed the signs need more character. I. Discussion of proposed Historic and Architectural Review Commission UDC revisions – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager. Brewer’s presentation began with a summarized history of why the changes to the UDC are being proposed. She cited the Zucker Report of the Planning Department, the City Council direction and the business forum that was held earlier in the summer. Staff is also looking at changing the bylaws of the commission, has developed operating procedures and is providing several training opportunities for commissioners and the public. She explained that the Historic Resource Survey was to be revised every year, last done in 2007 and the results were not quality work. Staff is trying to get the funding through a CLG grant to redo it this next year, making sure everyone that has property in the survey is notified, and looking at the historic significance of the structures not just the age. She stated there would be other training opportunities coming in the next several months, including CAMP, which is a National Registry based training with speakers from all over the country. She also stated the city’s website is being redesigned and hopefully would make it easier for citizens to find links to historic preservation and downtown codes. The UDC changes were shown in a spreadsheet and included topics such as clarifying dangerous structures, recommending more staff review for minor alterations, mechanical screening, common fences, signage, and demolition of non-historic structures. Comments by the commissioners: Mee questioned the makeup of the demolition subcommittee, which currently consists of three commissioners. He suggested adding the Building Official, an Engineer, or an Architect to make sure professional opinions are being given in those circumstances. He also stated the demolition subcommittee should be able to make recommendations to the entire commission before voting. Brewer said she thought this was appropriate to give them building safety and integrity of the building information. Knight questioned changing the Historic Preservation Officer position from the Planning Director to the Historic District Planner, citing that the Director would be allowed to designate another person in case it’s needed, whereas the Planner position would not allow that flexibility. Knight then suggested that the definition of minor properties be very specifically defined and suggested using a Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Meeting: October 23, 2014 percentage of the cost of construction. There was further discussion of the distinction between minor and major projects. Brewer concluded the discussion by appreciating the work that Andreina Davila put into the document so far. She also stated she wants the commissioners to have more of this type training, including open discussion which provides a better learning environment. J. Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. None. K. Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. Synatschk reported there would not be a November Sign Subcommittee meeting and the regular meeting in November would be combined with the regular December meeting, because both regular dates are holidays, and would be held on Thursday, December 11th. L. Adjournment. Motion by Knight to adjourn, second by Mee. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. ________________________________ ______________________________ Approved, Nancy Knight, Acting Chair Attest, Richard Mee City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for infill construction for the property located at 913 Walnut Street bearing the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for infill construction for an accessory building in the Old Town Overlay District. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant seeks an exception to the setback requirements for the Residential Single Family (RS) zoning district. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-039 Staff Report Backup Material CDC-2014-039 Exhibit 1 Backup Material CDC-2014-039 Exhibit 2 Backup Material Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-039 913 Walnut Street Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date: December 11, 2014 File Number: CDC-2014-039 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for infill construction for the property located at 913 Walnut Street bearing the legal description of Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 913 Walnut Street Accessory Building Project Applicant: John Lawton, Green Earth Builders Property Owner: James Bray Property Address: 913 South Walnut Street Legal Description: Dimmit Addition, Block 90 (PT), 0.1652 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: This is the first public hearing for this CDC application. Previous applications for this project include a request for the reduction of the 365 day moratorium for unauthorized demolition. CDC-2014-039 was previously posted for the October 23, 2014 HARC agenda and was removed by staff on October 22, 2014, prior to the meeting. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1920 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium Priority National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance for the construction of a two-story accessory building in accordance with the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. 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 The Design Guidelines are not applicable to this request. Not applicable Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-039 913 Walnut Street Page 2 of 6 STAFF ANALYSIS On March 27, 2014, the applicant met with city staff to discuss the proposed project at 913 South Walnut Street. The applicant indicated at the meeting and on the Pre Application Meeting Request that the existing accessory structures would be remodeled to create a new structure. The project included the expansion of the current accessory buildings to build out the garage and add a second story playroom. The applicant was notified that the current buildings were located within the required setbacks, and any demolition would require the review and approval of a Certificate of Design Compliance. After determining that no demolition would be involved in the project, the applicant was directed to submit the required building permit applications. An application for a building permit for the proposed project at 913 South Walnut Street was filed with the City of Georgetown on May 22, 2014. The permit was reviewed on June 2, 2014, with the stipulation that the applicant verify the project requirements with the Historic Planner, since the property is located within the Old Town Overlay District. On June 30, 2014, the applicant attended a second Pre Application Meeting with City staff to discuss the project, confirming that no demolition would occur. On July 17, 2014, the Building Inspector arrived to inspect the foundation base and found that the two accessory buildings were removed from the site. City staff issued a Stop Work Order for the property, halting all work until the appropriate permits were issued. The demolition of the two accessory structures resulted in the loss of the legal non-conforming status, requiring any new construction to meet the current requirements of the Residential Single Family (RS) zoning district. Per Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.03.050.A, Residential Single-Family District Lot and Dimensional Standards, the rear setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet and the side setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet for a garage or carport taking access from a side street. The proposed construction and new foundation is located within both the side and the rear setbacks. Per UDC Section 3.13.010.D, the demolition or removal of a structure without CDC approval resulted in a 365-day delay on HARC review and all building permits. In accordance with this section of the UDC, the property owner requested a reduction from the HARC based upon the criteria in the UDC. On August 28, 2014, HARC considered and approved the request, reducing the delay period to a total of 45 days, which ended on August 31, 2014. The applicant proposes to construct a 677-square foot two-story accessory structure, replacing the previous structure. The proposed two-story accessory structure includes a 432-square foot garage on the first floor, and a 245 square foot play room on the second floor. The property is used as a residence and currently includes only the main dwelling. Per UDC Section 4.09.020 .B.1, a Certificate of Design Compliance is required for “Construction of Single-family or Two-family Residential structure or addition that exceeds the limitations of Section 4.09.030.B.” Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-039 913 Walnut Street Page 3 of 6 The applicant wishes to construct the structure within the setback, requiring a CDC to allow utilization of the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district in accordance with UDC Section 4.09.030.B.2, which states “Upper stories of single-family and Two-family structures within the Old Town Overlay District are subject to a 10 foot side setback and a 15 foot rear setback. However, HARC may approve a CDC, in accordance with the adopted Design Guidelines, to allow the utilization of the setback requirements for the underlying zoning district.” The UDC provisions detailed above reduce the impact of proposed infill construction on the adjacent properties. HARC may allow the utilization of the underlying zoning district setback requirements for upper stories based upon the criteria established in the UDC. The proposed structure replaces a previous structure demolished within the last year. Allowing the property owner to build to the required setbacks for the underlying RS zoning district will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties and allows the applicant to utilize their property. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-039 913 Walnut Street Page 4 of 6 The proposed project requires approval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment prior to initiating construction. Case # SE-2014-001 was presented to the ZBA on October 21, 2014 and failed to receive the required 75% majority for approval. The applicant has requested the ZBA reconsider the case based upon new information. The applicant requires HARC approval for the use of the underlying RS zoning district setbacks and will return to ZBA on December 16, 2014 to review the underlying setbacks. 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application was submitted on September 29, 2014 and deemed complete by staff on October 2, 2014. B. Compliance with any design standards of the The proposed project complies with the Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-039 913 Walnut Street Page 5 of 6 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS Unified Development Code; design standards of the underlying RS zoning district. The applicant is seeking an exception to the development standards outlined in UDC Section 4.09. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines do not address the appropriate siting for accessory structures. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed infill construction project does not have an adverse effect on the primary historic structure. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding historic properties. 10 of the 12 properties located within a 200 foot radius have accessory structures. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project has a limited effect on the Old Town Overlay District. Accessory structures located in close proximity to a property line are common in the Old Town Overlay District and are indicative of historic growth trends in the District. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. The proposed project does not include any signage. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such The proposed project has limited impact upon the overall character of the Old Town Overlay District. Single and two-story accessory structures located at or near the property line are common throughout the district, and within the blocks surrounding this project. Additionally, a two story accessory structure occupied the site until July, so the replacement of the previous structure has limited impact. If approved, the project will not diminish the overall character or context of the district. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-039 913 Walnut Street Page 6 of 6 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of CDC-2014-039 as presented. As of the date of this report, staff has received one written comment in support of this application. The letter of support is from the adjacent property owner. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent, Plans and Specifications Exhibit 2 – 906 Pine Street Letter of Support SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS My name is John Lawton, new owner of Green Earth Builders LLC. I have operated in Georgetown and surrounding area for over thirty five years. when I started the project at 9L3 walnut I found that the entire shed had rotted into the ground at least 6inches. There was no bottom ptate and the studs were rotted and termite damaged up another 5 Inches. Taking the structure down was a slow process for safety reasons' I had the wall up by itself. lthen proceeded to take the tin off with understanding that the rust and holes in the tin were a produce that needed to be extracted and did so. The carport only had three 2" X 4"s running to 4'X 4" post which I had to extract because of setback from 9 % st' when I took the tin off of the shed it had mold and water damage as well as termite damage across 80 percent of the siding. The siding had a paper like quality and all nails were exposed. There was about L6" of space between our shed and the neighbors shed which had a rack for storing wood built on the overhand of the shed. My guys were brushing against the wall with rusty nails so, I dropped the wall for safety' we took the siding off and put the wail back but started thinking about my foundation guys and they wouldn't have room to work. Nor would they be able to trench out my special depth footing needed forthis area. lslid the walloverto pourthe slab. Looking back in hind sight lknow I should have contacted Jeff or Matt from taking the tin off to moving the wall. I have taken over a company which is something I have been working towards my whole life. I have been overwhelmed with the business side of a company that when I came to dealing with the city for permits and the entire process I blanked' I am a carpenter out right and learning the best I can on the business part, growing each day' I hired my daughter to help with the process and making it possible for me to move forward for work' I have never made any bad decisions in my 35 years and to make the mistake like I did is very outofcharacterforme' lhaveanA+gradeforqualityofworksecondtonone. lhavealwaysgivenmy client above standard structural materials. I upgrade on all member and over engineer all footings and piers' My clients know me to be honest and fair. I come to you today with the hope that you understand that I meant only the best product for my client and the safety of my crew. I made the worst decisions of my life consecutively' I promise I learned from my mistake and I hope that you would have the leniency not to punish the home owner for my mistakes. My whole life I have always made decisions dealing with any type of trouble shooting. I am learning to change throughout this process. I pran to be working in the Georgetown area for ten rnore years if god willing. t have three jobs in old town in the works as of today' I never meant for this to happen and for me to be negligent in my actions. This is not me or my work ethic' I pray that you can have the compassion and let me proceed with the project. Thank you for your time, John LaMon th' l3' SeolD F16oC, 5:ro€lA€ l{Ev cox5TaucTrc>q EAsr 6111-1_ v$ (-tr -rb Ba reKr* \ ,o.tlc o" serg*; FRom Sreie; exntrrue Gr**<eE' +:'rbeAq€ BsrqlAlt_ a-fg:w- ,.i.1 e 11. lb"O,a, Fdn t^rsub.|,*l /2'' r)e1u uJ A '. 1 d' 3toD s d, La hrAvn K\3 \stSA" c4T L t+" lraiit {t i!:-' s .l li;,s.Li\ .tr:r + rr( ]? lf$€i$I sl,.]s iliN F$t.tb*Il Jegd{ nii* *}_-f Yi !:'!1/t' { js\ -rd l\" 'ii, .: !"i {i .r- =aot t' ci Xo io S 6\ r (\ I \o€t+ r ,qF. t:(oQi (Dlt : o-o l .\ ,ql o, F orox: . g' r g 12 " 8' r g a3\ l rorr ) ii f 'E ' I;s& * 't ? .t City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for residential addition and infill construction for the property located at 211 West 11th Street bearing the legal description of Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), 0.12 acres ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 211 West 11th Street. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to replace an existing addition with a new addition, construct a new driveway and build a two story accessory structure. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the approval criteria of Section(s) 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-043 Staff Report Backup Material CDC-2014-043 Exhibit 1 Backup Material Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-043 211 West 11th Street Page 1 of 5 Meeting Date: December 11, 2014 File Number: CDC-2014-043 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for residential addition and infill construction for the property located at 211 West 11th Street bearing the legal description of Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), 0.12 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Keathley residence addition and infill project Applicant: Mark Keathley Property Owner: Mark Keathley Property Address: 211 West 11th Street Legal Description: Lost Addition, Block 64 (PT), 0.12 acres Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case. The property was recently issued an Administrative CDC for the residential paint. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: 1900 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Medium 2007 - Low National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant seeks a Certificate of Design Compliance for an addition to the existing Low priority structure and the construction of a new accessory building. The HARC will review the following items: 1. Design of the infill construction (New garage and studio) 2. New addition to the structure 3. Modifications to the existing porch 4. Placement of the driveway Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-043 211 West 11th Street Page 2 of 5 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 6.6 Maintain an historic porch and its detailing Complies 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features. Complies 7.3 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies 7.4 An addition shall not damage or obscure architecturally important features. Complies 7.6 Design a new addition such that the original character can be clearly seen. Complies 7.7 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. Complies 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or re- move original architectural details and materials of the primary structure. Complies 7.9 An addition shall be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the main building. Complies 13.17 A building shall fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block Complies 13.20 Sloping roofs such as gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms Complies STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant proposes multiple changes to the Low Priority structure located at 211 West 11th Street. The structure’s previous owner received a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior alterations in 2006, which included the addition of a second floor and an addition to the rear of the structure. The approved work was partially completed, and the structure has remained in a partial state of construction since that time. The current owner seeks a CDC to complete the construction, replace the addition to the northeast corner of the structure, and construct a new accessory building. The subject property currently lacks a driveway and approved parking area. The project requires the installation of a driveway to comply with current development codes. The alterations proposed to the primary structure are in compliance with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Most of the historic materials and features were removed by the previous owner, and the new owner hopes to replace them with comparable materials. The original porch columns were removed during a previous renovation and replaced with a simplified design. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 6 x6 columns with a simplified design, as detailed in the rendering. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-043 211 West 11th Street Page 3 of 5 The proposed infill construction provides a garage and studio space for the new owner. Although the property is located in Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District, the surrounding properties are residential in character and a residential setback for the accessory structure is appropriate. The proposed design incorporates simplified architectural elements of the primary structure, creating a structure that is compatible with the primary structure but includes modern detailing. The structure is subordinate to the primary structure in both mass and scale. 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application was received on October 13, 2014, and deemed to be complete at that time. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The proposed 26’ height of the accessory structure does not comply with the UDC design standards for the Residential Single Family zoning district. Staff is reviewing a separate application for rezoning the property to the Mixed Use – Downtown district, which allows for the additional height. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The project complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines as detailed in this staff report. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed project retains the integrity of the individual historic structure. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. The proposed accessory structure is compatible with the primary structure and adjacent properties in the district. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The use of the residential style setbacks for the infill construction preserves the character of the southwest section of the Downtown Overlay District. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-043 211 West 11th Street Page 4 of 5 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. The proposed project enhances the Downtown Overlay District by restoring a property to its historic appearance. The mandated driveway will take access from a side street (Rock Street), limiting the impact on the primary façade of the structure. The project will create continuity with the surrounding properties, enhancing the subject property and contributing to the aesthetic values of the Downtown Overlay District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval for the following items as presented: 1. New addition to the structure 2. Placement of the driveway 3. Modifications to the existing porch Additionally, staff recommends the following approval: 1. New construction of accessory structure contingent upon completion of the rezoning process As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications PUBLIC COMMENTS Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-043 211 West 11th Street Page 5 of 5 SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for exterior alterations and additions to the structures located at 1804 South Ash Street. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to enclose the existing carport, replace the existing porch, add exterior details and paint the structures. Staff recommends denial of the request based on the findings that the does not meet the approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. Staff is willing to continue working with the applicant to develop a project in compliance with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the application fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-045 Exhibit 1 Backup Material CDC-2014-045 Staff Report Backup Material Letter of Intent for 1804 Ash Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The proposal is to change the current structure at 1804 Ash Street from its current 2400 sf main house, attached carport and attached 800 sf guest house, which was utilized as separate residences in the past, to be one unified looking single residential home. The 2400 sf main house is brick, and the 800 sf guest house is poured concrete. We propose to add two garage doors and an entry door to the current carport, add a front porch to the main house entry, add shutters to the main house windows, and then paint the existing brick, concrete and trim to unify the look of the home. The current roof and windows are not functioning properly and will be replaced. The metal overhang above the second story porch on the main house is in need of repair and will be removed. The guest house has a unique design in the concrete, which will be preserved when painted. It is currently not painted nor stained –and looks like concrete. The main house brick is a light yellow color presently. We propose to paint the brick and the concrete in a matching color to unify the look of the home. Although the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Overlay District states that “masonry that was not painted historically shall not be painted,” this particular home was built with two different materials –the main house in brick, the guest house in concrete. The best way to preserve the integrity of this home is to make it attractive to a potential homeowner that will maintain the property. We propose to unify the two living areas by matching the outer color of the differing materials, while still preserving the unique character of the guest house and its unusual designs in the concrete. The guest house has a faux fireplace that is unfinished at the top and has exposed brick, steel and mortar. We propose to repair the top of the fireplace as close to its original intent as possible. The home is in general poor condition presently and we propose to bring it to livable conditions, improve its look, while maintaining the integrity of its unique features. Paint Detail for 1804 Ash Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The three colors to be used on the house are: Sherwin Williams Extra White, Sherwin Williams Caviar, and Sherwin Williams Popular Gray; Popular Gray –brick of main house, Hardi Shake siding on garage, conrete on guest house Caviar –shutters, garage doors, entry doors White –trim above windows, trim above garage doors and entry doors, columns Alteration Proposal for 1804 Ash Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The only architectural structures to be removed is the awning above the second story porch, which is currently in poor condition. The roof and windows are also in poor condition and will be replaced. The metal roof (which is covering a shingled roof) will be replaced with an Asphalt Shingle roof in a Dark Charcoal color. The windows will be replaced with similar style to what is currently there. Rotted boards will be replaced where needed. The two car carport will be changed to a two car garage by adding two single garage doors. Another entry door will also be added to the carport area for entry into the garage near the guest house. The guest house will be painted to match the main house. The chimney (which does not connect to a working fireplace) will be repaired at the top. (See photo of guest house). The main house will have a porch added to the front entry to allow for a more inviting facade. Although this does change the look of the house, we have made every effort to make the house more inviting with minimal changes. Painting the brick will unify the look with the carport and guest house. Adding shutters to the 4 windows in front will also add to the appeal of the home. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 11, 2014 File Number: CDC-2014-045 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1804 Ash Street Residential remodel Applicant: Cathy Miller Property Owner: Cathy Miller Property Address: 1804 South Ash Street Legal Description: Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: This project was presented for conceptual review at the October 23, 2014 HARC meeting HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1958 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Not listed National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior alterations and an addition to the structure located at 1804 South Ash Street. The proposed project includes the removal of an existing porch and construction of a new porch, enclosing the existing carport, adding exterior shutter panels and painting the structures. 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 4.1 Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail Does not comply 4.2 Avoid adding elements or features that were not part of the original building Does not comply 4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements Does not comply Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 6.25 Maintain a historic porch and its detailing Does not comply 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features Does not comply 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure Does not comply 11.8 Leave natural masonry finishes unpainted when feasible Does not comply STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a Certificate of Design Compliance for substantial alterations to the unlisted historic structures located at 1804 South Ash Street. Although not listed on the historic resource survey, the Williamson County Appraisal District sets the effective date for construction at 1958. The alterations include removal of the existing porch and installation of a new porch, new paint and exterior finishes for the structures. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines state “Ownership of an historic property carries both the aforementioned benefits and a responsibility to respect the historic character of the resource and its setting.” Preserving the uniqueness of a historic property is the key purpose of the overlay districts, and each structure must be treated as a representation of its period of significance. Restoration projects must focus on the appropriate treatments for historic properties, preserving the character defining features while accommodating modern uses for the properties. The proposed porch does not reflect the design of the structure and creates a sense of false history for the property. In addition, the two structures that comprise the property were built as individual structures and later connected with a carport. Maintaining the individual character of the two structures is important to preserve the historic integrity of the site. The cast concrete construction of the smaller structure is unique to Georgetown, representing a construction type not duplicated among the other historic resources of the community. Loss of the construction type would negatively impact the individual property and the historic district overall. HARC provided direction to the applicant during a conceptual review at the September 25, 2014 meeting. The Commissioners requested a more simplified design for the porch and additional emphasis placed upon the one story structure, due to is unique design characteristics. The concrete wall design is unique to Georgetown and represents a different approach to construction within the overlay district. Painting masonry structures is only appropriate if the masonry was previously painted. The two structures are currently in their historic state, and should remain unpainted. Mortar and masonry materials are susceptible to future moisture damage and deterioration if painted, and should be left in Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 3 of 4 their original condition. The applicant did not provide any information regarding a structural need for painting the structures. The proposed changes conflict with the design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation by adding conjectural features and significantly altering the historic appearance of the property. Staff previously discussed the proposed changes with the applicant, in an effort to find a compromise design. After failing to find a compromise, the applicant selected to move forward with the application, with the understanding that staff is unable to support the proposed changes. Staff is willing to continue working with the applicant to discuss the project and find a mutually acceptable resolution. 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application was submitted on October 22, 2014 and deemed to be complete. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The project is in compliance with the design standards of the UDC, as related to the underlying Residential Single family zoning district. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The project does not comply with the Downtown and Old Town design Guidelines, as outlined in this report. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed project fails to protect the historic integrity of the structures. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. No new buildings are proposed with this project. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project adversely impacts the overall character of the historic district by removing a unique construction method and creating a false sense of historic context. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. No signage is proposed for this project. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 4 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. The proposed project has a significant impact upon the historic integrity of the structures. Altering the two structures to create a homogenous appearance and era creates a false sense of history, adversely impacting the integrity of the individual structures and the district overall. The unique construction style enhances the variety of historic resources in the district, and the loss of that style adversely affects the overall district and the historic resources throughout Georgetown. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends denial of the proposed project and requests that the applicant be directed to discuss the project further with staff. The applicant may present a new application to a future meeting. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for relocation of the structure located at 214 West 3rd Street bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 14, Lot 7 (N/PT), 8 (W/PT) ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for the relocation of a historic house located at 214 West 3rd Street. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to relocate the structure outside of the city limits to prepare the lot for future redevelopment. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the approval criteria of Sections 3.13.030 and 3.13.040 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. the applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-046 Staff Report Backup Material CDC-2014-046 Exhibit 1 Letter of Intent Backup Material CDC-2014-046 Exhibit 2 Historic Resource Report Backup Material CDC-2014-046 Exhibit 3 THC Resources Form Backup Material CDC-2014-046 Exhibit 4 Floor Plan Backup Material Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-046 214 West 3rd Street Page 1 of 5 Meeting Date: December 11, 2014 File Number: CDC-2014-046 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for relocation for the property located at 214 West 3rd Street bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 14, Lot 7 (N/PT), 8 (W/PT) AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: Relocation of historic property Applicant: Matt Clark Property Owner: Matt Clark Property Address: 214 West 3rd Street Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 14, Lot 7 (N/PT), 8 (W/PT) Historic Overlay: Downtown, Area 2 Case History: This is the third CDC application for this site. HARC previously approved CDC requests for demolition in 2009 and 2010. Demolition CDCs expire after 6 months, requiring a new application for the property. HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1910 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: 1984 – Low 2007 - Medium National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance to relocate the historic structure located at 214 West 3rd Street. The structure is proposed to be relocated outside of the City of Georgetown. 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 The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines do not apply to this project. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-046 214 West 3rd Street Page 2 of 5 STAFF ANALYSIS The property owner wishes to relocate the Medium priority structure located at 214 West 3rd Street outside of the city limits of the City of Georgetown. The owner intends to construct a building more compatible with the district in the future. The applicant proposes relocation of the structure to a company in Liberty Hill, with the final location unknown at this time. Although the structure will be saved, the approval results in the loss of a historic resource for Georgetown. The applicant met with staff on October 29, 2014, prior to submitting the final application. Staff discussed the possibility of requiring notice posted in the local paper and other methods for a minimum period of 60 days to allow time for an interested buyer to relocate the property within the city limits. The ad was posted on Craig’s List on October 30 and will satisfy the proposed 60 day notice requirement on December 31, 2014. This relocation request is reviewed within the context of the City of Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Downtown Master Plan. The 2030 Plan identifies the Downtown area as Specialty Mixed Use, with a high density of pedestrian and auto oriented uses. Much of the context of the northwest corner of the Downtown Overlay District has been compromised by new development, including the Williamson County Justice Center and detention facilities. The resulting loss of residential context supports the request to relocate the residential structure for future commercial development. Any future development of the subject site will require review by city staff and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for compliance with the Unified Development Code and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application was submitted on October 30, 2014 and deemed to be complete. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The design standards of the UDC are not applicable to this project. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines are not applicable to this project. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is The structure is proposed for relocation Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-046 214 West 3rd Street Page 3 of 5 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS preserved. from the site, preserving the integrity of the individual structure. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. No new buildings or additions are proposed with this project. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The removal of the historic property does not have an adverse effect on the surrounding district due to the changing context of the historic district. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. No signs are proposed with this project. H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. The proposed removal of the historic structure does not have an overall adverse effect on the district due to the contextual changes that occurred over time. The loss of the structure is significant, requiring additional attention to the application and the requirements prior to relocation. In addition to the approval criteria listed above, the HARC must also consider the following criteria for a request for CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Historic Structure: SECTION 3.13.040 CRITERIA FINDINGS A. The uniqueness of the structure as a representative type of style of architecture, The structure represents a unique style of architecture for the Downtown Overlay District, but not unique among the historic Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-046 214 West 3rd Street Page 4 of 5 SECTION 3.13.040 CRITERIA FINDINGS historic association, or other element of the original designation criteria applicable to such structure or tract; resources of the City of Georgetown. Relocation within the City provides for the continued contribution of the historic resource to the overall historic resources of the city. B. The condition of the structure from the standpoint of structure integrity and the extent of work necessary to stabilize the structure; and The structure requires substantial rehabilitation prior to a residential or commercial use. C. The status of the structure under Chapter 15 of the Georgetown City Code containing Building Safety Standards and rules governing Dangerous Buildings. There are no open Code Enforcement complaints and the property has not been reviewed by the Building Standards Commission. D. And make the following findings: The new structure is more appropriate and compatible with the historic overlay district than the structure to be demolished or relocated The new structure will be more compatible with the overall context of the Downtown Overlay District. The owner has the financial ability and intent to build the new structure. HARC must first approve the CDC, if required, for the new structure before it may consider the request for demolition or removal The Demolition Subcommittee did not require a CDC for the new structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Design Compliance for Relocation with the following condition: 1. The applicant must continue to post the structure as available for relocation until December 31, 2014 to allow for a potential buyer to relocate the structure within the City of Georgetown Suggested motion for approval: “I move approval of CDC-2014-046 based upon the findings that the structure is no longer compatible with the context of the historic district and the future development will be more compatible with the historic overlay district. The applicant is required to post the structure for sale until December 31, 2014 to encourage relocation within the City of Georgetown.” Suggested motion for denial: Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-046 214 West 3rd Street Page 5 of 5 “I move denial of CDC-2014-046 to relocate the structure based upon the findings that the structure is unique to the Downtown Overlay District and can be rehabilitated for a use consistent with the district.” As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS 214 West 3rd Street, Georgetown TX Field Visit and Research Summary Visual inspection and photographic documentation of the property at 214 West 3rd Street was completed by Hannah Vaughan, Architectural Historian, on October 17, 2014. The visit included interior and exterior inspection, photographs and measurements. Not all areas of the interior were accessible due to unsafe conditions. Inspection of the original siding was limited to small areas where the asbestos shingles have fallen off. Inspection of the foundation was conducted from the perimeter of the exterior. Research of the property included Sanborn Maps, historic USGS maps, previous surveys, and secondary sources on Georgetown history. 214 West 3rd Street is located on Georgetown block 14, lot 8. The 1916 Sanborn map (Figure 1) shows only one structure on the block: a blacksmith shop on the middle parcel (immediately east of lot 8). The 1928 USGS map (Figure 2) also shows only one structure on the block at the same location. The first evidence of a house on this property is an aerial photograph attributed to the 1930s which shows the subject property and its rear addition (Figure 3). A review of the tax assessor rolls completed for the 1984 Historic Resources Survey (attached) shows no significant increase in the assessed value of the property, an indication that a house has been added to a vacant lot. The survey reviewed records between 1890 and 1937, during which period the value fluctuated between $75 and $500. According to the Williamson County Central Appraisal District (CAD) records, the “Actual Year Built” for the property is 1935, and the “Effective Year Built” is 1959. However, 1935 is the same year assigned to several other structures in the area, which, based on records or field observation, were constructed prior to 1935. Therefore, the CAD date is not considered reliable. Certain characteristics of the property, particularly the steep roof pitch, and door and window styles, are indicative of a property constructed earlier than the 1930s. The shed-roofed “addition” which runs along most of the length of the rear elevation contains a room, closet and bathroom. The use of a shed-roof structure on the back of an existing property is a very common addition type, particularly for the addition of a bathroom once indoor plumbing became the norm. Additions are usually differentiated from the original house by the materials, and are a useful method for determining the date of an addition. However, there are very few differences in materials between the main house and addition at this property. Windows in the addition are the same 4/4 double-hung style, the original siding (where visible) appears to be the same board and batten, and the foundation (where visible) is pier-on-limestone block both for the addition 1504 WEST 5TH STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78703 TEL: 512 / 478.0858 FAX: 512 / 474.1849 and main house. The primary differences observed between the addition and main house are that the interior walls in the addition are un-plastered boards and the floor steps down from the main house to the addition. The house and addition are difficult to date definitively due to the lack of evidence that the house was present on the site prior to the 1930s, along with a pre-1930s architectural style, the use of similar materials in the main house and addition and photographic evidence that the addition was present by the 1930s. It is possible the house is a circa 1910 structure which was moved to the site in the 1930s at which point the rear addition was completed. Figure 1: 1916 Sanborn map with subject property in red. Figure 2: 1928 USGS map with subject block in red. Figure 3: circa 1930 photo showing south (rear) elevation of subject property with addition (source: Georgetown Then and Now). 214 West 3rd Street, Georgetown, Texas Photos All photos taken October 24, 2014 by Hannah Vaughan Photo 1 southwest oblique, camera facing northeast 1504 WEST 5TH STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78703 TEL: 512 / 478.0858 FAX: 512 / 474.1849 Photo 2 south (front) elevation, camera facing north Photo 3 southeast oblique, camera facing northwest Photo 4 southeast oblique, camera facing northwest Photo 5 east elevation, camera facing west Photo 6 northeast oblique, camera facing west Photo 7 north elevation (rear addition), camera facing south Photo 8 north elevation of house and garage/shed, camera facing southwest Photo 9 northwest oblique, camera facing southeast Photo 10 north elevation of house and garage/shed, camera facing south Photo 11 porch detail, camera facing northeast Photo 12 porch detail, camera facing northeast Photo 13 detail of concrete step on west side of porch, with hand prints and 1945 date Photo 14 window detail, north wall of front porch Photo 15 entry door detail, east wall of front porch Photo 16 living area 1, east wall, camera facing east Photo 17 living area 1, east wall with kitchen door, camera facing east Photo 18 closet in addition from living area 2, camera facing north Photo 19 bathroom, camera facing northwest Photo 20 bathroom, camera facing northwest Photo 21 view from living area 1, to living area 2, camera facing northwest Photo 22 kitchen, camera facing northwest Photo 23 kitchen, camera facing northwest Photo 24 view from kitchen to addition, camera facing north Photo 25 addition, east wall, camera facing east Photo 26 addition, north wall, camera facing northeast Photo 27 door from living area 2 to addition, detail Photo 28 ceramic heater found in living area 1 Photo 29 garage/shed southeast oblique, camera facing northwest Photo 30 garage/shed southeast oblique, camera facing northwest Photo 31 garage/shed detail of space between original and enclosed canopy addition to south (front) elevation, camera facing northwest Photo 32 garage/shed interior, north and west walls, camera facing northwest Photo 33 garage/shed northeast oblique, camera facing northwest living area 1 11.5’ (w) x 11’ (d) porch 11.5’ (w) x 7’ (d) addition 27.5’ (w) x 8’ (d) Total Living area 2 11.5’ (w) x 12’ (d) kitchen 11.5’ (w) x 8’ (d) bathroom closet N NOT TO SCALE 214 West 3rd Street, Georgetown, Texas HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM 1. Identification County City Current name Historic name Address Owner/address Photo data: Roll Frame to Roll Frame Current Designations: NR NR District (Is property contributing? Yes No) RTHL HTC SAL Local Other Recorded by: Date recorded: General architectural description Outbuildings (Specify number and type): Garage Barn Shed Other Archeological evidence of outbuildings, specify Landscape/site features: Sidewalks Terracing Drives Well/cistern Gardens Other Stories: Basement: None Partial Full Dimensions:L x W = Square feet 3. Integrity Location Design Materials Workmanship Setting Feeling Association Log Traditional Greek Revival Italianate Second Empire Eastlake Queen Anne Shingle Romanesque Revival Folk Victorian Colonial Revival Renaissance Revival Exotic Revival Gothic Revival Tudor Revival Neo-Classical Beaux Arts Mission Monterey Pueblo Revival Spanish Colonial Prairie Craftsman Art Deco Moderne International Post-war Modern Ranch Style Commercial Style No Style Other Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet Dormers: gable hipped shed Other Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other Frame Adobe Solid brick Solid stone Other Roof Materials: ____ Number of bays Stucco Stone Brick Wood shingle Log Terra Cotta Metal Siding, type Fieldstone veneer Awning(s) Other ____Specify number(s) Interior Exterior Brick Stone With corbelled caps Stuccoed Other Wall Facade: Chimneys: Plan: L-plan 2-room T-plan Open Modified L-plan Center passage Bungalow Shotgun Irregular Four Square Rectangular Other Windows: Doors: Construction: TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Porches: Shed roof Hipped roof Gable roof Inset Wood posts Brick piers Box columns Classical columns Tapered box supports Fabricated metal Spindlework Jig-sawn trim Other Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Aluminum sash Decorative screenwork Other Single-door primary entrance Double-door primary entrance With transom With sidelights Other 2. Architectural Description Stylistic Influence(s): Structural Details: Roof Type: Slab Perimeter wall Other Pier and beam Foundation: 4. Function Historic Use: Agriculture Commerce/trade Defense Domestic Educational Government Healthcare Industry/processing Recreation/culture Religious Social Other Current Use: Agriculture Commerce/trade Defense Domestic Educational Government Healthcare Industry/processing Recreation/culture Religious Social Vacant Other 5. Architectural History Architect: Builder: Construction date: Actual Estimated Source: Additions/modifications, specify dates: Relocated, specify former location and reason: Other associated contexts and information of interest: 6. Archeology Ground Original state Disturbed Explain Is a State Archeological Survey Form available for this site? Yes No Not known Details: 7. Other Information Is prior documentation available for this resource? Yes No Not known Type: HABS Survey Other Details: Accessible to the public: Yes No Not known Possible threat(s): None Damage (i.e. natural disaster) Neglect Development Major alteration Relocation Other * Note: Also see Endangered Historic Property Identification Form 8. Geographic Information USGS quad #: Year: Map scale: UTM zone: Easting: Northing: Legal description (Lot/Block): Addition: Year of addition: 9. Significance Applicable National Register (NR) criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. 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 distinction; D. Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history; Areas of significance: __ __ Period(s) of significance: Level of significance: National State Local Possible NR district: Yes No Is property contributing? Yes No 10. Priority (See manual for definitions.) High Medium Low Explain Questions? Contact survey coordinator History Programs Division, Texas Historical Commission at 512/463-5853 or history@thc.state.tx.us. www.thc.state.tx.us living area 1 11.5’ (w) x 11’ (d) porch 11.5’ (w) x 7’ (d) addition 27.5’ (w) x 8’ (d) Total Living area 2 11.5’ (w) x 12’ (d) kitchen 11.5’ (w) x 8’ (d) bathroom closet N NOT TO SCALE 214 West 3rd Street, Georgetown, Texas City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and signage for the property located at 212 West 7th Street, bearing the legal description of City of Georgetown, Block 41, Lot 2-3 (PTS), 0.17 acres ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is in receipt of a request for a CDC for exterior alterations and signage. According to the submitted letter of intent, the applicant wishes to install a door for secondary egress and install new business signage. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings that the request meets the approval criteria of Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The affirmative vote of the majority of the HARC members is required to approve the CDC request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. the applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CDC-2014-047 Exhibit 1 Backup Material CDC-2014-047 Staff Report Backup Material Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: December 11, 2014 File Number: CDC-2014-045 AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) for exterior alterations and addition for the property located at 1804 Ash Street, bearing the legal description of Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1804 Ash Street Residential remodel Applicant: Cathy Miller Property Owner: Cathy Miller Property Address: 1804 South Ash Street Legal Description: Hughes Addition, Block 15 (NE/PT), 0.33 acres Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: This project was presented for conceptual review at the October 23, 2014 HARC meeting HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of construction: ca. 1958 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Not listed National Register Designation: None Texas Historical Commission Designation: None APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior alterations and an addition to the structure located at 1804 South Ash Street. The proposed project includes the removal of an existing porch and construction of a new porch, enclosing the existing carport, adding exterior shutter panels and painting the structures. 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 4.1 Avoid removing or altering any significant architectural detail Does not comply 4.2 Avoid adding elements or features that were not part of the original building Does not comply 4.3 Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements Does not comply Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 2 of 4 GUIDELINES FINDINGS 6.25 Maintain a historic porch and its detailing Does not comply 7.1 Avoid alterations that would damage historic features Does not comply 7.8 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove original architectural details and materials of the primary structure Does not comply 11.8 Leave natural masonry finishes unpainted when feasible Does not comply STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a Certificate of Design Compliance for substantial alterations to the unlisted historic structures located at 1804 South Ash Street. Although not listed on the historic resource survey, the Williamson County Appraisal District sets the effective date for construction at 1958. The alterations include removal of the existing porch and installation of a new porch, new paint and exterior finishes for the structures. The Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines state “Ownership of an historic property carries both the aforementioned benefits and a responsibility to respect the historic character of the resource and its setting.” Preserving the uniqueness of a historic property is the key purpose of the overlay districts, and each structure must be treated as a representation of its period of significance. Restoration projects must focus on the appropriate treatments for historic properties, preserving the character defining features while accommodating modern uses for the properties. The proposed porch does not reflect the design of the structure and creates a sense of false history for the property. In addition, the two structures that comprise the property were built as individual structures and later connected with a carport. Maintaining the individual character of the two structures is important to preserve the historic integrity of the site. The cast concrete construction of the smaller structure is unique to Georgetown, representing a construction type not duplicated among the other historic resources of the community. Loss of the construction type would negatively impact the individual property and the historic district overall. HARC provided direction to the applicant during a conceptual review at the September 25, 2014 meeting. The Commissioners requested a more simplified design for the porch and additional emphasis placed upon the one story structure, due to is unique design characteristics. The concrete wall design is unique to Georgetown and represents a different approach to construction within the overlay district. Painting masonry structures is only appropriate if the masonry was previously painted. The two structures are currently in their historic state, and should remain unpainted. Mortar and masonry materials are susceptible to future moisture damage and deterioration if painted, and should be left in Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 3 of 4 their original condition. The applicant did not provide any information regarding a structural need for painting the structures. The proposed changes conflict with the design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation by adding conjectural features and significantly altering the historic appearance of the property. Staff previously discussed the proposed changes with the applicant, in an effort to find a compromise design. After failing to find a compromise, the applicant selected to move forward with the application, with the understanding that staff is unable to support the proposed changes. Staff is willing to continue working with the applicant to discuss the project and find a mutually acceptable resolution. 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 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; The application was submitted on October 22, 2014 and deemed to be complete. B. Compliance with any design standards of the Unified Development Code; The project is in compliance with the design standards of the UDC, as related to the underlying Residential Single family zoning district. C. Compliance with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic or Overlay District; The project does not comply with the Downtown and Old Town design Guidelines, as outlined in this report. D. The integrity of an individual historic structure is preserved. The proposed project fails to protect the historic integrity of the structures. E. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding historic properties. No new buildings are proposed with this project. F. The overall character of the Historic or applicable Overlay District is protected. The proposed project adversely impacts the overall character of the historic district by removing a unique construction method and creating a false sense of historic context. G. Signs that are out of keeping with the adopted design standards, and are not in character with the site or landmarks within the Historic or applicable Overlay District in question will not be permitted. No signage is proposed for this project. Downtown and Community Services Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission CDC-2014-045 1804 South Ash Street Page 4 of 4 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS H. The following may also be considered by the HARC when determining whether to approve a Certificate for Design Compliance: 1. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic, cultural, and architectural nature of the site, landmark, or District. 2. The appropriateness of exterior architectural features, including parking and loading spaces, which can be seen from a public street, alley, or walkway. 3. The general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the District, contrast or other relation of such factors to other landmarks built at or during the same period, as well as the uniqueness of such features, considering the remaining examples of architectural, historical, and cultural values. The proposed project has a significant impact upon the historic integrity of the structures. Altering the two structures to create a homogenous appearance and era creates a false sense of history, adversely impacting the integrity of the individual structures and the district overall. The unique construction style enhances the variety of historic resources in the district, and the loss of that style adversely affects the overall district and the historic resources throughout Georgetown. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends denial of the proposed project and requests that the applicant be directed to discuss the project further with staff. The applicant may present a new application to a future meeting. As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments regarding the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 2 – Plans and Specifications SUBMITTED BY Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training. ITEM SUMMARY: Questions and comments from Commissioners in Training FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Staff updates and reminder of future meetings. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review December 11, 2014 SUBJECT: ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: - SUBMITTED BY: Karen Frost, Recording Secretary